The AI Mk. IV was the world's first air-to-air radar system. Its development took almost five years and is a story full of false starts, lucky breaks and bureaucratic infighting.
I'm not exactly sure what happened to the last FA process on this. Everything seemed to be going fine, then all the reviewers wandered off and then it was closed.
There are lots of errors in the format of the references. Refs 28, 31, 34, 36, 40, 46, 47, 50, 57, 58, 50, 92 and 103 are not linked to the bibliography correctly. Also ref 46 says "Bowen 1991", ref 34 "Brown 1999" and some refs have "Hanbury Brown". Can you check them.User:Graham Beards (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead caption needs a hyphen; Early efforts needs hyphenation and conversion; RFD 1.5 and ASV emerges are incorrectly punctuated; generally overusing the word "ample" in captions; Mk III is a bit clunky, as is Dowdy; magnetron needs conversion; Mk VI and the first Displays image have grammar issues; generally inconsistent in the use of "wingtip" vs "wing tip". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Lead caption needs a hyphen" - it does? Where?
"Early efforts needs hyphenation and conversion" - hyphen where? 6.7m is not an actual measure, its referring to the frequency band.
"RFD 1.5 and ASV emerges are incorrectly punctuated" - how so.
Reviewers are not required or expected to edit candidate articles. At the moment there are 49 articles on the list, often there are more. There is a shortage of editors prepared to review FACs and there would be fewer if we asked them to do this. Sometimes reviewers will be generous with their time and talents and copy edit candidates. But this is a bonus that should not be requested. User:Graham Beards (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For conversions see Template:Convert which is already used in the article. Generally, the image legends are way too wordy and are causing some problems such as the redundant "This image shows...". Check for compound adjectives like "Mk. IV equipped Beaufighter" which should be "Mk. IV-equipped Beaufighter". User:Graham Beards (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't convert wavelengths; they are like boat classes, 5.5 meter boats are not 5.5 meters long nor is a 5.5 meter boat an 18 foot boat. Even US sources measure them in metric units. The other two are completed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've not received any specific input on the captions, so I've edited every-but-one for brevity. I left the physical layout description as-is because I think it's key to the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Please check that the use of bold type as in "This led to Hanbury Brown's work on the Mark IVA" conforms with the manual of style. And, I'm still concerned about the image captions; as they stand some will require citations. I was alluding to this above when I commented on the length of the captions. User:Graham Beards (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I bold terms if they are the titles objects of the sub-section they appear in, or alternate names for the same. This is so that links to those sub-sections appear as fully-formed sub-articles. Is this not correct? As to the captions, can you be super-specific as to the ones you'd like to see addressed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
A large article with many technical aspects and units, difficult to get right. I've read most of the way through and found it fairly heavy going.
Frankly I'm not sure all the convert tags add or hinder clarity.
Unit conversions are a requirement, they were not the problem. Lots of figures in a technical article is unavoidable but they can be controlled (does the reader need to know the exact values?).Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Lead, word repetition, 'development' used twice in the second sentence, 'Early development'? Perhaps just 'development would be better.
Indeed, fixed.
*'On the "Beau"' seems too informal.
Fair enough, fixed.
*Luftwaffe is not linked (first instance), also 'altitude'.
Fixed and fixed.
'1.5 m wavelength (~193 MHz)', what is 'm'? Metres? What is MHz?
*The image captions are lengthy and would benefit from wikilinking the objects and people in them (Hurricane, Heyford, Bawdsey Manor, Dowding etc).
Done, but I did not do the wikilinking because that's better in the body imho.
It's very common practise in Featured Articles to repeat wikilinks of objects, people and places in image captions, it is encouraged. Moon is a good example. With a long article people tend to read the lead (which should summarise the whole article), the infobox and wikilinked captions. Looking for the object links in the body text is inconvenient and frustrating, especially if there is no link there. Your call. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've never liked it but who am I to argue with the MOS?! I'll work these in over the next couple of days. Actually, done!
*Mixed tenses 'its Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines had a well-insulated ignition system which give off minimal electrical noise.' 'Gave off' perhaps?
Fixed - that one was aggressive auto-correct.
*Aircraft serial numbers should be italicised as it is effectively their name (MOS:ITALIC), aviation project convention which follows the ship examples.
Looking... can you point them out? I must be blind... ok I think I got them all now.
None of the footnotes are cited, some refer to pages in used references but they need citations as used in the text.
Sorry, I missed this first time around. Actually you cannot use linked FN's in notes, at least I'be never managed it. The template-in-the-ref appears to drive the parser nuts.
One footnote appears to refer to images (formatted with external links), images can not be used for citations (even though we know that London buses are indeed red!). Other footnotes still unsourced (apparent editor synthesis). Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'See also' section or navbox for related subjects.
Any suggestions? I rarely add these to my articles - laziness, not any dislike of them.
Is there any mention of this system or the development of AI in the Flight magazine online archives (exhaustion of sources)?
I'll never know... at least until Flight changes their search engine to something created this century. Try a search on the topic, and you'll see what I mean. The ones that are in here are generally the most complete histories, written by the people actually involved. Some of these required me to contact the original authors as copies were not available on this side of the pond. I also had to develop an algo to convert Bowen's page numbers for Google Books, because mine is a different copy and I want to make sure I was pointing people to an available source. Although here are some "review" sources, like White and Zimmerman, I've found that every other source I looked at (there were dozens) were essentially clipped versions of these. White, for instance, largely follows Bowen, while Zimmerman does more compare-and-contrast. Generally I'm not sure there is much more out there, I spent maybe two months collecting resources and discarded the majority during the process. Consider this for instance, which is largely content-free, yet uses many of the same images!
There is an oversize image of a DH Mosquito to illustrate its antenna, could it be edited to crop and highlight this feature and show it at normal thumb size?
