Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2008

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:08, 9 June 2008 [1].

[edit] PowerBook 100

Self-nominator - Recently rewrote this from scratch. Good prose, fully referenced. Copyedits (some major, some minor) made by users Finetooth, La Pianista, AnnaFrance, GrahamColm and Laser brain. Archived peer review here. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

There is something wrong in ref 9 Wacky. --Efe (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing it. Fixed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. --Efe (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Support, very well done. I provided feedback during peer review and on a fresh read-through did not find any other issues. --Laser brain (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support indeed. Good standard to set for computer-related articles, which have not typically been well-written. Thorough. Just two stylistic things: I'd avoid the "[person's name] decided to [do something]. Think carefully before "[person's name] began to ...". You might consider positioning "however," at the start of sentences. These are partly personal preferences. TONY (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, and a disclosure from me; I was invited to take a look at this article last week, or the week before, (a week is a long time on Wikipedia), and before the nomination, I made a few, minor, edits. I was, and I am still impressed with the readability of the article, despite its being about a computer. This is an important contribution to the history of the personal computer, well done Wacky, and I hope that there are no hard feelings between us with regard to our edit conflicts. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 21:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all - your contributions are valuable and were most welcomed. Thanks again for your help. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, this article's actually been on my TODO list for a while; seems you beat me to improving it. ;-) Anyhow, congratulations with another very good Macintosh-related article - the prose is top quality and the references are all solid. I'll read through it again tomorrow but I don't think there's much to complain about, apart from what has already been said. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Some of your web links have last access dates, but it would be nice if they all did.
• I know I'm missing something, but what makes http://www.lunar.com/inside/awards2.html a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look good, and all the links checked out with the link checker. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is reliable if you base it on their client list: http://www.lunar.com/portfolio/clients.html Lunar Design have worked for some of the best-known brands in the world. Its also the only source I could find for those specific design awards the PB100 received. I will add access dates where needed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which current refs are missing access dates? I just went through and didn't notice any web refs without one. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Current ref 10 "Said, Carolyn" is the one I see now. I THINK there were more earlier, but I've slept since then... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving the bit about the awards site out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I'm on the fence about it. (I'm unwatching the FAC, btw) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It all looks pretty good - if you'll allow me to nitpick:

• "It did not have a built-in floppy disk drive but was noted for its unique compact design that placed a trackball pointing device in front of the keyboard for ease of use." - it's not a contradiction so "but" shouldn't be used, but I think simply mentioning that it doesn't have a floppy disk drive is a bit strange - you should probably attach some importance to the statement. And although you do mention the trackball later on, you don't show that it was "noted".

• Fixed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Apple announced its highest figures yet" - slightly unclear what you're referring to; was it their revenue which was the highest yet? I also don't like using "the highest" twice in a sentence, although it's hard to get around.

• If you read the whole sentence, it does say "$7.1 billion in revenues" — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Double additive at the end of the first sentence with "in addition" and then "also" which could probably be avoided.

• Is there even a such thing as a "double additive"? Why is this a problem exactly? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, meant to say first section not sentence. And I just thought it was slightly weak to have two sentences in a row which were effectively "also"s - maybe just a personal thing. Changed it myself now anyway. Trebor (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• In "Design", the sentence beginning "The 100, however," has too many subclauses; I find it very hard to follow the meaning.

• Fixed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• If possible, some expansion on its legacy would be good. The previous reviews quoted don't explain why it's winning all these awards for being the greatest gadget - it comes as somewhat of a surprise. If there's been a modern review of it - why it was good, what influence it has had (if any) - that might be good to include.

• I'm not sure what else would be said. The awards are for its design (hence, 'design awards'), which is sufficiently explained in the 'Design' section. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I was more curious about the "greatest gadget of all time" (or tenth-greatest) accolade. It could just be me, but the rest of the article didn't seem to suggest it was that "good" (for want of a better word). The BBC link says it was chosen because it "helped define the layout of all future notebook PCs" - if that's true, I think more information on its legacy should be included. Trebor (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• However, finding reliable sources for that type of information would prove difficult. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Aside from those pieces I thought it was a very well done article - informative, easy-to-read and well-referenced. Trebor (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to support. Trebor (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I might be missing it, but would it be feasible to have a little bit of a closing talking about the influence the 100 had on the next line of powerbooks, if any? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• The subsequent models of similar form factor were the PowerBook Duo series, which improved upon the 100's portability. I guess you could say Apple used the 100 as the basis for the Duo's design. However, I don't have any sources to back this up kind of statement. The 100's successors are mentioned at the end of the lead, which I think is sufficient. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Excellent article. It brought tears to my eyes, since it was my first laptop, and I had convinced my employer at the time to buy it for me. I have one really minor concern, for which I have no answer. It mentions Apple's stock prices. Usually, in the financial press, stock prices are normalized by stock splits. We really should identify the price as being at the time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:08, 9 June 2008 [2].

[edit] Benjamin Franklin Tilley

Self-nom. First Governor of American Samoa. Article is A-class, has been peer-reviewed. In my opinion, the article has two flaws which I am unable to address: it does not include much in the way about personal history of Tilley (due to a lack of non-military sources) and it leans heavily toward American Samoan history (which he is best known for). Despite these flaws, I believe that the article qualifies as FA. JRP (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• To address my own concerns (above) with this article, I managed to track down additional sources on his Spanish-American war activities and expanded that section, to offset his American Samoan history. I have included what additional information I could find about his personal life. JRP (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 23 "Tilley (2007) is lacking a publisher. Should be Governement of American Samoa, or something along those lines.
• Your access dates and publication dates are a bit inconsistent. Mostly it's year-month-day, but one at least is day-month-year ("To be a captain in the Navy" NYTimes ... current ref 20)
• Use or don't use the p. abbreviation for pages, but stick with one or the other for consistency.

Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the publisher for the first point and the date for the second point. Unfortunately, I don't know what I can do about the third. The issue appears to be that the citation templates for "news" and "books" are inconsistent with respect to using the p. abbreviation. Short of not using the citation templates (which I'd rather not do), I don't think I can fix it. JRP (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You can put the "p." in the templates where the template doesn't put them in automatically. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

True! I simply hadn't thought of that. (Not that I think the templates shouldn't be more consistent with themselves "out of the box" though...) I've made the changes as you suggested. JRP (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, not having caffeine helps in the morning, although most mornings.... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This source seems to have a bit more regarding his early life, including an exact birthdate and birthplace. BuddingJournalist 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They actually just updated that fairly recently. (At least since I starting writing this article.) I emailed the maintainer of the site yesterday asking for his bibliography since the site has inline citations, but no key to what they mean. I was intending to use his sources directly, instead of citing a webpage, but since the page is written by the American Samoa govt. historian, it's probably fine. JRP (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I too was trying to decipher their citations. I found out that Arnold 1894 is Bristol County: Records of Births, Marriages and Deaths. Hope the USNHC: Tilley RO will be helpful (assuming the historian e-mails you back!). BuddingJournalist 13:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have integrated the extra details from the website and have managed to find a non-web source for his marriage information. I'll continue looking for non-web sources for the other since I know the FAs are rigorous about those. JRP (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments leaning towards support, just a few prose problems.

• Lead - last sentence of the first paragraph, I think the middle phrase might be better off placed at the end of the sentence, so it'd be "At the conclusion of his 41 years of service, he was promoted to Rear Admiral, but he died shortly afterwards of pneumonia." As it stands, the pneumonia part breaks up the logical flow from "end of service to promotion".
• Early life section ... the sentence starting "After graduation..." did he graduate as a midshipman? If so, perhaps "After graduation, he served as a midshipman, at first briefly on the ..."
• Railroad strike section, I'd drop the "...and prevent damage." from the sentence starting "In response, ..."
• Same section, the sentence "Military leaders feared rioters from Baltimore traveling to the District to seize or damage vulnerable targets such as the Treasury." Something is missing here. Do you mean that "...leaders feared rioters from Baltimore were traveling..."?
• This paragraph is utterly uncited, by the way. The military leaders bit, at least, should probably be cited.
• Acting-governor section, first paragraph, the sentence staring "Ultimately, the king.." is awkward. Perhaps "Ultimately, the king agreed to cede some sovereignty to the United States, but refused to ..."
• Same section, second paragraph, the sentence starting "This was despite ..." it reads awkward, but not sure how to better word it.
• Same section, third paragraph, sentence "There were similar issues overlaying United States political structures on Samoan ones." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say, did you misplace a "with" between issues and overlaying?
• Same section, fourth paragraph, the sentence starting "On November 9, 1901..." did you misplace a "from" between "wife" and "visiting"? Otherwise the sentence seems awkward.
• Did he have children? Anything ever get named for him in Samoa or the US?

Over all looks pretty good. Kinda dry, but it seems like he didn't have that exciting a career, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Not too exciting, I suppose. But it must have been quite a day to be in charge of building a naval station one day and suddenly being in charge of a territory of thousands of people and a complicated political history. The Gray book goes into quite a bit of detail of his administration, but to include too much more than this would really overbalance the article.

I have made edits for all of your suggestions except I am currently unable to find the Railroad Strike source. I was from a book dedicated to the strike, but I can't find it now. I'll keep looking. I also didn't include any record to his children yet. He had one son, also named Ben Tilley who joined the Navy, and two daughters. But... I don't know when. I'm also not aware of any things named for him. (His successor, Uriel Sebree, has about a dozen features in Alaska named for him because he was a member of the coast survey.) I'll keep digging and see if I can find something. JRP (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I am still working on your last two suggestions, but it may not be finished before Monday. (I'm out of town this weekend.) JRP (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found the missing reference and made as many of the other changes that you suggested as I can. (Not a lot of information on BFT's family in secondary sources that I have access to.) Can you please look it over and let me know if you would like to see other improvements? JRP (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. There are a few rough spots in the prose, but overall I think it meets the FA criteria. I did a bit of a copyedit to smooth some of the edges. This appears to be a comprehensive article, and I enjoyed reading it. Karanacs (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The territorial historian of American Samoa has been kind enough to review this article for me and has found no issues with it. (He's not on Wikipedia, so did not comment here himself.) JRP (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm sorry to play the 1a) card, but, well, here it is anyway. A few examples:

• "While serving on the Frolic, he was promoted to ensign and he remained stationed there until 1869." It seems strange to use the word there in reference to a ship.

• ... the expected wave did not arrive from Baltimore ...". The expected wave of what?

• Returning to the Academy ...". The capitalisation throughout the article seems capricious. Shouldn't this be "academy" for instance?

• "... was not present for the Battle of Santiago de Cuba ...". Makes him sound like a truanting schoolboy. Not present at?

• "Construction of the naval station itself would not begin until twenty years later ...". Why not ... did not begin?

• "Under this treaty, the British government relinquished their claims ...". British government is singular.

• "Over the next year, Tilley ... accessed taxes ..." What does accessed taxes mean?

• Tilley also created a small local militia of Samoans which were trained ...". Who were trained?

I'd recommend some TLC from a sympathetic copyeditor. It's basically a pretty good article I think, but let down by the quality of its prose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have made some changes to address all of the concerns that you raise. I hope you will take a look and let me know any other areas where you think I can improve the prose. JRP (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's looking much better, but can you clarify this for me please? "Back at the academy, Tilley was promoted to lieutenant commander and appointed head of two departments: first the "Department of Astronomy, Navigation, and Surveying" and then the "Department of Mechanical Drawing". Was he head of those departments simultaneously, or one after the other? Why are the department names in quotes? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He was appointed to those departments sequentially. I think I added quotes because someone was complaining about the capitalization, but it should be just fine without them. (I notice that someone -- not you -- has recapped all of the instances of "Acting Governor" in the article after I had uncapped them based on a reviewer comment. Obviously, there's some differences of opinion on capitalization styles...) I can't fix it now, but I can fix it when I get home tonight. JRP (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've managed to fix this now. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or concerns that I can try and fix. JRP (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely wasn't me that re-capitalised Acting Governor, I'm very much against the wikitrend of capitalising improper nouns. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. That'll do for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is slightly weird... it does a quick biography skim (1st para) and goes back and does it again in more detail (2nd). Makes for not-so-great reading. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've rearranged it slightly, but I'll look at it further later on today. I was trying to make the first paragraph an overview with the second paragraph being a summary of the biography portions of the article, but I agree it means you read things either twice or out of order. Shifting some sentences help. JRP (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's looking better, I've no objections. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I have made three teeny-weeny edits [3] to a superb article. What a fascinating man and a full life. GrahamColm^Talk 19:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OpposeSupport until the overlinking is fixed (requirement for "professional" standard of formatting). Some of the prose suffers from your being too close to it to see things that are probably unclear to most readers. Can you get someone fresh to go through it. However, I think it's a worthy piece: well done. Here are random issues (random, note).

• "As a young man of 15"—as an old man of 15?
• The top of the article is really quite heavily linked (bright blue splashed everywhere). Do we really need "commander" and "gunship" to be linked? Sp–Am. War is linked twice in the lead. And lots of other repeat links? This dilutes the high-value links. And if "Santiago" is linked, why link "Chile" next to it? Try to ration for a whole bunch of reasons.
• "before being transferred to the"—better "before his transfer to the", yes?
• "The strike sparked riots; cities such as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia experienced deaths and destruction." What about this: "The strike sparked riots, with consequent death and destruction in cities such as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia."
• "put down" twice in a para. Is there a synonym?
• Chronology sometimes a little fuzzy: "After the strike, Tilley was transferred to the flagship USS Powhatan before requesting a six-month leave. He married Emily Edelin Williamson, the daughter of a Navy surgeon, on 6 June 1878 and left with her on an extended honeymoon in Europe." So ... the six-month leave was for the marriage and honeymoon, we presume. Was it?
• "Tilley served in the United States Naval Academy and remained there, or on a training ship, until 1882"—this is hard; so the training ship wasn't part of the Academy or his duties for it? Readers shouldn't have to piece things together. TONY (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on these later on today. Thanks for your feedback. JRP (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Many of these changes were made by the excellent copyediting that another editor has done today, but I picked up the rest. Can you please take a look and let me know if you see any further problems? JRP (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm liking this. But the USS San Francisco can't have transported troops to Santiago, as it's not a port; I'll make what I think is the obvious change. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• I've fixed a couple of Latin America-related issues (e.g. Santiago's not a port; the Panama Canal does not go through Nicaragua). But this remains as a rather tendentious summary account of the origins of the Spanish-American war: "On April 23, 1898, Spain declared war on the United States in response to American efforts to support Cuban independence." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• "the deed of cession, signed on April 17, 1900, listed Manu'a as part of the United States' new territory, but was not signed." Well, was it signed or not? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• In "Later career and death," he never actually dies. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• In general, this is pretty good, I think. A little proseliny at times--anything that can be done to jazz up the prose would be welcome--but basically it's almost there. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and address your concerns later on today (can't edit right now), but to to deed of concession section, that wording has been frequently challenged and I'm not sure it has proper meaning anymore. I'll try and re-do it. What happened is that he didn't get Manua's leadership to sign the deed transferring control to the US. Being the good colonialist he was, he simply went through with the whole ceremony with Manua listed on the deed but without a matching signature and then he promptly just more or less ignored that they weren't part of the territory. It wasn't resolved until 1904. I'll let you know when I can address your concerns in the text. JRP (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made all the changes you requested, though some look to have been done by another editor earlier today (thanks!). I keep working on the prose, but the other elements are better. Can you please let me know if you see further issues? JRP (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen your note here, and struck accordingly. It'd be nice to explain the origins of the Spanish-American war differently, I think, but it's not a deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned. I'll try to look over the article again in the next couple of days. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - great work and an interesting read. A couple things:
  • I was curious about Tilley's promotion from ensign to "master" (no wikilink) and then to lieutenant. Currently, the rank there is Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Did it used to be called "master"? Now, "master" normally refers to a Master Chief Petty Officer which is a non-commissioned rank. Is any more information available?
  • I'd prefer a clearer term than "quasi-official"; what does that mean? --Laser brain (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe that Master was an early term for Lieutenant JG, but there's no wikipedia page for it and so it didn't link it. I'll leave a note on WPMILHIST about it and see if I should just create it as a redirect or if there's a story behind it. The fact that he was promoted to "master" comes from a couple of good sources and I assume it's just a historical thing, like "commodore". JRP (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, I removed "quasi-official" since it didn't add anything. Please let me know if you have further corrections that I should make. JRP (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I have researched some and built a stub page for the rank of master. Looks like it was in use until 1883, replaced by Lieutenant, JG. I've also wikilinked it in the article. JRP (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: there's a problem here with inconsistent date linking in the citations (no concern about which method you use, as long as you're consistent throughout the article). For example:

• Tilley. Government of American Samoa (2007). Retrieved on May 18, 2008.
• Hamersly, Lewis Randolph (1898). The Records of Living Officers of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps (PDF), 6th ed., New York: L. R. Hamersly and co., p. 106. Retrieved on April 13, 2007.

• Date is wikilinked and displays according to user preferencs, which for me is in format Month Day, Year. Compared to:

• Miscellaneous", The New York Times, 1866-07-21, p. 6.

• Date is unlinked, ISO format. Someone else should have brought this up :-) Since dates are linked throughout the article, it would be consistent to wikify the dates in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Access dates are always linked in "cite web", which I don't understand. There is no navigational aid to linking to the date when an editor looked something up. Unlike, say, a date= tag on "cite news" or "cite journal" where there could be some value to looking up what else happened at the same time. (But, even that value is tenuous.) Unfortunately, I can't turn it off.

I'll wikify the dates in the citations, if you like. Can I just wikilink them in ISO format and they magically show up the right way for you or do you want them converted to MM DD, YYYY so that they show up consistently for logged out users too? JRP (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the many reasons some of us hate cite templates (lack of consistency). Yes, just adding brackets around your other dates will wikify them and cause them to show up the same according to user preferences. To be completely consistent, you migth also convert those couple of dates in cite templates (Month day, year) to ISO format, and then all citations will show the same for logged out users as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All done! Do you have any other suggestions for ways that I can improve this article? JRP (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful (and fast, too!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008 [4].

[edit] Thoroughbred

Self-nom I'm nominating this article for featured article because the Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine has worked hard on this article, it's been through a rigourous GAN with Van Tucky, had a PR, and we now feel it's ready for FAC.

Co-nom with Montanabw (talk · contribs), Dana boomer (talk · contribs), Cgoodwin (talk · contribs) and Getwood (talk · contribs). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, great work! Tentative Support - nice work! Only a few minor concerns at this time.
  • "... was first developed during the 17th and 18th centuries in England" Consider "in 17th and 18th century England" if you agree the meaning is the same.

Changed per your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • You are importing to England and then into North America; choose one and go with it.

Caught a couple. Might be more still lurking. Went with "into" Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • A bit of redundancy in the lead: the last two paras begin with "Thoroughbreds are used mainly for racing ..." and then "Although Thoroughbreds are seen in many sport disciplines, they are bred mainly for racing ..." I know you are explaining two different ideas, but maybe you can reword the latter.

Leaving this one for the wordsmiths among my co-noms (Dana? Montana?) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a go. Not etched in stone if anyone objects. Getwood (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • There is a bit of jargon that could stand some basic context or wikilinking, such as "foundation sire" and "foundation stock".

Tried to explain Foundation Sire in a footnote. Put in "breeding" between "foundation" and "stock" which hopefully helps make the context clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am also in the process of creating foundation bloodstock as at least a stub that explains it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good. The last thing I wanted to do was add another article to my pile of "created stub, need to expand" stack. Thanks, Montana Ealdgyth - Talk 12:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "The race was over 3 mi (4,800 m), and although Iambic carried 4.5 stone (29 kg) more than Asil ..." I'm not sure what this means. Was the horse carrying a load? Is this referring to the weight of the horse? The jockey?

That's a handicap. In order to make races as fair as possible, handicaps of added weight are given to horses that are considered "better" runners. Thus, Iambic's jockey had an extra 29 kg stuck into his saddle (they have special pockets on racing saddles for the weights which are in bar form) to try to help even out the odds on the race. Linked to handicap race and worded it a bit less jargony. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting.. they still do that now? --Laser brain (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they still do it in races for older, more experienced horses. Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "World War I almost destroyed the French breeders ..." I'd prefer "destroyed French breeding" so no one takes it literally. Unless you meant it literally.

Nope, didn't mean it literally. Reworded per your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Although in some cases it could be taken literally also! (smile) But no, we agree. Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Jargon alert: broodmares

Linked AND explained! (how's that for service!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Truly important question: Who's checking the references? :-) Here's are my findings from this otherwise excellent article.

Heh. I checked them before hand? Im pretty sure my fellow participants at Wikiproject Equine find my habit of whacking sources annoying, but they put up with me somehow. I'm sure someone will check the sources for me.. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Breed characteristics: Hot-blooded has a hyphen here, but not in the lead.

Hm, not sure which is correct. Someone else have the answer? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it, per my handy dictionary. (Do we do strikeout on the ones we fixed? Montanabw^(talk) 04:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the person who left the comments does the striking out here. We don't use graphic done tick marks either! (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• History, Beginnings in England: Ref 19 is not following punctuation.

This isn't a ref, it's an explanatory footnote, trying to explain what a foundation sire is. We don't have an article on that, and the explanation is rather long. If anyone has a better idea how to integrate the information into the prose, please let us know. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Refs out of order later in paragraph [22][16].

Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• In America: A few locations unlinked. I see Kentucky, Tennessee, Long Island, California, and Florida.

I'll link them, but I expect I'll get Tony1 telling me to unlink them later.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Epsom Derby was already linked in previous section.

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• In Europe: World War I and World War II are linked here. If you want to have these linked, I recommend moving them up to the last paragraph of In America.

got it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Derby Stakes already linked in previous section.

Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Last paragraph has four unlinked countries. The other countries mentioned are linked, so these probably should be as well.

Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• In Other Areas: The title should be In other areas.

oops, I know that! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• South Africa isn't linked here. The location linking seems inconsistent in general.

Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Italy linked twice in the section.

Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• One note from the References, of all places: The full reference of Robert M. Miller's "And They Call Us Horse Lovers" from Cowboy Magazine has a formatting error. It says "Retrived on on".

It says a date in Feb for me, did it get fixed in the meantime? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I made it about halfway through the article. After these are done, I will come back to review the rest of it. Giants2008 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - The second half is looking very good. The following is all I could find that was questionable. By the way, I took a look at the reference I noted above, and the formatting looking fine. I have no idea what's going on there.

• Registration, breeding, and population: "One reason is that more possibility of error exists" Try "a greater possibility of error exists".

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Selective breeding: You might want to attribute the quote here.

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Excess stress: "and too intense a racing schedule may also contribute." I think the first part of this can be improved.

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Two straight sentences start with One of the.

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since the Chicago Sports Review article was removed from the citations, is there any reason to leave it in the References column?

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Giants2008 (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following sites reliable?
  • Chicago Sports Review

Bit trickier than the other three. [5] gives an overview of them. It's referencing "As a ratio (of injuries with eventually fatal complications to total competitions), this is far in excess of all other legal human and animal sports, including boxing, motorsports and greyhound racing." and the article in question was up when we worked on the article for GA, but it's gone now from online. I believe National Sports Review is a sports magazine, but I'm not sure if the article itself was published or just on their web page. I can't find the article now on their site. (As an aside, I don't think I know I didn't add the information and I'm thinking it was added by a non-racing fan, so if we have to lose the information, I won't cry.) I can possibly replace the data with something else, but it's going to take a bit. The real issue for me is that the article is gone, not so much the reliablity of the site itself. (Although it's part of the whole "racing is horrible" section, so it's possible it was POV one way, and may not have been a reliable site either.) Montana, you have better luck searching out this sort of thing, anything? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I also cannot bring up the article, and the Wayback Machine says the page is blocked, so no help there. As to the source itself, it's an online sports review site with a broader range of articles than mainstream sources, from their site, "a sports community that not only provides its members with a chance to read the kind of stories they won’t find in their daily newspaper or on ESPN.com," so I'd classify it as lacking a real heavy editorial hand. For that reason, I think we need to just remove that sentence, IMHO. And, I have done so. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • NewScientist

Published magazine, see [6] Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • TBHeritage

This one is sponsored by the National Sporting Library, which is probably one of the three best research libraries for horses and racing in the United States. (Keenland Library, Huntingdon Library are the others I'm thinking of). Most of the authors on the site are well known in the (admittedly small) field of Thoroughbred history. They write for national magazines, etc. on the racing industry. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • jockeyclub.com

Jockey Club is the registering authority for Thoroughbreds in the United States. Their breed registry. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All other sources look fine, and while there is a 404 on the link-check tool, I was able to access it; links appear to work Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, just to clarify for us ignorant of horses :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I never mind sourcing questions. (I'd better not!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "interchangeably, [2] though" — extra space

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• "1 mi (1,600 m) to 1.75 mi (2,820 m)" — Use km like you did with "4 mi (6.4 km),"

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really like the way that the references are all "author / title / pages" and would prefer "author / year / pages", but to each his own. At least you're consistent in this.

My fault. It was how I was trained as a historian, and looking at recent articles/books, it still seems like the usual method. I know that the sciences use the other method, but I can't ever keep straight which book was published in which year, it's easier to use the title. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The prose looks pretty good, and I trust the other reviewers who have taken a look at this article. Gary King (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support, all my points dealt with. The article meets FA standard. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• DONE The article is very insistent that "Thoroughbred" is a proper name which should be capitalized. There are two issues here. Firstly I don't think this is nearly as common in Britain - I don't know about other English-speaking countries. Secondly, a quick look suggests it is not done by most American news sources. The first page of this search shows the NY Times, Newsday, Voice of America & the Louisville Courier-Journal, KY (who ought to know frankly) all using lower-case. Especially in phrases like "thoroughbred racing/breeding" etc, although clearly it is the breed that is referred to. I see this was brought up for the GA review, but I'm not convinced by the answer.