I was convinced to leave this one larger specifically because a previous reviewer complained that there was no reason for all images to be thumb size and that making this one larger would improve the article. I think I agree with the logic, so I'm inclined to leave this one as is.
*Why were the large windows of the Avro Anson a benefit for testing? I couldn't immediately find it in the adjacent text, just curious.
Because the Anson found itself mostly used for ASV development and testing minimum range of the AI sets. Both tasks required the operators to look out once the radar's minimum range had been reached, and large windows always help in that regard.
Struck as the claim has been removed, appeared to be editor opinion without cited mention in the text. Surely the crews would be squinting out of the windscreen looking dead ahead for their tracked target? Perhaps that aspect needs clarifying. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, my replies are missing, I still have the edit conflict window open and will leave the PC on overnight! WP software could do with an upgrade to show that the other person is typing as Facebook does in live chat. I will try to sort it out tomorrow. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity I'm going to restart the list. I think I have addressed everything except:
Still looking for advice on cites-in-notes.
The Flight example has a single mention of AI, in passing. I see nothing in this article that suggests it should be included for any reason. I'm hesitant to add links for the sake of adding links. Am I missing you intension here?
As to images, I have discussed the matter with several people. The only person that had a good image of the Pye strip refused to release under a CC-ish licence. Norman Groom released all his images under CC-by-SA, but because he didn't use the specific terminology "CC-by-SA" it has been refused, and now he won't have anything more to do with the Wiki Commons as a result. The RAF Museum does not appear to have a Mk IV, nor the Duxford Radio Society.
Comments. Temporary oppose It's likely we'll get enough copyediting help to push this over the hump, but we've got a ways to go. I make a suggestion below for the next step. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"Watt", "Watson-Watt": the argument can be made either way, since he adopted the hyphenated name in 1942, but be consistent.
"Type 316A "giant acorn" vacuum tubes": I changed this to "Type 316A large acorn vacuum tubes", after doing some Google searching, but I'm just guessing ... if Western Electric called their product a Giant Acorn, then capitalize it. While we're on the subject ... someone has steered you wrong on quote marks, and it's getting tedious fixing them all. Some are ambiguous: for instance, does "Taffy" Bowen have quote marks because he picked up that nickname in the military but wasn't generally known that way? (Then use his real name.) Did people generally know him that way? (Then drop the quote marks.) Are these the kind of quote marks that postmodern writers liberally scatter in their prose, to avoid the impression that they take themselves or anything they write too seriously? (Take responsibility for your word choices.) Generally, so-called scare quotes suggest that some people, but not everyone, used the given name or concept ... but how is the reader to know how many people used it, or why some people didn't? One rule of thumb: use capitals, not scare quotes, for proper nouns. Fixing scare quotes is hard for a copyeditor to do ... I don't have access to most of the sources ... so please get to work on those, and I'll keep this page watch listed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea I was a post-modernest! I feed the need to purchase a beret. In any event, I removed almost all the scare quotes, leaving those around nicknames, direct quotes and references. As to nicknames, I looked over the MoS and several other sources, and could not find anything one way or the other, so I went with the most common format on the wiki, to quote them. I believe everything else has been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm afraid there's more here than I'm going to have time to do, but I made a good start and I'm hoping that will allow someone to finish up. I got down to ASV emerges, and it's looking good so far. The writing is lively. Below where I left off, I believe there's more quoted text than just nicknames, direct quotes and references (although maybe some of those are direct quotes, and I can't tell). For instance, "all hell broke loose" was a cliché (unless I misunderstood and it was a direct quote ... but clichés don't serve as particularly memorable quotes). I went with something blander, but you may want to play around with it. And there's still a problem with the nicknames. Bowen is one of your sources, and skimming the text at books.google.com, he uses a lot of nicknames. For instance, the only mention of Walters in your article is sourced to Bowen: "... the Yagi antenna design, which had been brought to the UK when the Japanese patents were sold to the Marconi Company. "Yagi" Walters developed a system for AI use using five Yagi antennas." What are the odds that a guy who was nicknamed after an antenna kept the nickname throughout his life? If you want to mention Walters, please find out the name he actually used, the one that would go at the top of his Wikipedia article if he had one. He's owed that much if his contribution is important enough to mention.
Believe it or not, "all hell broke loose" is a direct quote - IIRC its quoted that way in the book (ie, in quotes). I'll try to find Walter's full name, I have failed to do so to date. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to a request; I've struck my "temporary oppose". Comment: one change I made was reverted after I stopped working on this. This edit reintroduced two mistakes (one has been fixed by another editor), and also reverted "when they closed the distance, the ships mistook them for the enemy and launched" to "and then closed the distance to see "all hell broke loose" as the ships launched". The edit summary was correct, and one fix would have been to change "the enemy" to "an enemy" ... but it failed to mention that it was reverting on the point I had just been discussing (see above). When you revert on the point under discussion, please say you're reverting in the edit summary ... at a minimum, don't say only that you're fixing something else. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused... I did say I was reverting (didn't I) and I only reverted that single edit (I think). Am I missing something here? I'm happy to change this again, but I'm not sure what the problem is. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've fixed it, not a problem now. I've checked the new edits, everything is still good down to where I stopped, ASV emerges. I've also checked the quoted material in the rest of it ... that all looks good too, except don't put quote marks around a block quote, per WP:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've checked the changes since I copyedited, and I got a little farther this time, to Working design. Hopefully another copyeditor will pick it up from there. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the article twice and my comments are below. It's a long list, but the great majority of the points are very minor and are easily fixable. My main concern about the article is the length, and I've put that first on this list. I think the article should be split, using summary style. I'd also like to add that the long list of minor points does not detract from my very high opinion of the article and the work that has gone into it. It's a great piece of work.
Inserting a question: are you thinking more in terms of splitting this article in two, or moving some subsections into other articles? - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about that, and I think it would probably be better to move some material to subarticles, replacing the moved material with summary information per summary style. I'd defer to editors expert on this topic, but the section structure in the article at the moment seems exactly right to me, though one could separate out a "background and genesis" section from the "Development" section. That gives this structure: (a) background and genesis; (b) development; (c) operational use; (d) IVA, V and VI; (e) technical description. I'm guessing here, but I would think (c) and (e) would remain almost completely intact in this article, but (b) and probably (d) would become subarticles (probably the same article). The background and genesis wouldn't require a subarticle of this article, but I think an article that fully covers the genesis of radar research and development in the UK starting in the mid-thirties is definitely a different article than this, so it's likely that some of the material here could be moved to that article. The result would be two articles focused on the Mk. IV: this one, and Development of the AI Mk. IV radar, which would be a child of it. That's just a suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This would be one of the longest FAs, if not the very longest, by readable prose size; looking through a few of the top articles in Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length I can't find a longer one. I hate to suggest this, since I know this isn't the first pass through FAC, but have you considered splitting some material to a subarticle? So far I've only read about a third of the article in detail, and can't make a sensible suggestion on how this might be done, but I think it should be considered. And you might end up with two featured articles instead of one that way.
It's really not that much larger. Clicking on a few of the articles in the link you provided and using the DYK Check tool, which has a word counter, I see that (for instance) Mitt Romney is 11903, Ronald Reagan is 13344 and the King of Pop is 15056, and Mariah Carey is 11673. Even Prometheus is 9975. This article's 13653 puts it up there near the top, but it's certainly not the largest nor entirely unprecedented. Nor do I think it's unreasonable to suggest that an article on a technology that is widely credited with winning the deadliest war in history should be longer than, say, an article on an eminently stupid movie (IMHO, of course). What this does suggest is that the list page should have a prose counter on it, which should be possible? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see you never explain who Robert Watt is -- he's linked (though only in the lead) but I think a parenthetical explanation of his position is necessary, in the body if not in the lead.
"The Mk. IV became obsolescent around 1943": "obsolescent" means "becoming obsolete"; wouldn't this be better as "obsolete", or "was obsolescent by"? Though if you stick with "obsolescent" it sounds like the date is probably earlier than 1943.
"The Dowding system relied on": I think the reader needs a more direct statement that this is the same thing as the "string of CH stations" mentioned in the previous paragraph. Is the Dowding system the same thing as the CH stations? It seems not because it "relied on a network of reporting stations", which I assume is the CH stations.
"Arnold Tustin was called in to consider the problem": can we have a descriptive word or two here, indicating that Tustin was an employee of Metrovick, as I would guess?
"Metrovick had been told to directly copy ("Chinese") the 1937 design by Percy Hibberd but they had delivered the wrong prototype to Metrovick, who copied it": who is the "they" who delivered the prototype to Metrovick?
"Further deliveries were not the Mk. IF and IIF models...": it took me a couple of seconds to realize that this refers to delivery of the Blenheims, not the radar units; it's confusing because of the common Mk. notation. How about "The first Blenheims delivered were the Mk. IF and IIF models; subsequent deliveries were of the Mk. IVF, with a longer nose."?
When Lovell says "'the apparatus is tripe even for a television receiver'" is he referring to the AI radar itself? So the fitters thought the radar was poor quality equipment? If so I think this should be made a bit clearer, since the context for the quote is the conditions, not the AI radar itself.
After reading this through a couple more times I'm going to strike my comment; I don't see any other sensible way to interpret this. I tried to come up with some explanatory wording to add to the introductory phrase, but couldn't find anything I liked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "locking timebase" in italics in the discussion of the AIL? I suspect it's because it's not known what this is, per the note at the end of the sentence. I think it might be better to move that note to right after "locking timebase"; that would give the reader an immediate answer to the question of why it's in italics.
Struck, because that works, but what I meant was to move the note to directly follow the words "locking timebase", still leaving it as a note. Either that or what you currently have is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"to appoint someone to command of the entire night fighting system": presumably should be "to command the".
Hanbury Brown is linked at second occurrence instead of first; when you change this, it would be good to give him a word or two of description ("one of the researchers", or "a senior physicist", or whatever's appropriate) since he's a significant figure in the rest of the article.
I have left the linking as-is because I think it makes more sense - the first instance is in passing, and the second is the main introduction. I added a statement about brown, but I'm not sure I like how it reads now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The linking is fine. Would parentheses work better than parenthetical commas? I also have a question about the following sentence. I'd assumed on first reading that the subject of "come up with" is "fitters", since that's what makes the grammar work. However, it seems plausible that the subject is "Hanbury Brown and Wood", in which case it should be "coming up with". Can you confirm it's right the way it is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... in an unsuccessful attempt to smooth them over. This attempt evidently failed": I'd suggest shortening this to "in an attempt to smooth them over, which evidently failed".
"due to the change from the long-nose IVF to the glass-nose IF and IIF": the earlier discussion seems to indicate that it was the other way round -- initial Blenheim deliveries were the IF and IIF, but the later deliveries were the IVF.
This isn't something you need to correct, but aesthetically I have to say I don't like the decision to bold the Mk. IV and subsequent MK numbers towards the end of the article. I don't think it's necessary, and it's visually distracting. However, I think this is within the range of editor discretion, so I wouldn't withhold support for this.
I have been involved in numerous threads over the last five years about this, and every time the consensus was to use bolding because links to that section should read like a sub-article. How is this not reflected in the MOS? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some ideas what's going on here Maury ... we'll work it out, it won't hold up promotion of the article. Can you give me a link to one of those discussions? - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Hanbury Brown stated that "it did everything that we had originally hoped that airborne radar would do for night-fighting", and notes that this was only a year after the first Mk. I's, but it felt like ten": mixed tenses here -- "stated" and "notes" should match tense.