It's a proper noun. The official name of a breed. Otherwise, that section is Montanabw's baby. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, all of the articles on the page that you linked to are referring to the Thoroughbred breed (as opposed to purebred horses in general), and as such, as Ealdgyth said, it is a proper noun and the authors/editors really should know better... I hadn't realized what a common error this was until I saw this list of articles though! Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't a breed, or can't have a capital T, especially in the US, but when an "error" is made by sources such as these, I'm dubious it is indeed an error rather than a difference in usage. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that one was my baby. It's an issue of ignorance and maybe language drift, just like how people often say colt when they really mean foal, and how folks now are so often saying "reign in" instead of "rein in." (even in newspapers!) I guess I'd like to see a style guide say that it can be used lower case! (LOL!) If the word "error" would cost this FA status, we could tone it down again, but frankly unless it's a deal-breaker, I think that it is an important usage note to keep, particularly in absence of contrary guidelines. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 16:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's more than that. The capitalization of breed names is relatively recent, and I suspect that older breed names, established before that (and not themselves derived from a proper noun like Airedale terrier etc), are not generally capitalized in the UK, and it would apppear, in much non-specialized US usage. Just calling this an "error" won't wash. See for example Collie; English Foxhound, written from an entirely American perspective (despite the fact only 17 are apparently registered there) wrongly uses capitals, which are certainly not used in normal English prose. I'm not a horsey person and I'm not aware of ever having seen thoroughbred treated as a proper noun before I saw this article. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. On one hand, the breed is a proper noun, if dog breeders say "thoroughbred dog" with a little "t" they aren't discussing a specific named horse breed. I guess that's the difference. As for rules, so many horse breeds have geographical place names (Clydesdale, Belgian, Dales Pony, Connemara, Timor Pony, Arabian, Tennessee Walker, etc...) or named after people (Morgan, for example), I can't see capitalizing some but not others, even in the UK, that is illogical. But then I am a Yank, so what do I know? (LOL!). Not something to have heartburn over. Oh, and I tweaked the para a bit, maybe clarified that it is primarily horse breeders who consider other usage incorrect (and literally, open most horse books and you will find a rant on this topic. It's clear in the realm of "pet peeve" LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - maybe it just needs a bit on the divergence of horsey & much general usage, especially in compound phrases, and I suspect in the UK, maybe elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at this - I think something along these lines needs to be said, gicen the weight of the evidence. Some of your references, like the New Scientist & another scientific paper, could also be cited. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with your additions. Hopefully that solves it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "Beginnings" begins: "All modern Thoroughbreds carry the genetics of three stallions imported into England from the Middle East in the late 17th and early 18th centuries: the Byerly Turk (1680s), the Darley Arabian (1704), and the Godolphin Arabian (1729).^[1][2] All modern Thoroughbreds trace back to these imported stallions." - carry the genetics? Maybe an English thing; here you carry "genes". If you change to genes you would not have to repeat the point just after. The prose is not great through this complicated section: "Other mares were of various oriental breeding"

Corrected and clarified a bit, did a bit of copyediting also to remove some redundancies. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• DONE (& linked) "By the end of the 18th century, the English classic races had been established" - "Classic" should be a capitalized proper noun here, though rephrasing may be needed. See British Classic Races.

Capitalized it. I believe I had it capitalized when I wrote it, but I suspect it got changed to lowercase by a non-racing fan copyeditor, and then missed by me. Oops! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "There are slightly under 1.3 million Thoroughbreds in the United States today,[66] and about 37,000 Thoroughbred foals are registered each year in North America" How does that work? Are the 1.3m all registered? Needs explanation.

Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One point added, but it is no clearer. Unless birth rates have just fallen massively recently, or there are massive imports, it suggests an average life-span of over 35 years! Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those are the numbers direct from the US Jockey Club. If I had to guess, and go into OR territory, it's a combination of the fact that some deaths don't get reported and there are more imports than exports. For example, the AQHA (the registry for Quarter horses) automatically marks a horse dead at 25 years, and the owner must submit proof every year that the horse is alive. I'm not sure what the procedures of the Jockey Club are, honestly. I have to say I trust the numbers of foals registered number better than the total number figure, and if you'd like, we can cut out the "total number" figure, and just leave the number of foals registered. The only place I know that gives information on the numbers of horses per breed is a VERY expensive publication by the American Horse Council, and they get their numbers from the registries anyway. The JC only gives that 1.3 million figure in a "fluff" pamplet designed to bring folks into racing, while the foal crop number comes from their online fact book. It's up to you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe leave the foals in the text, & put the total into the notes, with a brief comment on the apparent discrepancy per above. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Took your excellent suggestion. Let me know if that works, or if I got something off in the writing. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looks fine. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• DONE (very nicely, though maybe the amounts in millions could be stated in round millions - not sure what MoS says) Nothing about the value of the horses at various stages of their life, which seems an odd omission. Nor is there anything about their longevity/useful life as racers. What happens to the ones who don't race well? Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We can get really complicated in this because it's all over the map. It's an extremely high-risk business. Some yearlings never sell again for more than they did at Keeneland, others are resold for much more than their original price (I think, for example, Seattle Slew was purchased as a yearling for something like $17,000 and obviously was syndicated for millions for his owners after winning the triple crown.) The lucky ones that don't race well may be retired to new careers as saddle horses in various other disciplines (we do say that, somewhere--ideas for how we can do it better?) but the ugly (and edit-war-provoking) reality is that a lot also get canned. In fact, even a former Kentucky Derby winner, Ferdinand, was canned (happened in Japan, not the USA), see here, when he turned out to not be successful as a breeding stallion. Don't know how to handle that without massive POV problems, the horse slaughter article is an edit warring battleground nightmare and we really don't want to be dragged into it. Horses may race for a year, or they may race for several years, it depends on how well they do and if they stay sound. Geldings, having no value as breeding animals, are usually raced the longest. Mares usually hit the track just enough to prove themselves and head for the broodmare band ASAP. Stallions are in-between; the more they run and win, the more they are worth, but run one race too many and have them break down, the horse is then destroyed and not worth zip. Montanabw^(talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Values of racehorses vary by country and their racing career. It's not really possible to give figures that might be current or would stay current. Mares usually retire to become mothers. Geldings (castrated males) often become hunters or show horses or just riding horses. The slaughter houses in the US are closed down, so they don't go there any more. Some go to retirement/adoption places. Stallions (and there are more stallions in the TB breed than usually seen in other breeds) often go on to breeding careers, which is one reason why the Jockey Club is insistant on no artificial means of breeding like artificial insemination or shipping semen, it helps give a career for lesser stallions. I used to work for a summer camp that had a few reconditioned/retrained ex-racehorses as lesson horses. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is any help here, without making it too complicated, the new farm bill is going to tweak tax depreciation on racehorses from seven years to three, reflecting more of an average traxk career. Track retirees often have long careers as riding horses, if they are reasonably sound. Ealdgyth is correct that the range of values is astonishing. Derby winners syndicate for millions, broken down retirees go "free to a good home." It all depends. Montanabw^(talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add some record/average yearling prices, explaining these are far from typical. They are I suppose the most valuable animals in the world & I think this aspect needs mention. A bit more on the other wider lives led by the horses too - outside racing. Are there figures for the numbers in race training or who race annually? Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone and put up some representative numbers. The British Horseracing Authority doesn't track their statistics exactly the same as the US Jockey Club, so it's not quite equivilent. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• DONE The use & linking of Jockey Club is not consistent with the articles The Jockey Club (US) and the Jockey Club (UK), leading to the same ambiguity, thoiugh in fact I think it is, a tad typically, always the US one that is meant. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through and double check all usages. There should be a few French usages also... I think every Thoroughbred registry is called Jockey Club something or another. Should get to this this afternoon! Thanks Johnbod. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Went through and made sure it was always "The Jockey Club" when I'm referring to the American registry. The reason there isn't much about the UK JC, is that it's not in charge of the registering of Thoroughbreds in the UK, that's done by Weatherby's. It's only in the US that the whole shebang of racing authority and registering is done by one organization. Let me know if I missed any, I think I got them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

When I was growing up, Ocala, Florida was a beautiful span of horse farms. Now it's another cultural hellhole of strip malls. I thought the article was interesting, but I did have some difficulty understanding the writing in it.

• What do you think about this sentence in the lead, since I didn't know what hot-blooded means: Thoroughbreds are considered "hot-blooded" horses, which are known for their agility, speed and spirit. Perhaps do similar for the warmblooded term.
  • Cut some verbiage to see if it reads cleaner. Comment "hot-blood" and all the others are defined in the horse article, and wikilinked. Will we be bloating the article if we define terms in text when they wikilink to a definition? Montanabw^(talk) 09:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• The first sentence in Terminology kind of halts. I find it would flow better to define the Thoroughbred, then state that the term is used too widely to be technically correct.
  • DONE (?) Tweaked paragraph a bit per this comment and others. See if it is better. Basically, the para does state that "horse breeders" consider certain forms correct or incorrect, and if you check the footnote, there is a fuller explanation. Montanabw^(talk) 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Is it a horse thing to have "brown" in quotations?
  • DONE Not necessarily, and I tossed the quotes if they are giving people heartburn, but genetically "bay" and "brown" are the same color, and bay is more correct terminology, but "brown" is used, even by the breed registry, sometimes, to describe a particular dark brown shade that other people call "black bay" or "mahogany bay." It's marginally sloppy usage, at least genetically. (Like calling the fetlock an "ankle", when it isn't) Worse yet, the Kentucky Derby winner Big Brown isn't even "brown," he's a blood bay. Just to confuse matters further. Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• If "hot-blooded" is a common classification, should it be in quotations in Breed characteristics?
  • As a term of art, I think yes. And it's in quotes each time used (or should be) Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Variate sentence starts in the first paragraph of Beginnings in England. Since you mention the grey coat color going back to two other sires, are there characteristics to be traced specifically back to the original three?
  • DONE. Tweaked phrasing to put gray in better (i.e. less significant) context. Good question. The other three weren't gray, so I guess the point is that there were some additional foundation stallions, though of lesser importance. That section was longer, we cut some of it. Is your suggestion that we expand or cut? Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• In the same way I don't understand third cousins twice removed, I don't understand the first sentence in the second paragraph.
  • Basically, each of the three foundation sires wound up with only one male descendant that still appears in modern pedigrees. We can look at that one and see if we can word it better. Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• The sentence after that, to avoid repetition, how about The only male line that has been maintained to the present was Matchem, the grandson of the Godolphin Arabian. Also, I don't understand the significance of male-only lines.
  • Well, Matchem, Herod, and Eclipse, actually. The significance of male-only lines was sort of traditional, stallions have way more offspring than mares, but we know now, there are also certain traits carried only on the Y chromosome, just as the "tail female" dam line is also significant, and in part because we now realize the significance of mtDNA. Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• In this sentence: The addition of Arabian bloodlines ultimately led to the creation of the General Stud Book (GSB) in 1791 and the practice of official registration of horses please clarify in addition to what, since it seems Thoroughbreds came from Arabians.
  • Note last paragraph of section, which explains the mares. They were from many breeds. We are open to suggestions for how we can say this better (?)
    • Took a stab at it with "The addition of Arabian bloodlines to the native English mares ultimately led to the creation of the General Stud Book (GSB) in 1791..." which hopefully clarifies things a bit more. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• in actual number of lines of descent in modern Thoroughbreds, most horses have more crosses Is this males or females?
  • Both. Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • added in "... in actual number of all lines of descent, not just paternal, in modern Thoroughbred pedigrees..." which hopefully makes more sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't understand this sentence: As a percentage of contributions to current Thoroughbred bloodlines, another horse, Curwen's Bay Barb, contributed more than the Byerly Turk Numbers of percentages would be helpful to illustrate this point.
  • (Who had this particular source? Ealdgyth? Can we tweak? I think this is yours) Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My source, which didn't give percentages. I have another one I can check, but it'll be later today. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Put in percentages to give more context. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• If the article so far refers to male lines, can it also refer to female or mare lines instead of mare "families"?
  • See last paragraph of section. Not sure where the confusion is. Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Thoroughbred breeders always refer to "male lines" and "female families". It traces back at least as far as Lowe's families. Do you want us to clarify it more? Suggestions are welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• The abrupt mention of racing in Later development of Britain makes it sound as if racing in Britain began with the 18th century. Can you mention why Thoroughbreds were bred in the first section? Why import horses from far away and concentrate all the effort?
  • We could tweak that a bit to make for a clearer transition. (Ealdgyth or Dana? Can you draft (as you have the sources) an intro explaining the point, I can wordsmith if needed?) Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I have the sources at home... let me see what I have here on the road. I'll throw something up. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • There is now a brief paragraph explaining the development of racing. Probably needs prose tweaking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• It seems as if this sentence hangs at the end as an afterthought: Up until the end of the 19th century, Thoroughbreds were bred not only for racing but also as saddle horses
  • DONE. Moved sentence to a later paragraph on the 19th century, seems to fit better there. Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Would steeplechasing be more accurate to describe with "using fences and other obstacles in races", rather than "racing over fences," which sounds as if the entire race is over many fences. I can't even visualize what that might be.
  • DONE. Cut the definition and just left the wikilink, but do we now have a jargon problem? Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• The flow in In America is confusing. Sir Archy is significant, horse racing centers were moved, Sir Archy's impact. Can you state briefly in the first paragraph that X of Sir Archy's descendants were race winners or otherwise important?
  • We could add a few more words about Sir Archy (Ealdgyth? Your source?) Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Basically he was THE stallion of his time. Everything that is distinctly American about American Thoroughbreds traces to him. I'll throw something in. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I've added some information, which probably needs a bit of copyediting. We don't really know how many of his offspring won races because there are no organized records from this time. The earliest compiled race records I have heard of date from the 1850's. Sir Archy died in 1833, and most of his offspring would have finished racing by the time compiled records started. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Can you variate verb or noun? This change meant a change in breeding practices
  • DONE. Rephrased a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Periods of time after the Civil War are mentioned twice in the same paragraph.
  • Yes. And this is problem because...? Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• How about changing the second WWII to 1945?
  • WWII appears five times in the article, and in we don't mention dates, we just put in a wikilink for those who need that data. Is there an incorrect date that slipped by? Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think the last paragraph needs a topic sentence to state the many uses of Thoroughbred sires in the US. Otherwise, the many listed uses seem jumbled together.
  • Last para of which section? Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Can something first arrive in two years?
  • DONE. Tweaked wording. Does that help? Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• What caused the "war damage" in France? To the horses because they were used in war or something else?
  • How much should we expand? In war, particularly WWI, horses were confiscated for calvary and draft use, they got eaten for horsemeat, turned loose to fend for themselves and never found again, farms are bombed, horses get shot, starved, but the source we cite doesn't get that specific, I don't think, I wouldn't want to get into the realm of OR...? Ealdgyth, did your source go into detail on "war damage"? Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • As I recall, my source didn't really go into it. I can see what I have around, but basically it was because of confiscations, damage to stud farms, and other things that Montana described. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to read through the rest of the article thoroughly tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond. Had a few days of fun, including a quick trip to the ER...

• I like the improvements made to the article portion I previously reviewed. It reads much better now, though not all my requests were met.
• I went through and fixed minor problems, but I noticed the % sign is used, as well as "percent". It should be consistent throughout.
• Change to Support. --Moni3 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is it that we should use, % or percent? I never have been good with this MOS stuff. And ACK about the ER thing! Hope you're better. If you disagree with anything we've not done, go ahead and speak. I think we all want this to be the best article it can be, and given that we're all horse people, it's sometimes hard to see the jargon/context we assume. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Either is appropriate according to the MOS, as long as it is consistent throughout the article. I've had requests in my previous articles to change % to percent, but you can use either one. I'm better, though I'm sleeping a lot. --Moni3 (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• This article is very good as far as it goes - but it doesn't say anything about what thoroughbreds are actually like. From my experience they tend to have particular temperaments and require a particular style of riding compared to less warmblooded types. Some people won't ride them and others won't ride anything else (i don't mean in racing - I mean ordinary riding). I know horses all differ but if, for example I was reading an article on Jack Russells and then one on labradors, I would expect to come out with some broad idea of their temperaments and personalities. Fainites ^barley 22:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is, that's stereotyping and horse people get very irate about it, either for or against. And honestly, our sources don't really talk about TB temprament much other than to say they are "hot-blooded". I'm more than happy to see sourced statements that detail it, but I haven't run across any. (Of course, the history section is the main section I worked on, Dana and the others did the rest. For some reason, they always leave me the history sections... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Ealdgyth. Saying "hot-blooded" says all that needs to be said, really. To go into detail about handling or, god forbid, a warmblood versus TB discussion will start edit wars. We most assuredly do NOT want to go there. Horrors! If the non-horse people think this article is already obscure and filled with jargon, heaven forbid we start discussing training and riding! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Point taken. Better out than impossible to present. Pity though. :-/ Fainites ^barley 07:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• The sentence starting "while one genetic study" under "foundation stallions" has too many subclauses making it a mildly confusing read.Fainites ^barley 07:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've broken it into two sentences and tweaked the wording a bit. Does it read better now?Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - much better. (I've never understood this prejudice against the use of however. A most useful word in my view). Fainites ^barley 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008 [7].

[edit] Calgary Hitmen

After much work, I believe this article now passes all FA criteria. It is comprehensive, well cited, numerous complimentary images and remains focussed on the topic. Currently a GA, and I look forward to all feedback. Self-nom Resolute 15:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: My understanding is that the official rendering of Hart's WWF persona was/is Bret "Hit Man" Hart (not Bret "The Hitman" Hart or Bret "Hitman" Hart). AreJay (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain of how he was portrayed in his WWF days, but he calls himself "Bret 'the Hitman' Hart" on his own website. I think I will take his word for it.  ;) Resolute 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources.
  • http://www.hockeydb.com/index.html
• For consistency, either italicise the newspapers or not, but right now they are sometimes italicised and sometimes not in the references

Sources look good. Links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hockeydb credits its sources: [8]. I'll look into the consistency of the newspapers in the references. I've likely mixed templates. It will be corrected. Resolute 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

hm. It'd be better if they credited the sources on each page, so folks would be able to find the source for each piece of information (kinda like Wikipedia requiring inline cites now). I'll leave this one out for others to decide on, I'm on the fence. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered few reliability problems with hockeydb, and in fact, it is linked to a great many hockey articles, including at least two FA's as sources. However, looking over where I used the link to hockeydb, I realize that it was redundant to another citation set where I used the WHL media guide to get the same information for other seasons. I have replaced the hockeydb refs with the media guide ones to condense the references. So this point is now moot.  ;) Resolute 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I've gone through the citations and resolved some inconsistencies with my usage of the work and publisher parameters. The only thing now italicized in the citations are book titles. Resolute 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I just fixed most of the italics in the citations. --D. Monack | talk 03:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That works too, heh. I just went the wrong way with the parameter. Thanks! Resolute 03:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support — Looks very good. No reason to deny FA status. Maxim_(talk) 21:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support (04:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

• "However, the name and logo also faced heavy criticism from segments of the public and the business community, with both being panned as negative stereotypes of violence in the sport." - would it read better without the also?
  • removed.
• "with the surprise resignation of Graham James" - just refer to him using surname?
  • Check that throughout.
    • Changed up the statement you mentioned. There is one other spot where I use Graham James' full name after the first mention, but I believe that "...the spectre of the Graham James scandal..." reads better than "...the spectre of the James scandal..."
• "18–51–3" - what do these numbers mean? Should say so at least once.
  • Hmmm. I guess being a sports fan, the record seems intuitive to me. The season-by-season section also denotes that a record like 18–51–3 represents wins, losses and ties, respectively. I changed the first mention to "...with a record of 18 wins, 51 losses and three ties...", though I am not certain that is any better, imo.
• "however, as Calgary lost its second" - they're usually referred to as the Hitmen, be consistent.

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Changed the wording of the quoted passage, as it just came off awkward on re-reading. I've interchanged the use of Calgary and the Hitmen throughout, mostly to avoid repeating "the Hitmen" numerous times in the same paragraph. I've made some changes for better consistency, however.

• • Thanks! Resolute 16:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - All my concerns above were addressed, so this article gets a thumbs-up from me. Giants2008 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "major junior"? While I guess I know what's meant--of the junior teams, presumably this is one of the more important ones--this phrase is not a good start. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Major-junior is actually the name of that level of hockey. -Djsasso (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Junior ice hockey in Canada is divided into several levels. The top level is called "Major Junior". After that is "Junior A", "Junior B" and "Junior C". Resolute 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • OK. Perhaps it would be clearer if hyphenated and even capitalized, Major-Junior. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I've capitalized it for clarity. Resolute 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, no further issues here. Oppose, 1a (prose) and 2a (lead). At the very least, the lead needs expanding and the text needs attention from a thorough copy-editor. A lot of the problems could have been ironed out during a good peer review before bringing the article here.

• Prose: ordinary, but hard to object to in an actionable way.
• "narrowly edging the Kamloops Blazers for the regular season title"—"Edging out"?
• Paragraphing a little choppy in places; e.g., "WHL championship".

But more importantly:

• Why isn't this nominated for Featured List? There are three biggies in it that seem to take more space than the prose. TONY (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Because it is an article that incorporates lists and charts. With all due respect, suggesting this should be considered a list rather than an article is silly. Corrected the "edging out" bit, however. Resolute 17:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note; please see my edit summaries, corrections, and particularly in-line comment; I found something I couldn't decipher at all. Please fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I fixed that mistake... see my edit summary for an explanation. Maxim_(talk) 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, ha :-) (Why don't you just use a real endash (–) instead of an html endash (–)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know how to make one without copy-pastnig it from elsewher... is there some sort of alt shortcut, or something? :-) Maxim_(talk) 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's in the box under your edit screen, first thing after the line that says insert, or you can use keystroke combos (see WP:DASH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've never noticed it in that field... now I know. Thanks! (I'll shut up now, you can feel free to promote the article...) ;-) Maxim_(talk) 01:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• ALT+0150 accomplishes the same function. Resolute 01:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:47, 7 June 2008 [9].

[edit] Nimrod Expedition

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

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

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

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

• Update. The article has been much improved [10] since my initial review.GrahamColm^Talk 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

• "(2008 approximate equivalent £850,000)" perhaps "(equivalent to approximately £850,000 in 2008)" to make it easier to read?
  • I agree this is a better wording and have adopted it for the first equivalence. Thereafter I continue to use the short form (2008 = approx. £xxxx). Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The above are just samples. It is suggested that a thorough copyedit by an involved editor be made. Gary King (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I don’t know what you mean by an "involved" editor. Involved in what way? If you mean in the article's production, that's basically me, and I've edited the thing until my eyes hurt. I believe that any article, at whatever state of development, is capable of improvement. However, a general request for further "thorough" copyediting, which suggests serious problems but doesn’t clarify what they are, is not particularly helpful. What, exactly, do you think this new copyedit should be focussing on? You obviously have issues with this article, and I would like to resolve them with you, but I can't do this via a guessing game. If it is largely a question of language, then I need to know the actual words or terms that perplex you, so that I can make some judgement about them. Or about whatever else it is that you think needs improving. I don't mind how lengthy the list is, as long as it's actionable in some way. (And if you can say anything positive about the article, so much the better.) Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant uninvolved, my mistake. I'm going to strikeout for now. Gary King (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:47, 7 June 2008 [11].

[edit] Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang

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

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

• Oppose - bad prose, I often find the same words. --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can't you at least post a few examples to give the nominator a better idea of what you are objecting to? Gary King (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There are 100 (!!) "VNQDDs"!! --mojska ^dimmela 19:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, there are 82 and given that VNQDD is the subject of the article, this is to be expected.GrahamColm^Talk 20:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Pffff... in 30 kB 82 VNQDDs are heavy. :( --mojska ^dimmela 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
          • How is this even demonstrative of bad prose? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Repeating 82 times "VNQDD" makes a bed prose! --mojska ^dimmela 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Okay. You still haven't answered my question. I asked how. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
                • I fail to see how this is an actionable request, which seems to invalidate the oppose. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• Comment Could we get some more information about the role of the VNQDD's role in post-independence politics? You state that the party is still respected as Vietnam's leading anti-communist organisation, but there isn't any mention of their current activities. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  Seconded. Post-1954 activities barely mentioned in article. DHN (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, I've included everything from Hammer, both of them, unless you want me to explain the 1962 bombing in full detail or the 1960 coup. Because the coup trial isn't really considered to be a big deal (trumped up by Diem) and the bombing was more ad-hoc rather than centrally organised. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[13] This is a sample history page. Obviously post-1954, the VNQDD had no army left to do much, whereas in the 1930s-40s they were the 1st-2nd largest group, which is why they aren't much of a factor in the history textbooks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Could something be said about the so-called "Affair on On Nhu Hau Street"? It appears that the Viet Minh consider it an important case leading to VNQDD's downfall and seemed to have changed some minds (Huynh Thuc Khang) about the role of VNQDD in post-1945 Vietnam. DHN (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  I'll look in Hammer again but I thought I went to the index and included everything under teh VNQDD search. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: An observation: the articles has some 20 redlinks. Isn't it too many for an FA? Arman ^(Talk) 04:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks aren't part of the FA criteria. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, red links are not a bad thing; they are to encourage others to write the articles, and they are a natural and desired part of Wiki articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support; the article seems to me to meet all aspects of the criteria, and there is nothing actionable above that is cause of concern. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Resp. to Sandy: yes, but not too many red links, please. There's a point beyond which they degrade the appearance and readability of an article. There's a requirement for a professional standards of formatting.