The first mention of Dowding's nickname, "Stuffy", is in the quote from Bowen, with no explanation. How about making the introductory phrase "Bowen relates the outcome ("Stuffy" was Dowding's nickname):"?
"Bowen's demonstration of the early land-based radars against shipping had led to the Army ordering development as Coast Defence (CD) radars in 1936": I think another word or two is needed in the second half -- perhaps "ordering development of the technology as"?
I don't think that quite works; "development" needs to be "development of" something, unless you phrase it as "their development". This is the same thing that bothered me about "ordering development as", so I'm now wondering if this is a usage found in the sources that I'm unfamiliar with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"As attention turned back to the AI role": I'd suggest making this "As attention turned back to the airborne interception (AI) role", since you use this abbreviation several times later in the article, and readers unfamiliar with the topic may not recall the meaning of AI from the title of the article.
The GCI section ends with an uncited statement of the kill rate; I think this should be cited. To avoid a little redundancy in the phrasing I'd also suggest something like this: "in December 1940 the interception rate was 0.5%, by May 1941 with more stations and better familiarity, the interception rate had reached 7%, though the kill rate was lower, at around 2.5%."
"from then the UK would be subject to dramatically lower rates of bombing": I think the tense here is wrong, and I think "from then on" is more natural. How about "from then on the UK was subject to ..."?
In the picture of the Mosquito, I can't tell what part of the plane is the radome -- I've no background in this area. Is it the nose? Can the caption be more specific?
"However, the signal no longer had to travel from the RAF fighter and back again, which introduces a 4th power loss of energy as noted in the radar equation": I don't think you need the mention of the radar equation here -- you give a lay description of the advantage in the next sentence, which is sufficient. I'd go with "However, the signal no longer had to travel from the RAF fighter and back again; instead, the signals ..."
The paragraph starting "Homing on the enemy's broadcasts" is evidently intended to convey that the Mk. IV, which had been obsolescent, was given a new role by Serrate which it could fill better than the newer Mk. VII. However, you don't actually say this; I think it would better to be explicit.
"which began to arrive from Pye in late February to demonstrate a host of problems": I don't think this phrasing works; it didn't "arrive to demonstrate" the problems. How about "which began to arrive from Pye in late February, and immediately demonstrated a host of problems"?
Two sentences out of three start with "However" towards the end of "Mk. IVA and Mk. V". The paragraph mentions the microwave design in two different places; it might be better to simply mention it once, and say that concerns about delays allowed the Mk. V to go forward, but as the microwave project progressed the Mk. V was first delayed and ultimately cancelled. Can dates be given to any of those events, by the way?
"By this point, the RAF had significantly improved their deployment of GCI radar, had many more night fighter squadrons in service": looks like an incompletely edited sentence. Adding "and" before the second "had" would fix it.
"While the first raids were largely a surprise, and met by ineffective responses; on the first raid": a semi-colon can't be used with "while" in this way.
"the Tizard Mission, which left for the US in August 1940": according to our article it left in "late September", though the dates it gives are early September. Can you just confirm that the August date is correct?
Pardon my ignorance, but what was the IFF for? Why would you want to retransmit the radar signal? As it stands I don't see why this section is relevant to the article, but perhaps that just because I don't understand it at the moment.
"A new set was built by combining the transmitter unit from the latest ASV units with the EMI receiver and first flew in a Battle in May 1939": I don't think this quite works. How about "A new set, built by combining the transmitter unit from the latest ASV units with the EMI receiver, first flew in a Battle in May 1939"?
"The Luftwaffe also discovered this when they noticed aircraft laying mines" -- the discussion in this paragraph makes it appear that a decision was taken in August 1939 based on the Luftwaffe's minelaying behaviour. Were they laying mines prior to the war? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we make the first reference to Bawdsey Manor "Bawdsey Manor, in Suffolk", or "on the Suffolk coast"? It's not a place most readers will have heard of, and for UK readers at least this would help.
Until the discussion of the microwave development mentioned Dundee, I'd been under the impression that when the group moved from Dundee to Perth nothing was left in Dundee -- the discussion made it sound as though there was essentially no room there. Going back through I see that I misread it, but there a couple of clarifications that I think would help. First, you don't mention the AMRE ("The Dundee group, now known as the ... AMRE") untill after the discussion of Dundee with reference to the AI team. I think the existence of a relevant group in Dundee should be mentioned no later than the first mention of the AI team's shortlived move to Dundee University. Second, in the Mk. III paragraph you mention "the Dundee teams" and "the Dundee shops"; as far as I can see the reader doesn't know what these phrases mean at that point. Later you say "the main radar research teams in Dundee" which is certainly helpful but would be more useful earlier. And even after going back and forth to the different mentions of Dundee, I am not clear on who or what was moved from Dundee to St. Athan and what groups were left in Dundee.
A general comment -- at several points I found myself scanning back through the article to understand the timeline. Read sequentially, the dates are pretty clear, but when I tried to figure out (for example) when the move from Dundee to Cardiff occurred, it took me quite a bit of scrolling up and down to be sure it was 1939. Could you add the year to a couple more places in the story, so that the date context is quickly available when skimming? For example, I'd make it "when they arrived on 5 November 1939" in the "Emergency move" section; and the move to Worth Matravers is not given a date in the article.
"The newer VHF radios did not suffer these problems and the Blenheims were among the first aircraft to be fitted": what's the connection between these two statements? Did the Blenheims have the VHF radios, and that's why they were fitted, or was it just fortunate that the Blenheims, which happened to have the VHF radios, were among the first to get the AI radar?