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

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

Update These have been fixed and Nishkid is doing another review. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Update If there was only one ref for a paragraph that was because it all came from that ref. I tend to ref anything. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Spot-check by request: "Money was needed to set up a commercial enterprise, which would be used as a cover for the revolutionaries to meet and plot, as well as and for raising funds . As such, a; for this purpose, hotel-restaurant named the Vietnam Hotel was opened in September 1928."
• As plain as possible, please: "The first notable reorganisation of the VNQDD took place was in December"
• Try to avoid the normally idle "some", and there's confusion as to whether the "scholar-gentry" were part of the landlord and wealthy peasant set: "There were some landlords and wealthy peasants among the membership, but few were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank." --> "Among the membership were landlords and wealthy peasants, but few members were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank.

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

• Comment. The prose is decidedly uneven, and often very choppy; it's not always clear how one sentence leads to the next. I've done a bit of copy-editing, but more would be much appreciated. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I've now done some more copy-editing, and hope that I've managed to improve the prose. The article's pretty close, I think. I can't really speak to comprehensiveness; the sources are fairly limited in number (are there not more articles available?), and a couple are a little old, but generally they appear solid enough. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hammer and Duiker are still the standards for the French era. The French era doesn't get much attention unfortunately for us. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Ruhrfisch Comments All of my concerns have been addressed and I think the article is interesting and well-written. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, great work as always --Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Comment. Leaning toward supporting—I fixed a few issues as I was reading but one thing confused me. In the "Formation" heading you state that the VNQDD mostly consisted of teachers, government employees, and non-commissioned officers but few workers or peasants. In the "Initial activities" heading, you write that French intelligence had the members as students, merchants, and bureaucrats. You then outright state that the group included landlords and peasants. These seem at odds with each other.
  • Are you trying to illustrate that the French had their facts wrong?

Well they were from the same book, but the author didn't explicitly designate the intelligence as being wrong, although he made a statement that is not in accordance with the intelligence. So I htink implicitly yes, although I am not going to make it explicit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Are we supposed to assume that what the intelligence said was correct?

Per above, simply as their analysis, I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Is the second statement after the intelligence statement ("Among the membership were landlords and wealthy peasants, but few members were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank.") supposed to be attributed to the intelligence report also?

I did this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• Additional comment - question that needs further explanation in the text: "The French reacted to the VNQDD's first major attack by apprehending all the party members they could find ..." How did the French determine that the VNQDD was responsible? --Laser brain (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I clarified that they just attributed it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [15].

[edit] Common Treecreeper

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

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

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

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

• Support Comments just a couple of small things (Moral or otherwise) I disclose that I am a member of wikiproject birds, but I hadn't seen this article before FAC...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Its song is the best distinction from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper which shares much of its European range. - scans oddly for me. Distinction I think of now in terms of university grades, how about "It can be most easily distinguished from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper, which shares much of its European range, by its song" or "Its song is the key to distinguishing it from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper which shares much of its European range" or something along those lines...(I know..I'm being really nitpicky but the article is good :))

reworded as per comment

The Brown Creeper has sometimes been considered to be a subspecies of Common Treecreeper, but has closer similarities to Short-toed Treecreeper, -'affinity' for 'similarities' here?

reworded as per comment

It is common through much of its range, but in the northernmost areas it is rare or local, - I guess 'local' here is 'localized' as in occurring in small pockets?

reworded, removed localised, since meaning conveyed by rare. Thanks for the constructive suggestions, jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Image:Treecreepermap.png: image should provide a source for the range information. Also, this really is a terrible image (blurry map and disorderly, imprecise coloration - done in MS paint?). Given that featured articles are required to "exemplif[y] our very best work", this image does not appear appropiate. Please consider a visit to the graphics lab (I don't know their turn around times) or, if the range source is online or could be provided, I'd be willing to make an alternative version. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources added -AFAIK, the map doesn't exist on-line. The range map is as accurate as these things ever are. The outline is from WP:MAPS, and seems to be all there is available for free use. The mapping is done with what I've got available, which doesn't include professional software or skills. I don't think a map is a requirement for FA - see Osprey and Cattle Egret, so is it best to just delete it? jimfbleak (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better than no map. We could ask around for some other map drawers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is prepared to take it on, I could email scans of the BWP and Harrap maps jimfbleak (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, despite the fact that I wish I had a "rufous rump". I read the article earlier in the day and wanted to read it again. I went to lunch and told my partner I read this article, and when she quizzed me on it, I was able to tell her so much about the common treecreeper I stopped mid-recitation and realized I was yammering on about a bird I had never seen. --Moni3 (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, it's a nice little bird, but unlikely to get to Florida. Your partner would be even more concerned if you did have a rufous rump (: jimfbleak (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [16].

[edit] White-winged Fairy-wren

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

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

• The White-winged Fairy-wren (Malurus leucopterus) is a species of passerine bird in the Maluridae family. It is endemic to the dryer parts of central Australia, stretching from central Queensland and South Australia across to Western Australia, and is part of the large order of passerines. Passerine repeated (oops. missed that)
• The back region between the shoulders is in fact bare, with feathers arising from the shoulder (scapular) region and sweeping inwards in differing patterns; this had confused early naturalists into describing two species this seems a bit detached from former mention of back (changed to "this had confused early naturalists into describing both a white-backed and a blue-backed species" i.e. the parting of the feathers had confused experts into thinking there were two species of different plumage. clearer?)

• Phylogenetic -link or gloss (linked. thanks Graham)
• least concern should this be capped? (either that or italicised. done)
• closer in distance = "closer" or "nearer" (well spotted. nearer it is)
• Each clan has a specified area of land that all members contribute to foraging from and defending—although these orders may vary year to year. What orders? (I removed the clause as it is self-evident that roles (i.e. orders) will vary from time to time. Too vague as is and adds nothing)
• Wing-fluttering – does it need the cap? (The book uses single quotes and capitalisation as they are terms coined for specific displays. I was following the convention)
• ref 1 – retrieval date not linked
• perhaps the lead could be split as three sentences? jimfbleak (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. As usual, I have made some suggestions, [17], (not all mine). I have a few quibbles:

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

• "A white-winged fairy [that] may be sexually promiscuous and each partner may mate with other individuals"? I'm shocked; but seriously, the last eight words puzzle me after "sexually promiscuous".
• The old noun plus -ing problem: "it exhibits marked sexual dimorphism with one or more males of a social group adopting brightly coloured plumage during the breeding season". It's not grammatical; please see these exercises in fixing it. Here, I think ", in which ... adopt ...". There's another one in the lead, too: "Three subspecies are recognised, with one occurring ..."—Try a colon plus "one occurs ...". Can you audit for this construction throughout? (they seem to have been done now. everyone is chipping in...)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• "... the male. The male ..."
• "light-blue" and "bright-blue" as double adjectives, certainly in AusEng. (erm, okay then)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Unclear causality: "As a result,"—the "small, inconspicuous" bit I guess is equated with the "sandy-brown" colour of the females? The reader has to work hard there. But just why their accompaniment by one blue older male results from a previously stated fact I can't fathom. TONY (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reworded to "Younger, but sexually mature, males are almost indistinguishable from females and are the commonest breeding males. Thus a troop of White-winged Fairy-wrens seen in spring and summer comprises a brightly coloured older male accompanied by a number of small, inconspicuous brown birds, many of which are actually males" - initially folks thought all the brown birds were female, and hence these type of birds were called mormon wrens) - better?

• That's a great looking range map. --JayHenry (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (har har) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments a lot of interesting material but may need some reorganization. The Threats section seems out of place within Behaviour with only the distraction displays fitting in. Shyamal (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(I had combined predators, threats and threat-avoiding displays in a threats section. Shall I just leave it in a big behaviour section, or relabel predators and threats?)

I guess the predators and threats should go into a new top level section - population and status or suchlike, the distraction displays can stay under behaviour or possibly just dealt in the breeding part since the rodent run is associated with nesting. Shyamal (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have reorganized but left as a subheading, I figured if prey is a subheadding then predators could be too. I do like hierarchies of headings. No hugely fussed and I don't mind if you want to take the extra = off to make a full heading really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both island subspecies are nearer in distance to mainland populations of leuconotus than to each other; - The structure of the subsequent work suggests that the idea is to say that the islands are (physically/geographically) closer to the mainland than to each other and that they were connected to the mainland during glacial times and therefore that the populations are genetically closer to the mainland populations than to each other. I am not sure if that is what is meant and if it is coming through clearly due to the use of distance in both geographic and evolutionary senses. Shyamal (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Have made some copyedits to fix this. Hope there is no mutation in meaning. Shyamal (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. meaning remains unmutated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I have done a Google scholar check and am satisfied that most of the journal references have been reviewed and incorporated into the article to make it comprehensive and well referenced. Prose is good while images, video and audio media can be hoped for in the future. Shyamal (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a request in for images and am awating written replies. One can only hope...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 5 "Rowley & Russell (Families of the World) is lacking a publisher and publication date, could these be provided, oh, wait, I see it's finally given in ref 30. Perhaps you could move that to a "references section" for the used-more-than-once refs? Same for the Schodde ref?

Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Both monographs from which multiple page refs were taken are now at bottom. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! All done here! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Comment

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

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

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

Comment Some more: Taxonomy

• the last two paragraphs don't really flow with the first two. The first two paragraphs are historical, and the fourth para starts historical, but the third para is not. The statement that it is in the Maluridae is made (albeit indirectly) in the fourth para, so it doesn't need to be made in the third. I would suggest moving the fourth para up, and then merging the third para into it.

(moved para 3 past para 4 and changed beginning so it segues nicely.actually works quite well!)

• Subspecies
• why "at present"? If there were more subspecies, you should say so. If there is a move to change the number of rank of some groups, say so. Otherwise, "at present" is unnecessary. (there were historically more, but no future plans I know of)

Evolutionary history:

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

Description:

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

Behaviour:

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

Feeding

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

Courtship

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

Predators and threats

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

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

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

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

• comment the section on vocalizations could use more citations. There are two sources given at the end there. It isn't clear to me which statements in that section are using which for citation. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(there have been two significant published articles on the vocalisations which found similar results (which I have stated at the beginning of the para). Rather than pepper several points with refs from either or both I felt both at the end. I figured it was better this way. If there is a consensus that it should have refs all the way through which will be repeated and sometimes duplicated then I will do it, but it won't be pretty... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. That's satisfactory as is then. Oh, and just to make it clear support. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The referencing bit can be tricky sometimes, though a long-term solution may be optional visible ones. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a few piddly points

• I think this bit "The female is sandy-brown with light-blue tail feathers; it is smaller than the male, which, in breeding plumage, has a bright-blue body, black bill, and white wings." would be better split. It starts with the girls and moves on to the boys. (split. good pick up as I had forgotten female bill colour. kept the same order for flow)
• Under taxonomy it doesn't quite hang together where it says it was called various kinds of Superb Warbler and then says "The White-winged Fairy-wren was originally named the Blue-and-white Wren,". (good pick up. changed as not original per se, just an older name)
• In "description" you've used "molt" and "moult" in the same sentence. (aagh. US spelling! fixed)
• Pardon my ignorance, but is "coverts" plural here: "The breeding males' blue plumage, particularly the ear-coverts, is highly iridescent due "? (tricky this. The subject of the sentence is the singular 'plumage', with the plural 'coverts' in a little clause)
• In behaviour - should Wing-fluttering display be wing-fluttering display? Similarly Rodent run using a cap in the middle of a sentence. (yup. missed those ones)
• This "parasitism by the Shining Bronze-Cuckoo (C. lucidus) and Black-eared Cuckoo (C. osculans) is rarely recorded.[48]" should probably be a separate sentence.Fainites ^barley 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC) (done)

Well that's me easily pleased.

• Support Fainites ^barley 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [18].

[edit] Madman Muntz

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

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• I noticed there are some references that appear before punctuation marks; they should appear after them, per WP:CITE.

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

• Fixed. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dates in references should also be wikilinked so that they format according to individual user preferences. Gary King (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments

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

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

• Fixed, I changed USA to simply United States and added titles to the date headings. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

Comments

• Not many images. Although it's not an requirement, I would appreciate more.
• {{persondata}} should be used in biographies.
• There should be a non-breaking space between a number and the units it's measured in.
• "Earl William "Madman" Muntz (1914–1987),[1] born in Elgin, Illinois, was a merchandiser of cars and consumer electronics from the 1940s until his death in 1987." - the phrase "Born in Elgin, IL" seems extremely random and out-of-place in the middle of that sentence. I'd recommend removal, but it's just a suggestion.
• "Common opinion at the time dictated that used car salesmen should project a staid image, however Muntz completely rejected this thinking" - runon

More later. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. I added the persondata template, I think I caught all the spots that needed nbsp, deleted Elgin, IL from the lead sentence, and split the runon into two sentences. I'll have a look around for images, although we may be stuck with fair use stuff. :-/ Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Added a couple more images. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support - "fatten it up," and this is a support. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope it looks better to you now. I added quite a bit more, particularly about his car and Stereo-Pak businesses. Hopefully I'll have a slow evening at work and will be able to include more about the stores his children run.Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Couldn't find any more info about the stores after Muntz' death. But the article is now more detailed and complete than it was and has gone through a complete copyedit. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, I reviewed all the recent work and it looks vastly improved. Prose is excellent. --Laser brain (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose I share Wackymacs' concern that this is not comprehensive, even though you have several good sources listed. The later sections are especially light considering this man's considerable legacy. I think some more research and expansion is needed before it's worth scrutinizing the text. I will say, however, that there are some confusions just from reading the lead. For example, you say TV sets and then TV receivers, seemingly referring to the same thing. I'm also not sure why you mention his seven marriages but only list two in the infobox. --Laser brain (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

While there are quite a few references (and I'm still working with the ones provided above), many of them contain pretty much the same information: they discuss his various businesses and his oddball TV ad character. I mention seven marriages for factual accuracy because he was married seven times (according to sources), however, I can only find information on two of the marriages (one source seemed to indicate he married 7 times as a promotional gimmick, but I find this dubious and so left it out). I can try to search marriage records to determine who the other 5 wives were and will do so. Will also change TV set to TV receiver throughout. And will try to add more about him and his businesses tonight. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I should be about to fatten this up quite a bit. The books on Google Books are proving extremely helpful! So far I've conformed all instances of TV receiver. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've exhausted my sources for learning anything more about his other 5 marriages, unfortunately. LA country records didn't have anything online that I could access and I'm not sure I can get access to paper copies of his marriage licenses in a timely manner (or at all, as they have a ton of rules). So I deleted the 2 names from the infobox. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

• Comment. What's practically the opening phrase: surely we normally call a "a merchandiser of cars" a "car salesman"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Still in the first paragraph: "television (TV) commercials." C'mon, do we really need to tell our readers that TV is the abbreviation for television, or even vice versa? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Muntzing" should be (briefly) explained in the lead, not simply wikilinked. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• The "Early years" section seems to take us up to the 1950s. Is this a problem with the level of section heading? The stranded single sentence that would then make up the entirety of that section is somewhat problematic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• In general, this article still needs work. But the guy's obviously quite a character, so I hope it can be brought up to FA standard for that reason if none other. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Will respond on by one: 1) I believe that if we change it to alter "merchandiser of cars" to "car salesman" it will change the meaning. "Car salesman" is just someone who sells cars, while Muntz owned his own lots. I think "Merchandiser" does a better job of setting him apart in this regard. 2) Perhaps it's not mandatory, however it's common copyediting practice to always spell out first and use an abbreviation afterwards. I feel that doing so here makes the article consistent. This change was made by someone who was asked to copyedit the article (it's been through a couple of thorough copyedits). 3) Why should Muntzing be described in the lead rather than wikilinked? I'm concerned that adding a description would disrupt the (relative) balance of the lead paragraphs 4) I'm not sure I understand your concern with the section headings... The "Early Years" main section does take us through the 1950s. "Audio and Video" begins with an intro that described how he transitioned from his early businesses into other areas. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  1) sounds decidedly awkward as is, and I'm not convinced of the difference; 2) this really does seem unnecessary; 3) beyond the fact that I don't like being forced to click on a wikilink to understand an article (a wikilink should lead me to extra information, not to essential information), in that his invention of "muntzing" is apparently an important aspect of his achievements and a prime indicator of notability, it should be spelled out, however briefly; 4) then I suggest a reworking of the sections, as in most similar articles "early years" is taken to refer to childhood and youth, rather than taking us to the subject's forties. But again, these are really sample issues. I do think the article needs to be looked at again. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• 1) I disagree, I think this sentence is succinct and accurate. A "car salesman" is any old person who sells cars. Muntz was a business owner. Are you really telling me that you can't see the difference between an employee and the business owner? 2) ok, I will remove the parenthetical. 3) Muntzing is actually described in some detail in the section about Muntz TV. I will attempt to add a brief explanation of it. 4) I'm not opposed to changing titles but I would very much rather not start doing a full rework of the sections. They've already been shuffled and reshuffled, rewritten, edited, etc. and I don't see how a total rework would make a difference. I'll try to work with the headings though. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good after your edits. Lead sentence is better. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support
• I found it an interesting article. It made me want to learn more about him, and I think the article doesn't really quite give an entire picture of the man. I like that his advertising ploys are described, but there's not much about him behind the camera. I don't quite believe someone as innovative as Muntz, according to the article, was motivated completely by money. Why invent so many things? Why be so creative? Is there nothing more about his early life? His birth date, anything about how he grew up? Someone who craved publicity so much must have more about his childhood.
• The image of the Muntz Jet - is that a vanity shot?
• I like the article. I particularly like the potential of an FA on someone like Muntz. Is it possible to answer any of these questions? I would like to support. --Moni3 (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Glad you like it! I wish there was more about his childhood, but I've exhausted all of my reliable sources. A documentary about him is tentatively set for limited release in the late summer and I'm sure it will have all kinds of great stuff about his personal life, etc. But I'm not sure film biopics would fulfill WP:RS and it's not coming out for a couple more months at least. As for your question about the Muntz Jet... I'm not sure what a vanity shot is... someone requested above that I add more photos to the article if possible, and since this was free it seemed like a nice addition. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I read through it again. A vanity shot is a photo of an object with someone's family member in it. As in, here's a famous hill and here's my son! They're not particularly classy. Somewhere down the line someone will probably point out that it's in bad form. I'm not going to oppose based on the image, but have you thought about contacting Muntz's estate to get GNU permission for a better image? --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh okay, I see what you mean. Nope, I don't know who that person in the picture is (I'm actually the one who uploaded it to Commons). I'll just crop them out of it and update it on commons. Fixed, I cropped and uploaded a new version to remove the random middle-aged woman. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm supporting, but I did a very cursory search for information on Muntz and was unable to find anything. If you're in California, you may have access to the California (Or Los Angeles) Historical Society journal. Perhaps a regional advertising magazine. The article at its present state I feel is feature-worthy, but incomplete. I wish there were more about his background. But nonetheless, well done. --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Ok, I'll have a look tonight unless someone else beats me to it. I did improve the fair use rationale. Fixed all of these. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to use sentence format for book titles as well as newspaper titles, but I did, figuring everything should be consistent. Let me know if that's wrong. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer sentence case for everything, but I think MOS is OK about title case for books, etc. TONY (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "acceleration of 0 to 50 miles per hour (80 km/h) in 6 seconds"—I'd make it: "acceleration of 0–50 miles an hour (0–80 km/h) in six seconds".
• Why the split lines for "Communist Party? / "[refs]
• Space before ellipsis dots unless end of sentence ...

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

• Fixed the mph/kph conversion and the ellipsis spacing. I'm confused about the Communist Party split lines comment ... please clarify? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, but I think the problem is that you have one quotation, but two references; which is the source for that quotation? (If that's not Tony's problem, it is mine.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Both refs support the same quote. I figured a claim that he showed interest in joining the communist party for publicity reasons could potentially be controversial, so I provided two references to hopefully alleviate any concerns folks may have. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned (and I recognize that this may also be a pet peeve) one reliable source is always enough, so long as other sources don't contradict it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I took out the first ref. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. Heh, am I being more of a stickler on prose than Tony, eh? Anyhow, I think the article could still do with a run through. To see the kinds of things I'd suggest, look at my own recent copy-editing. What's more, I notice that hardly any of the references have page numbers. This seems like a serious lapse. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• The lead has a paragraph on his wives and celebrity friends, but there's nothing of the sort in the article itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Pretty much all of the book refs were found in a google books search, so I can probably get the page numbers tonight or in the next couple days. As for the paragraph about his wives and celebrity friends, this is one of those areas that I haven't been able to expand on. Originally (ages ago), this was in the body of the article in a section about his personal life. But that section was really small and during the GA review, it was suggested that I increase the size of what was then a pretty small lead with the smaller bits in the body that I couldn't expand on. The refs say who two of his 7 wives were, that Phyllis Diller was his girlfriend at one point, and that he was friends with the other famous people but I haven't been able to find any greater details about any of these relationships. I haven't even been able to learn who his other 5 wives were. :-( Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • My understanding of WP:LEAD is that there shouldn't be anything there that isn't in the body, and vice versa. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. It seems to suggest that the lead should summarize the article, provide a concise overview, and not tease readers with info that isn't expanded on in the article. However, I'd argue for keeping the info in the lead as-is for a couple reasons: 1) removing it entirely would shorten the lead quite a bit and earlier issues with the article included a too-short lead, 2) While the guideline does say the lead "shouldn't" tease readers, it doesn't explicitly prohibit it, and in addition, the guideline lead box states that occasional exceptions can be made. Logically, of course, we should learn more about Muntz's personal life and add a section the the article body. I can give this another try, or if there's some way to incorporate it into the body with a shortened lead sentence I'd be open to that too but I don't want to "Muntz" this article too much. :-/ I'll see what I can do about it tonight. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [19].

[edit] Baby Boy (song)

previous FAC (00:57, 28 April 2008)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

• "United States singer-songwriter Jennifer Armour filed in 2005 a copyright infringement" - needs reordering, start with the year and go from there...
  • Fixed to: "In 2005, United States..." --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• "and rapper-hip hop artist and Knowles' long-time boyfriend Jay-Z." - lots of "and"... my rule of thumb is to not use the word more than once in a sentence
  • Fixed to "...and Knowles' long-time boyfriend rapper-hip hop artist Jay-Z." Is it awkward? Actually, its ok to use "and" twice but it depends on the phrasing. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• "But once the track was done, Knowles still thought something was missing" - it wouldn't really be "done" then...reword/clarify
  • Added word: "But once the track was supposedly done..." Is that correct? --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• "both releases varied in content." - "the releases..." would sound better I think
  • Fixed. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• "complimented the song as one of the "high-profile collaborations" in Dangerously in Love" - this is more a statement of fact than a compliment...nothing else to say?
  • It is unacceptable as a review? "High-profile" is kinda opinion. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm, you could go either way I guess. Your call. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• "2003 MTV VMA" - what's that? (next para too)
  • Fixed. (in the first sentence) "...during the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards (MTV VMA)..." --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• The image in the Copyright infringement lawsuit section isn't really relevant...
  • Fixed caption. Please check. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• "with sales of 70,000 units" - you should say in excess of or something like that; it could have sold between 70K and 140K and gotten platinum
  • Fixed. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• No music video image?
  • Per Wacky. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I requested that the music video image be removed because it is was copyrighted material, and I do not think a fair use rationale can be justified when the article is already well illustrated with free images. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

*nods* They're usually seen in song FAs but I see your point. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support; above issues all addressed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I think it's a good article, well-referenced. :) Mojska ^{all you want} 13:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• ASCAP is an abbreviation for what?
  • I write American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers followed by (ASCAP) (in the above section). --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• What makes http://host17.hrwebservices.net/~atrl/trlarchive/no.html a reliable source?
• What makes http://books.google.com/books?id=1ZGMcUEvkyEC a reliable source?
  • Ahm... because its a book. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a book, but the telling phrase here in the Google review is "tell-all book" and it's a publisher I've never heard of. Google search on the publisher reveals they are probably reliable. It's also classified as a "Juvenile" book. While I won't say it's unreliable, it might be able to be replaced with something better. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any source that tell the same information. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Given what it's sourcing, it's probably reliable and I've struck it. Is the other one still being used? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yah. Its still there. I cant access the site now; the connection got awry. Any strong reason for me to remove it? Or can find any "about us" in there site that suggests negative impression? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is it looks like a personal or fan site. Granted the information isn't exactly controversial, but it is going to what appears to be a personal site. This seems to bear out the "fan site" impression, it says "... it builds on our legacy as the #1 fan site for MTV's TRL, and it reflects the community that keeps the site alive to this day." Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Does that fail against WP:RS? Is the sourced content very controversial? Am not expert on this so Im depending on you. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it fails RS. However, if you want a second opinion (and I won't be at all offended if you do) go ahead and ask about it on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for the link. --Efe (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments taken from my talk page

• What does it mean that the tour "began from late 2003 to early 2004"? It can only begin at one point in time, did it last this long?
  • Fixed. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• There's an inconsistency between "Murder She Wrote" and "Murder He Wrote". This may not be wrong, but it needs clarification.
  • Its the former. Remove one sentence there. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Under "Chart performance": "attained more and immediate commercial success than". This makes no sense to me at all.
  • Ahm, it has sense to me. How can I reword it? Any suggestion? --Efe (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Description of the video does not require sourcing, as the video is the source. Still WP:POV terms like "footage designed to have sex appeal"/"Knowles tosses herself sensually" should be avoided.
  • Removed. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• In the same section: "Scenes of Knowles and Sean Paul are separate." If the two artists do not appear together, I assume this is because they shot the video at different times, perhaps even at different locations. Can you find sources for this?
  