"Pye had since gone on to form his own radio company, Pye Ltd. and were active in the television field": if it's Appleton and Pye who were active, I'd make this "and he and Appleton were active"; if it's the company, then I'd make it "who were active" (with British English requiring the company to be plural).
"This led to the formation of [...] under the direction of Richard Peirse. Peirse immediately began the formation of [...] which formed at RAF Tangmere on 10 April 1940": can we avoid having "formation" twice, and "formed", within a sentence and a half?
"At a 10 September meeting of the Committee, Dowding proposed that all Mk. IVs be sent to Beaufighters, which were just beginning to enter production in quantity." Can this be cited?
"In spite of all of these problems, at a May 2 meeting of the Night Interception Committee": another timing question: if the problems are all found in May, I don't think the committee's decision can be said to be in spite of the problems.
"Interest in the 1.5 m systems began to wane, right at the time that the animosity between Bowen and Rowe was at its maximum": the timing here appears to be after the 12 August demonstration, which seems out of sync with the information given earlier, which makes it appear that Bowen was already out of the AI research group by the end of March, and in July was invited to go on the Tizard Mission.
You've done some rewording in this area, which does help, but you still have the timeline jumping back and forth. I'm not saying things have to be strictly chronological, which would often be even more confusing, but when you do decide to go back and forth as you do in these paragraphs ("On 21 February 1940 .... In April .... The first test system was assembled on 12 August 1940 .... Rowe soon ... moved AMES once again ... the AI team arrived first in May 1940") the reader needs a tense change or other signal: "Rowe had earlier decided", or more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Arthur Tedder later admitted to Tizard on 24 January 1940 that": surely the date is wrong here? The events in question were in 1940, weren't they?
Then I'm completely confused. I thought Tedder was referring to events that were a consequence of the minimum range controversy, which are the topic of the previous few paragraphs. In fact, the date of his letter appears to predate everything discussed in that section -- e.g. the controversy appears once the Blenheims demonstrate long minimum range, which is in April 1940. What am I missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder is referring more to the use of the development team as installers than the minimum range issue. By forcing Bowen and the others to do installations through the fall and winter of 1939, while everyone knew the sets were not ready, development of solutions ended. This led to Dundee trying it on their own, and then, in turn, to Bowen and Rowe falling out. That process took several months to reach its conclusion of breaking up the AI team, as well as the EMI solution reaching the testing stage. Reading it over now, that does seem fairly clear in the text. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read through that section again, and I think the key sentence is "While working around the clock to install the remaining Mk. I sets at Perth and St Athan, the team had no time for further development of the electronics", which is towards the beginning of that section. Given your explanation, I can now see how to parse this section as you intended, but I don't think that a reader unfamiliar with the material would find the timeline easy to extract. I think a couple of minor changes would make this a lot clearer to the reader. Unless I've missed it, I don't think you explicitly say "the researchers were pulled off research work and added to the production effort" until the sentence I quote above, which doesn't actually say they were pulled into production; it just says there were working on production. That's the only sentence that refers to a time prior to April 1940 in the Mk. III section until you get to the reasons why Bowen is upset. I think the following might work, but this is just a suggestion:
Change "While working around the clock to install the remaining Mk. I sets at Perth and St Athan, the team had no time for further development of the electronics" to "Since <approx date in 1939>, the research team had been working around the clock at Perth and St Athan to install the remaining Mk. I sets, and had had no time for further development of the electronics". The date of the change is important, along with "had had" to help establish in the reader's mind that this is a long-standing problem by this time. If you have the sources to make a statement such as "X had insisted in <date> that the research team switch their focus from development to production" that would be even better.
Change "All of these moves" to "All of the moves" which I think eliminates some date confusion.
Change "admitted to Tizard on 24 January 1940" to "had pointed out the problems out to Tizard long before the problems came to a head, writing on 24 January 1940", making it clearer we're jumping back in time for Tedder's comments.
That's just a suggestion, but I thought it would be better to be concrete so you could see what I think needs doing, even if you don't like this solution. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
On another read through, I noticed this sentence: "... it would be up to Bowen's team to hand-assemble ..." which is relevant if "Bowen's team" means the research team as well as any fitters. If that's the case, perhaps a comment could be added here indicating that this would later lead to problems. Also, if I understand you correctly, the issues the letter refers to are spread out through the Mk. I, Pye strip, Emergency move, Mk. II, and Mk. III sections; the quote from Tedder, embedded in the Mk. III section, doesn't immediately declare itself as referring to the whole sequence of events to that point. So perhaps "had pointed out the problems, which had begun even before the move from Bawdsey, to Tizard long before then, writing on 24 January 1940". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Displays and interpretation" section, I think more explanation is needed -- the blips are just barely visible in thumbnail view, and I didn't notice them, so I assumed that the ground reflection was the blip, and clicked through to find out why there was a discrepancy between the caption and what I was seeing.
Many of the alphabetic endnotes are uncited; for some this is fine, as they are clearly comments about the sources, rather than facts taken from the sources (e.g. the "printer's error" comment in note b). However, a couple do seem to me to require citations -- h, l (second sentence), and o.
Well the link in H is the cite, I didn't see a reason to make the user click twice to get to the same place. As to L, how does one cite the statement that it doesn't exist? O is cited. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For H, any reason not to do this the usual way, and cite with a footnote and link it in the references list? I guess if you have some reason to prefer it this way I won't oppose, but I don't see any benefit to doing it like this. OK on L. O is now N, which is uncited; a note was moved into main text which changed the lettering. To be specific, can you cite the fact that there were 150 sets ordered? I don't think that it's controversial but it's not the sort of thing you'd put in without a source, so it might as well be cited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, sorry about the confusion on the lettering. The 150 is cited in the article, White p. 145. It's 80 from ASV and 70 from EKCO. The note is pointing out a problem in White, where he has one sentence adding to 150, and the very next only talking about 100. I'll make the note clearer.Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This meant that the homing device could only be used for the initial tracking of the target, the final approach would have to be carried out by radar": run-on sentence.