  • No. But its in the video. There is no scene where two is present. They always have different scenes. Like Knowles with a man; Sean with girls. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Nice article overall but still needs some fine-tuning. Points in the first few sections:

• "The track was produced by Knowles and Storch, and was released on October 14, 2003" - second "was" probably not necessary.

Removed. --Efe (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The case, however, was dismissed the following year in favor to the defendants." - "however" not contradicting anything

Removed too. --Efe (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Whole of "Background and writing" is a bit clumsy and occasionally seems overly informal ("something was missing", "delighted") although that may be hard to get around. I think it should be "was to add vocals"; the phrase "whose musical approach she admired" jars with me slightly (possibly a personal thing); "Knowles talked to him by phone for possible collaboration" does the same (should it be "about a possible collaboration"?).

Is "whose musical approach she admired" tends to be POVic? Knowles say it in a source. Anyway, Ill try to change it. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• "According to Roger Friedman of FOX News" - that statement does not suggest he has the expertise or credentials to comment; does he? Is he a music journalist? If so, it would be better to say that than simply "of FOX News".

Removing the name. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• "sequel of sort" - it's quoted, but we have no idea who sees it as that? The artists, the journalists, the public?

The artist? Is it better to add his name? --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• "the releases varied in content" - how and why? Is it worth mentioning at all?

Amh, this part has been fixed so many times. Am removing it. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• "which was released in 2003." - "which was" could be removed.

Removed. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

None of this is especially bad, but I think the article can be improved and requires detailed attention all over for words which can be cut, sentences which can be phrased more clearly or concisely, etc. I don't think it's far off though. Trebor (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looking pretty good since the copyedit. Quick points: "In the following scene, Knowles is seen on a bed tossing herself" - um, in the UK tossing can refer to something else which I'm assuming you don't mean...might be worth rephrasing. And the first sentence of "Chart performance" (which has a lot of commas - maybe split it) says the song "attained more and immediate commercial success than "Crazy in Love"" - the "immediate" doesn't really make sense. Did it receive more commercial success, more immediate commercial success, or something else? Trebor (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that alarmed me too (!) The chart performance sentence is fixed, I think. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• toast? (had to check the link) Its kinda obcure for those of this who don't listen to modern Pop/Hip-hop.
  • But it would be ridiculous as well if I will define it right after the word. Unlike establishing Madonna, for instance, as an American pop singer, giving definition to toasting like ..toasting, a kind of blah blad bladh... is not good. I believe. --Efe (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why not just remove it? "a toast by" in the lead can go I think, and when you mention it later, you can describe it. indopug (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think its fine as is. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Does there need to be small text in the Track listing? It makes me squint, while having no obvious positives.
  • • I think its fine as is; contains good info. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I meant, remove the small tags, dioid it myself. indopug (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • No policy in Wikipedia that says it should be like this and like that. But to please you, I will not revert it. Its the same, though. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Surprisingly I see MoS issues: MTV News, while there is both Slant Magazine and Slant Magazine.
  • Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No! I dont see any MTV News formatted in italics. Is Slant a magazine? Go to the page; its not italicized. But if its really a magazine, I dont know why its left unitalicized. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• "who is behind Knowles' "Crazy in Love" video" Huh? Is that even necessary? (I read it literally the first time, and it was quite ridiculous)
  • Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Parts of the video were captured in a house with different rooms"
  • Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• "On a bed in the following scene, Knowles tosses herself" The construction reminds me of Shakespeare, or is it Yoda?
  • Very strange indeed. Needs to be clarified. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not the one who add that word. I believe he was a copyeditor so I left that as is...until you came. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No get rid of it as fast as you can. See cmt from trebor above....eek. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Does that chart performance need to be so huge? It is very dry and boring: it charted here, here , and here, and there too. And all the information is sufficiently covered by the chart tables below. Honestly, I don't see anybody reading the section with interest (if at all); whittle it down to a paragraph and add it to the Reception section.
• The recption section is meant for for magazines saying if the song is good or bad and why. "Lisa Verrico of the daily US newspaper The Times called the song a "Latino-tinged collaboration ... set to clicky beats that sound like castanets"" is just a description of the music. Further, "called the song" is poor wording in this case.
  • Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No, you're wrong. HOw about Allmusic? Or widely known as All Music Guide? Its not a magazine; its an online database. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• The lead suffers from proseline.

• OK, not exactly "proseline" a bunch of disconnected sentences that hardly bring out whatever is unique about the song.

• • Fixed, I think. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• The infobox should only contain the earliest know release date (the Canada one?)

• The infobox now says released on 9 September 2003 but article says "It was released as a CD in Canada on 4 May 2003". --JD554 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with indopug's comments about "toasting". I keep imagining Sean Paul saying "here's to you" before drinking a glass of wine. Maybe I'm just too old!

• Very clever. Reworded. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not pushing this point but now I have an image of him drinking Red Stripe! ;) --JD554 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha..There's an image! How would you suggest we rephrase it? Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Support now. Well done sir. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ceoil for the help. --Efe (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(Tips hat) Just doin' my job. ;) Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I had issues with this on the previous FAC, mostly about prose. It was uneven then; it is pretty good now. Well done, Efe! :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks sir! I mean Jb. --Efe (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• My Chart performances comment above is unaddressed.
  • Its ok. Its been cut and left are important information. --Efe (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe you are referring to the second para. --Efe (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• I see a lot of mention by the critics about an Indian theme in the music (in the Reception section). This should be mentioned in the Composition section. indopug (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it is covered in this pasage: "Like Knowles' 2004 song, "Naughty Girl", Storch's knowledge on Middle-Eastern music contributes to its Arabic influences". --Efe (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [20].

[edit] Zelda Fitzgerald

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

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

• They come from five high-quality sources: Zelda_Fitzgerald#References. The only two biographies of Zelda (one that was nominated for a Pulitzer) and are informed and corroborated by readings from three of the leading Fitzgerald scholars in the world: Bruccoli, Bryers, and Prigozy. --JayHenry (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Please look in my above message; most of those five sources came from this one: Milford 1970. Even though that source is reliable, I still believe the article needs more sources. Dabbydabby (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  How many sources would you like me to use? And what percentage of citations from the Milford book is acceptable to you? --JayHenry (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, can you try at least 10 different sources? And please, they shouldn't all be books. They should be internet sources, newspapers, whatever reliable source you can think of. Just not one source, or one type of source. If you can do that, I'll change my vote to support. Dabbydabby (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh...first time I've ever encountered anyone opposing based on some arbitrary set number of sources. And since when has relying on book sources become taboo?! For what it's worth, by my count, more than one-third of the footnotes are from a source other than Milford (including, yes, a few non-book sources). BuddingJournalist 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Opposing because book sources are used is, well, a bit daft. If anything, book sources should be preferred over newspapers, internet sites, and the like. — Dulcem (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm opposing this because almost all of the book sources are used. It would've been inconvenient for a reader to go find that particular book because very often readers do not have the book right in front of them. Internet sources on the other hand are just a click away. I would believe that the reference list should have a variety of different sources. Dabbydabby (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a valid oppose. I don't mean to offend you, but there is a significant amount of scholarship that exists other than on the internet. Also, we are supposed to find the best possible sources, not the most easily accessible ones. For older subjects, often the best sources are printed and not available on the internet. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dabby, we judge sources on reliability not accessibility. BuddingJournalist 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter now; you can delete my oppose vote if you want. (Just don't change it to support.) However, I'm still holding my own opinion. Dabbydabby (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Dabby, I think your point is fair and wouldn't want to see your oppose deleted. I think that I'll be able to find some Web available but highest quality sources. Here are two that I think I could use:

• "That Other Fitzgerald Could Turn a Word, Too" -- a New York Times review of the collected works of Zelda Fitzgerald by Michiko Kakutani
• "The Art of Zelda Fitzgerald", a review of her art in a journal of Southern culture.

I'll look for more, but I think these two (in addition to the Web sources already there) will be a worthwhile improvement. --JayHenry (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked, and those are indeed reliable internet sources. The only concern I initially wanted to address was its variety of different sources. If you can access book and internet sources (maybe even a visual source too?), I think it would be a great addition to the article. If you ever needed help with formatting the references, you can always come to me for reference. (No pun intended. :D ) [And on a side note, why is everyone calling me Dabby when my username is currently Dabbydabby? (Yes, I'm aware of my usurpation request going on.) ] Dabbydabby (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We call you Dabby because you're our new friend :) You can call me Jay in return, if you'd like. I didn't realize you were actually renaming to Dabby, but it's a good name. --JayHenry (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments

• Nothing I see wrong with using mainly printed sources, considering the lady died in 1948. Personally, I think this is one of the more reliably sourced articles at FAC right now.

All the sources look fine to me, and the links check out fine also. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• JayHenry, be a dear and fix me a gin fizz you incorrigible harlot I love you. In normal words of the hopelessly boring (and unfortunately sober), this means Support. I am terribly sorry I did not read through this again when you asked me to. I went through and fixed teeny things, but a question or two:

• With the affair of Jozan, who didn't know Zelda asked for a divorce? That's confusing.
• Amid the families' bereavement is that the one family? Zelda's? Should that be family's?

I think it's very well-written, and the quote by Woody Allen made me laugh out loud. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Moni. You're beautiful, like a May fly. My great fear is that I was far too sober when I wrote this article. (Hey, at least I haven't tried to tackle Hunter Thompson yet... that will be a deadly task.) Jozan didn't know she asked for divorce. I'll fix that. I just meant one family. Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, my issues at the peer review all addressed, just took a skim now, everything seems dandy. We all love everyone, it seems. Yay. Great article. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support: The day Wikipedia disparages printed sources is the day that this librarian packs her pencil case for good! Hrumph. This is a splendid article, one that is a joy to read; well written, a little dramatic here and there, not heartless but not over-involved; I approve. My previous concerns were fixed during the PR, although the Zelda thing still bothers me -- when scholars refer to well known male writers' wives simply by their first names, even when they're the subject of the biography, it's demeaning. The usage is far too familiar, implying that the women are not taken seriously (or at least as seriously as their husbands), which is something I feel that Wikipedia should strive to do as an encyclopedia. Are we ever to rewrite F. Scott's article using Francis or E. A. Poe's using Edgar? Are these equally important "wifey" articles to take second seat to that of their husbands? Oh, well. I'm willing to let my gender-related paranoia rest, however, if only because this is a particularly good article. Well done. María (habla conmigo) 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the too-familiar issue, but (now I'm curious) how does one get around referring to Zelda as Fitzgerald and F. Scott as Fitzgerald? Mr. and Mrs. sounds like the society page. I haven't checked the Hilary Clinton article, but when spouses or close relations with the last name are both newsworthy, how do you differentiate? --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mr. and Mrs." makes me cry a little, but what's wrong with using full names when differentiation is needed? "Zelda Fitzgerald", "Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald", "Fitzgerald and her husband, F. Scott"? I don't know if it's important enough to warrant a rewrite, but I think it could be done if consensus is found that just plain "Zelda" seems less encyclopedic. María (habla conmigo) 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Zelda and her obsessive drunken ballet dancing may warrant an alteration of the MoS, which would potentially apply to Eleanor Roosevelt, Hilary Clinton, Coretta Scott King, Nancy Reagan, and on and on. I think seeing Zelda Fitzgerald as a full name throughout the article would be tedious to read, but I agree with your issue. I don't know what the alternative is. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22 ran into this with the Reagan articles, so you might want to check that out.--Rmky87 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We have run into at Mary Shelley as well. You might want to take a look at what we did. Certainly I've run into harsh comments by Mary Shelley scholars regarding the use of "Mary" or "Mrs. Shelley" exclusively. "Mary Shelley" or "Shelley" seems to be preferred. We use "Mary" only to differentiate from "Percy" - never "Mary" to differentiate from "Shelley" (i.e. Percy Bysshe Shelley). Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey everbody, I really apologize for this but I was unexpectedly away from my computer all day today and am going to be all day tomorrow as well. If you wanted to take a stab at this I would be forever indebted. Please, I really welcome people just jumping in. If not, I'll work on it myself on Wednesday. (Really apologize about this. Very unexpected for me.) --JayHenry (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked for examples where I can do this and attempted to reduce the amount of times she's called Zelda. Again, if you feel this is a weakness, this is one you can fix yourselves. Access to the sources aren't needed and I'm honestly stumped to go any further without introducing severe ambiguity into the text. I'm not willing to confuse the reader and please note that Zelda is always differentiated from Scott--not from Fitzgerald. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• oppose - per Dabbydabby, you used an only reference. --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  This concern has been addressed. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question Since there were questions about the sources used in this article, I checked in the MLA database for sources on "Zelda Fitzgerald". There are 33. Most are journal articles about Zelda Fitzgerald's writing. I'm a little nervous that more of these aren't used. However, it could easily be that the material contained in these articles is replicated in the books used in the article. If the article editors could reassure us that they checked this, my concerns will evaporate. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Awad! Bruccoli, Cline and Milford all have chapters devoted to her writing. Haven't gotten all the way through Prigozy or Curnutt yet (they're more Scott books, but from the chapter names it doesn't look like they go into this). I felt that this was sufficient, but to be honest I didn't realize there were that many Journal Articles on the subject. Her prose is generally described as florid, and perhaps containing potential, but ultimately unpolished. I don't have access to the MLA database. Awad, if you really think the article needs it, would it be too much imposition to ask to e-mail me the best papers? I'm happy to work to integrate additional material, and would even enjoy reading some of those different perspectives. I am Jay.Hank, at the wonderful e-mail provider of Yahoo.com. Like I said, if the chapters in the books aren't sufficient (and I'll defer to your judgment on that), I'd really be deeply grateful for help. And I will (promise) have time to read, ponder and integrate before the end of the week. --JayHenry (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• After reading the article and looking at the material available, I do think that more could be added about her writings, especially since that is the way that the scholarship seems to be moving, as you note in the "Legacy" section: to recognize her as an author in her own right. Unfortunately, most of the material that I think will be helpful is not available electronically. I emailed you three articles. Here are the others that, from what I can tell, look like they will prove useful. If you want me to request them from my library, I will. The only one I can't send you is the book, obviously. Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Shurbutt, Sylvia. "Zelda Fitzgerald 1900-1948". American Writers: A Collection of Literary Biographies: Supplement IX: Nelson Algren to David Wagoner. Ed. Jay Parini. New York, NY: Scribner's, 2002. 55-73. - Although an encyclopedia entry, this looks like it might be focused on her writings, so it might be useful.