The part you changed isn't what was bothering me. How about "This meant that the homing device could only be used for the initial tracking of the target, and the final approach would have to be carried out by radar"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding one or two more points on another read through.
When Bowen's name is introduced in the body, he should be identified with a couple of words; "physicist", at least, and perhaps an indication of what group he was in prior to the AI group.
"and this 200 MHz setting would be common to many radar systems of this era" is uncited; I wouldn't withhold support for this, since I don't think it's controversial, but if you have a citation to hand I'd suggest adding it.
Done, re-worded intro and added a ref for other uses.
More generally, why do we have so much information about GCI in this article? Does it bear directly on the Mk. IV? I can see it's a critical part of the development of radar and of the British war effort, but what's the relevance here?
Ahhh. Well to boil it right down, AI was essentially useless without GCI radar. Using CH the radar operators had to engage in a lengthy process to convert range and bearing to grid coordinates, and then call those into the filter room. By they time they had done this, the aircraft had moved. This is one of the reasons that CH was only good to about 5 miles. Now add to this a similar limitation measuring and reporting the location of the fighter. So you ended up with two five-mile wide circles, and had to have them overlap in space to within maybe 3 miles. And since they're coming from different radars, or even huff-duff, the five mile error isn't even the same five miles. Operators had to look at the map, try to guess the actual locations, and then tell the pilots how to turn to close the distance. Good luck with that!
With GCI both aircraft appear on the same screen. There is no need to report the locations to anyone, and the intercept angle is right there on the screen. There is an error in measure, but it's always the same error for both. And since much of the error is due to time delays, the fact that GCI measures both every few seconds basically eliminates that as well.
Very basically, AI simply didn't work without GCI as well. And that didn't change until the 1960s when you had things like AIRPASS that so greatly extended the range of the AI that the fighter could hunt on their own.
OK, I follow this now. There's a statement at the start of the "End of the Blitz" section that says this; I guess I didn't understand this the first time through. I think it would be good to make clearer the importance of the combination of "AI Mk. IV, the Beau and GCI". I'll think about it and see if I can suggest anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this the more important this sentence seems. Can a version of it be put into the lead? The story of the article is not just of the technical development of the radar, but of its operational implementation, and if its true that this combination was what finally made the radar a valuable weapons system, then that needs to be in the lead. I'm not sure it shouldn't be given more prominence in the body, too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you've added to the lead works very well. Could we also add a strengthening sentence to the GCI section? I think part of my original problem with the GCI section was the sentence "Their effect on the battle was as profound as AI itself", which implies that AI had a big impact, and so too, independently, did GCI, making me wonder why it was in this article. Could we make this something like you said above: "The combination of GCI, the Mk. IV AI radar, and the more powerful night fighters enabled AI to have a profound effect on the battle"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"To ensure continued supply, in 1940 a destroyer was sent on a secret mission to pick up 25,000 more EF50's and another 250,000 bases, onto which Mullard could build complete tubes": this is a flash-forward, and I think a bit of rephrasing might be good. The timing in relation to the German invasion of Holland also seems relevant. How about something like: "The EF50s became key components of ..., and to ensure continued supply, the following year a destroyer was sent on a secret mission to pick up 25,000 more EF50s and another 250,000 bases, onto which Mullard could build complete tubes. The shipment left the Netherlands just days before the German invasion on 15 May 1940."?
I'm confused about the timing of events in the Mk. III section. It seems the minimum range controversy came to head after the experimental fitting to 20 Blenheim IFs in April 1940, and the IIIA and IIIB efforts were presumably begun at about that time. Then the team at St Athan "heard of this". What exactly did they hear of that upset them? That other researchers were working on the same gear, cutting them out of the research work and leaving them working on production? Tizard hears of complaints and visits Dundee, and the memo dated 29 March 1940 is after that -- so that's before any aircraft have been fitted with the Mk. III. The only way this makes sense is that the minimum range controversy blew up well before testing in the aircraft. If that's correct, then I think some rewording is needed so the timeline is clearer.
Installations of the earlier Mks took place starting around October and continued as the sets arrived, right through the winter into 1940. The range issue came up in the middle of this and proceeded in parallel. The memo in question is after all of this - as is typical for the slow grinding of bureaucracy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that doesn't quite address the point I meant to raise. The complaints are before the memo, of course; but the events in the prior paragraph are given explicit dates, and are after the memo (and hence after the complaints). So starting the paragraph with "When the team at St Athan heard of these developments" is confusing; the referent for "these events" is evidently not "everything that happened in the prior paragraph", but the reader is not clear what the referent is, so some clarification is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I've nailed it now. The basic issue is Lewis started work on the problem while Bowen was still too busy installing to fix it himself, never told Bowen he was doing it, and (according to Bowen) basically oversold the problem to Lardner and others specifically to create a tempest in a teapot. So read it over again with that in mind and see if this version runs more smoothly now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does it, so I've struck the point that started this conversation. Re your question: does the "extended period of installation development and testing" come before or after February 1942? Depending on the answer, how about "with the first production version requiring an extended period of installation development and testing and hence not arriving until February 1942", or "with the first production version arriving in February 1942, and subsequently requiring an extended period of installation development and testing"?Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate the compliment (as I also appreciate your copyediting of my own nominations). There are times when being OCD has its uses, but mostly I find the better the articles are, the easier it is to motivate myself to do a really thorough review -- and this is an outstandingly good article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a terrific piece of work, integrating a long and complicated story over an extended period, including the human, technical and military history. I have not looked at the images or done a source check, and I'm not really qualified to judge the comprehensiveness of the article, but I see no gaps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing I want to do is distract you from looking at a FAC (I say "fack", some say "F.A.C.") that you're interested in ... but when a nominator hasn't had a chance to respond yet to a wall-full of requests, piling on more requests might reduce their enthusiasm. So, you may want to go easy (or even help with some of Mike's requests above, if you like, I'm sure it will be appreciated). - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Meanwhile, Hibberd...": This para is confusing because the new value is quoted in metres, then the old value is mentioned in MHz, saying this would be used for many following radar systems. Then another value in metres, and then that last value is repeated in MHz saying this would be common to many systems of this era. It took me some time, and looking for other mentions of 45 MHz including the later Pye strip section, to understand what was meant. It may be enough to say 1.25 m (250 MHz) for the first value, since then the reader can follow the frequency values and does not lose track of the distinction between intermediate and operating frequency.