• Felber, Lynette. "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz: Household Plagiarism and Other Crimes of the Heart". Literary Liaisons: Auto/Biographical Appropriations in Modernist Women's Fiction. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois UP, 2002.

• Castillo, Susan. "(Im)Possible Lives: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Surrealist Autobiography". Writing Lives: American Biography and Autobiography. Eds. Hans Bak and Hans Krabbendam. Amsterdam, Netherlands: VU UP, 1998. 55-62.

• Nanney, Lisa, "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Southern Novel and Künstlerroman". The Female Tradition in Southern Literature. Ed. Carol S. Manning. Urbana: U of Illinois P; 1993. 220-32.

• Hartnett, Koula Svokos. Zelda Fitzgerald and the Failure of the American Dream for Women. New York: Peter Lang; 1991.

• White, Ray Lewis. "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz: A Collection of Reviews from 1932-1933". Fitzgerald-Hemingway Annual 1979: 163-68.

Here are the citations for the articles I emailed you:

• Tavernier-Courbin, Jacqueline. "Art as Woman's Response and Search: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz". Southern Literary Journal 11.2 (1979): 22-42.

• Davis, Simone Weil. "The Burden of Reflecting': Effort and desire in Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz". Modern Language Quarterly 56.3 (1995): 327-362.

• Wood, Mary E. "A Wizard Cultivator: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Asylum Autobiography". Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 11.2 (1992): 247-264.

• Support Oppose (for now) This article is an excellent piece of biographical writing. I was drawn in: the editors have made Zelda Fitzgerald come alive. However, I'm going to oppose for the time being on comprehensiveness: I feel that her writings need to be better explained. The themes, style, and genre of her writings can be better explained. I have every confidence that the material I have sent JayHenry and listed above will allow him to rectify this problem. I know he is a diligent editor and I look forward to seeing the new material. (It would be nice to have a painting of Zelda's. Can we use anything from The Romantic Egoists: A Pictorial Autobiography from the Scrapbooks and Albums of F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, edited by Bruccoli, Smith, Kerr, and Lyons?) Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for those papers, Awadewit. I will start reading them this evening. I have a structural question though. Where do you think it would be best to integrate this material? As I see it, I could include it under the Save Me the Waltz subsection, under its own section between the Biography and Legacy sections, or as a "Critical reappraisal" subsection of Legacy. My initial preference is the latter, but would welcome your thoughts.

As for including a paiting, I do have access to Romantic Egoists. But since Zelda painted after 1923 and died in 1948 it's my understanding that a painting would have to be uploaded under a claim of WP:FAIRUSE. Unfortunately, I've noticed that Wikipedia's WP:FAIRUSE policy is increasingly divergent from the actual legal and moral obligations of "Fair Use" and I'm reluctant to devote my energies explaining why it satisfies "NFCC#8" to editors who clearly have no legal or professional background whatsoever with Fair Use. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Structure? I think it depends on what kind of material you get out of the articles. So much of it is focused on Save Me the Waltz, I would be tempted to put it there, but if there are general statements, a "Critical reappraisal" section would work as well. Why don't you just do what seems best to you? We can always revise! :)
• I do think that a painting would greatly enhance the article. ZF was clearly an artist in many ways - I think it would help readers to see her work. If you upload the image, I'll work on the fair use rationale, if you want. We don't want policy to get in the way of producing the best article possible! :) Awadewit (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm making a concerted push to address the rest of the objections tonight. Have added to the sourcing per Dobby and Mojska and have added information on style and themes. I'm going to rewrite the final critical reappraisal section here in a bit, but will probably save detailed discussion of themes, style and genre of her novel for the Save Me the Waltz page. Also removed the hip flask image discussed below. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'll probably be looking in on Friday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is more being added still or should I reread? Awadewit (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I am not quite finished yet! I will leave a note on your talk page when I'm ready, Awad. Sorry, been an awful week... I don't have the time for this hobby! --JayHenry (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not a problem. Don't rush! There are no deadlines on wiki. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm supporting now, but I'm kind of disappointed that only the articles I emailed you were used. Since I volunteered to go to the library and get copies of the other ones if you needed them, I assumed when you didn't ask that you had access to them. I'm absolutely certain that these three articles do not represent the entirety of scholarly opinion on Zelda Fitzgerald's work. The only way to figure out what is to read a range of sources and see what they all agree on or what is considered most important in the field. Perhaps after you have written the Save Me the Waltz article, you can come back to this one. Writing author or artist articles is a huge amount of work because one has to read about the author/artist AND their works. Awadewit (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I'm not knowledgeable enough to question the article's comprehensiveness as Awadewit has done and as I read it, I felt it was clearly up to FA quality. The sources are well used and the prose, (apart from an excessive use of semicolons), is professional and engaging. All articles can be improved, (even FAs), and no doubt this one will be. I have to support this FAC because there are quite a few FAs that fall short of the standard set here. Allow me a couple of nitpicks.
  • Please do something about the semicolons; they spoil the flow. A high-point of the prose,(IMHO), was the simple sentence She complied."
  • And, she composed a novel - aren't novels written?

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

Thanks Graham, I will do some semicolon surgery. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, at least as far as 1a is concerned. TONY (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC) PS hip-flask image: why left side? There's a narrow neck of text between it and the right-side one to the north-east. TONY (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed the flask image per below. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Image:Scott Fitzgerald's Silver Hip Flask.gif: Where is support for the claim that the author of this image died more than 70 years ago? The flask may well have been inscribed in 1918, but the picture thereof appears to be a contemporary photography. The source asserts "Copyright 1996, the Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina". ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Disclosure - I reviewed this article for GA, when I felt it was close to FAC. Since then various improvements have been incorporated and I am satisfied that it meets all the FA criteria. A couple of suggestions:-
  • The "Last Flapper" image in Expatriates section looks better if placed after the first para of the section (I've tried it, trust me.)
  • The brief last section "Critical reappraisal" seems somewhat formidably titled, given the sparse content. Perhaps a less ambitious title would be more suitable?

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

Thanks Brian! I was actually in the middle of rewriting that last section when I had to go out of town at the last minute, and you caught it in an unfortunate state. It will make more sense when I'm finished. Working on it tonight. --JayHenry (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Can you please put an infobox as provided by WikiProject Biography? miranda 10:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've opted not to do that for this article. Because of the somewhat unusual nature of her life, Zelda's biography doesn't break down into factoids very well. I support infoboxes in general (where they're providing uniform information across a clearly defined group of people), but this is an example of an article where an infobox would impart little useful information (beyond what's already in the first sentence), so I've opted for this style. --JayHenry (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support: After much deliberation, I feel as though I'm not as concerned about variety of sources as other folks. While I feel the article can be improved by adding info from more sources, I feel that it is currently at a standard I consider Feature-worthy. – Scartol • Tok 00:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I should add in the interest of full disclosure that I did a review during the article's gestation. – Scartol • Tok 00:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just went through this evening and added overviews from more of these sources. I think it's best not to go too much more in depth on topics like Save Me the Waltz's place in asylum autobiography on this article. I'd like to go through, however, and add more of that information to Save Me the Waltz. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note Pretty sure that's everything. If anybody still has concerns let me know. Thanks everyone for the careful reviews and for your patience with my hectic schedule on this one! --JayHenry (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment According to WP:MOSBIO, section "Subsequent use of names" suggests that Zelda should be avoided in favor of using the last name. It also provides recommendations how to handle the case when there are multiple family members with the same last name, as in this case. (*They* get their first names used for clarity, but not the topic of the article.) This is one of those strange things that bother me, like news anchors calling Secretary Rice by "Condi". Because I also agree that this isn't a simple cut-and-paste because so much of the article necessarily relates to Mrs. Fitzgerald's interactions with her husband, I leave this as a comment only, not an oppose. But I hope that we at editors look carefully at our gender biases when writing biographies. JRP (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please feel welcome and encouraged to fix this in any case that you can identify. I have really, honestly and seriously, tried to address this throughout and have literally begged for help with it. Please note this article conforms relentlessly to WP:MOSBIO. Zelda always contrasts with Scott; Fitzgerald never refers only to him. Furthermore, I can only advise those with this concern not to read biographies of Zelda. They do not call her Fitzgerald. --JayHenry (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also, this is not at all the same as Condoleezza Rice. She was born a Rice, there is no other Rice implicit or explicit in any of the writing about her, (it's always implicit and often explicit in this article) and certainly not a Rice that shares her vocation, let alone a more famous Rice with whom she is principally known by association. --JayHenry (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [21].

[edit] Riven

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

Comments

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

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps also worth mentioning that Ghen's Theme is only heard at the end during a specific(?) bad ending? (?) Rehevkor (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I'll hold off on commenting again until it gets the copyedit suggested below. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Withdraw it—Well, this is one that needed more work before nomination. It should be withdrawn and resubmitted after fruitful collaboration. Here are random issues from one small sample of text.
  • "Also"—weed out all of the idle instances, please.
  • "a trap book—book that appears to be a linking book, but is actually a one man prison"—euuw, reps and missing hyphen and article; in a clunky sentence.
  • "Atrus. Atrus"
  • Odd use of the passive voice: "the book ends up being found by the Stranger". TONY (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed the instances of 'also' and 'some', as Nousernamesleft pointed out above. Fixed the awkward sentence and combined sentences and reworded them so that one paragraph doesn't start out with "Atrus" every time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

• Get it copyedited by an editor new to the text: see Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members for lists of copyeditors.
• Sources look good, links checked out fine.

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

I have contacted two outside users, Seegoon and AndonicO in regards to copyediting (AndonicO has already started helping.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Prose is now much better. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 20 "Gann, Patrick "Riven The Soundtrack" ... can we source this to something besides RPG fan? I'm not sure about the reliablity of that site, and since it's just the release date and length, surely Amazon has it?

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've swapped the RPGFan ref with the Amazon product page, as requested. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - splendid work by AndonicO - I can't fault the prose. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I was under the impression that the "stranger" was designed so the player could completely immerse themselves as though they really were the character—no backstory, entirely first-person view, etc. Therefore, referring to the player's character as being male doesn't fit in, to my knowledge the "stranger" has not had a gender defined within Myst canon. I'd advise altering the wording of the story section to make it gender neutral, as there's no evidence I know of that suggests the player's character is conclusively male. -- Sabre (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It's a bit awkward, unfortunately, but you're right, the Stranger is never given a gender or identifier. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support The prose and been significantly improved by several copy-editors and there is no issue left. This is FA-quality. Kariteh (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "between $5 and $10 million" → "between USD$5 and $10 million"
• "causing a delay in the publishing of Riven.[citation needed] Even though " — Citation needed?
• "coverage.[17][9]" — Ascending order

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

I've fixed these issues. For the $ sign, I assume you meant US$ rather than USD$. Kariteh (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, US$ is correct. Gary King (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good work David. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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