"Gun Laying radar systems": is Gun Laying a proper name?
Gun Laying is indeed a proper name in this case, it's the British Army term for these sorts of radars. They were later changed to Radar, AA, but that was some time in 1942/43. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"nor had any obvious effect on their economic output": I didn't really like "their" in this context, but "it" is already used for the Luftwaffe air campaign. I think we could simply omit "their": "However, it had also failed to bring the country to peace talks, nor had any obvious effect on economic output."
"At the end of May the Germans called off The Blitz": "The Blitz" here and elsewhere, but "the Blitz" in the section title. It looks as if the section title needs to be "End of The Blitz".
"The antenna array of the original Mk. IV was limited by practical factors to be somewhat shorter than the 75 cm that would be perfect for their 1.5 m signals. However, the Lichtenstein operated at 75 cm, making the Mk. IV's antennas almost perfectly suited to pick them up.": I suggest avoiding the repetition of "perfect" and adding "as well" at the end of the sentence, may help the reader to get it first time through. Thus: "The antenna array of the original Mk. IV was limited by practical factors to be somewhat shorter than the 75 cm that would be ideal for their 1.5 m signals. However, the Lichtenstein operated at 75 cm, making the Mk. IV's antennas almost perfectly suited to pick them up as well."
"and the FIU's testing revealed... and a RAE": two "and"s here are a bit clumsy, I suggest a colon to delimit the main clause: "...were ironed out: the FIU's..."
Please provide alt text for the images: this describes the contents of the images for vision-impaired readers (for example, "Five airmen loading an ammunition belt onto a twin-engined aircraft", as opposed to the caption which says exactly what the picture illustates). --Mirokado (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of where I find Visual Editor useful. If you double click on an image while editing, you get a dialog where you can edit the caption and alt text. --Mirokado (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the licences and most seem OK (detailed provenance from UK or in one case US government, one OTRS ticket, a couple of suitable licenses. Please could someone check the following: the licence assertion is OK but a detailed provenance (IWM reference number or whatever) is missing:
Not wanting to be awkward here, but the other review didn't explicitly mention licensing, and since I have a question about three of the images, I will appreciate a specific "yes, they are ok" (or whatever) answer. --Mirokado (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Avro_Anson_K8758.jpg: image taken in 1937 by someone who was a UK government employee at the time - PD-UKGov is correct. File:Blenheim1.jpg: source doesn't give specific author but identifies all images on the page as being PD (RAF site). File:Hawker_Typhoon_Mk.IV_radar.jpg is the only questionable one - is there a better source to support the licensing and authorship? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After a few edits to the article from Maury and myself, the current state is worse than the original! I can live with the original if necessary, but of course prefer the change I made! Please sort that out somehow. --Mirokado (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and recusing from my FAC coordinator role. The article is a fascinating read. Could the nominator quickly address the remaining issue, check the references for doubled periods ( I saw one ?ref 32) and an odd "p=" (ref 85). Lastly, please review the usage of "also"; I am not convinced that all of them are needed. Graham Beards (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maury has made some fixes, as noted up above in this section. I fixed the "p=" and I think that addresses everything on Graham's list. @Mirokado: can you be specific about the change you are unhappy with? I'd be glad to try to help fix it as I think this is a very deserving article but I need to know what you think is wrong. @Maury Markowitz:, I think you still need to specify the chapter for the ref mentioned by Mirokado just above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that such a trivial point is causing a delay here. The sentence appearing just after the references and before the citations was, when I commented on it:
Specifications in the infobox taken from AP1093D, para 25.
I effectively requested two changes. The first is to add the chapter to the reference details. The sentence with that correction would be:
Specifications in the infobox taken from AP1093D, Chapter 1, para 25.
For tidiness, it would be better to add the year too, since all the other AP1093D references have it:
Specifications in the infobox taken from AP1093D 1946, Chapter 1, para 25.
For complete consistency as I would think of it, I also requested that we use template:harvnb to link this reference to the citation, by which I meant:
Specifications in the infobox taken from {{harvnb|AP1093D|1946|loc=Chapter 1, para 25}}. Bibliography * {{Cite book ... | ref = {{SfnRef|AP1093D|1946}} ...}}
I will be happy with either of the last two examples (and happier with the last). Unfortunately we have ended up using sfn instead of harvnb to link the reference, which means that a spurious reference is generated at the end of the external links section. I already tweaked that sentence once so I can't make the necessary change myself (well of course I physically can, but should not, to preserve independence as a reviewer). --Mirokado (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mirokado, the use of templates when transcluded in a FAC which is then transcluded to FAC archives causes the archives to exceed template limits, resulting in some FACs being chopped when the archives are long. For this reason, transcluded templates are discouraged in the FAC instructions. Could you possibly remove the talkquote templates above and replace them with straight text? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"No description of what a locking timebase might be is found in any of the references; the possibility of lock-follow can be discounted, as this did not appear until a year later and was named AIF." -- this really should be a footnote I think.
All paragraphs should generally end with citations; two in Baedeker Blitz do not as yet.
Ian, I've removed one uncited sentence; the other ("their shortcomings were on the way to being addressed") seems to me to be narrative connective tissue, and is not controversial given the cited information around it. I'm not sure why Maury hasn't addressed these points, but I recall what it's like to be exhausted by a long FAC and I hope it's OK if I respond -- I would hate to see this miss promotion for such a minor issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Mike, the one you removed was the main thing -- I saw your source spotcheck and reliability comment below, tks. Graham, I noticed you mentioned harv errors at the top of the nom, if you're okay with source formatting in general then pls let me know here, and we can wrap this up while it's still 2014... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss a source review for formatting and reliability above?
Also I realise how late in the day it is for this nom but I notice now that it's been quite a long time between FAs for Maury, so we really should have a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If no volunteers from current watchers for the last two I'll post requests at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Ian, but if I were considering closing this FAC, I would find this response wanting. Have all the points he raised been fully addressed? And, Ian is asking for a spotcheck; this has not been done. Graham Beards (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a spotcheck for close paraphrasing. I don't have access to hardcopy of any of the sources, but I was able to find some in Google Books. I checked about half-a dozen and found nothing that was a cause for concern for close paraphrasing. Sources I checked include Bowman, Bowen, Hanbury Brown and Lovell.
As for reliability, all the sources look fine to me. Some are personal reminiscences by the participants, rather than third party assessments, but the article takes the appropriate care with those sources and the distinctions are visible to the reader. Where I can judge, the sources look impeccable. I have not checked for formatting as I'm terrible at that myself, but I noticed no errors. However, the PDF links for White are no longer functional, so I've commented them out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Smyth Report, the first official administrative history written on the development of the first atomic weapons. The image of the book is that of my own copy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN13: this is formatted with the title as a second author
FN5: think it would make more sense to cite the Grove foreword specifically here, rather than the report generally
Re point 2: yes, I don't doubt that. What I'm suggesting is something along these lines:
Groves, Leslie (1945). "Foreword". In Smyth, Henry DeWolf (ed.). Atomic Energy for Military Purposes; the Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb under the Auspices of the United States Government, 1940–1945. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-1722-9.
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
In leads in my articles, I've copied a sentence or two from the text without any hesitation ... but I think the following probably won't fly at FAC, with the part in the text coming just three paragraphs after the lead:
In the lead: "The Smyth Report served two functions. First, it was to be the official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons. Second, it served as an indicator for other scientists as to what information was declassified. Anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available, such as the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
In the text: "The Report was to serve two functions. First, it was to be the public official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs ... and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons, in particular nuclear fission and the nuclear chain reaction. Second, it served as a barometer for other scientists as to what information was declassified—anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available in declassified literature, such as much of the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
"easier to imagine unexpected printing problems resulting in himself and his workers returning from summer vacation to find themselves locked out of a plant filled with top secret material": Give that one another shot, please.
Image check - 2 images with problems all OK (fixed Russian cover info)
File:Richard_Tolman_and_Henry_D._Smyth.jpg - do you have a page number for the source here? The PDF has 650+ pages and loads with like 1 page per minute. Also, author is "US Army", but PD is "United States Department of Energy". Is one of it wrong?
No. Property of the Manhattan Project passed to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1947. It became the Energy Research and Development Administration in 1974, which was absorbed into the Department of Energy in 1977. Added the page number. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian cover (last image) - this one has several problems:
Date should be date of the book (1946).
The author field should name the original author and possibly the editor of the translation: G. Ivanova (unless Google translate screwed something up here), the full Russian publication info from Wikisource is "Г. Д. Смит. Атомная энергия для военных целей. Официальный отчёт о разработке атомной бомбы под наблюдением правительства США. Перевод с английского под редакцией Г. Н. Иванова. Государственное транспортное железнодорожное издательство. Москва — 1946", translated as: "original title" plus "Translation from English, edited by G. Ivanova. Public transport rail publishing. Moscow - 1946".
The cover is not "own work" and can't be released under CC, neither by Russian Wikisource nor by us (unless the copyright owner would have released it first). A possible license could be Commons:template:PD-text for non-original texts with simple geometric shapes.
Support Comments -- recusing myself from FAC coord duties, copyedited as usual, other points:
I think the first sentence would read better as "The Smyth Report is the common name of an administrative history written by physicistHenry DeWolf Smyth about the Manhattan Project, the Allies' effort to develop the atomic bomb during World War II."
Also in the lead, the third para follows so naturally from the second that I feel they could easily be merged into one -- just a thought though, I feel less strongly about this than about rewriting the first sentence.
"In the fall of 1943..." -- I don't have an issue with seasonal references in ancient or medieval histories but can we not avoid them here?
The problem is that this is what Smyth says in the source. Being an academic, he thought in terms of semesters. I went back to the primary document, but it says the same thing. I cannot find a more accurate timing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The stated purpose of the Smyth Report was to provide sufficient information to citizens to permit them to make sensible policy decisions regarding the new atomic weapons." -- the only citation following this is Smyth, after the quote from his preface that follows, so I presume this is just to summarise the quote. Perhaps it's pedantic but I'd prefer to see a secondary source cited for the purpose, otherwise why not just quote Smyth without editorialising and let the readers make up their minds?
Similarly, "This contrasted somewhat with what Groves wrote in the foreword" -- the only citation that follows is Groves himself after the quote so I assume it's your interpretation of Groves' words. Again, unless a secondary source highlights the discrepancy, I'd expect to just see Groves' words stand by themselves, introduced by simply "Groves wrote in the foreword:".
"Smyth passed security clearances necessary to visit project sites, access documents and to discuss the work with the research personnel. He also approved Smyth's request to hire another Princeton physicist, Lincoln G. Smith, as a research assistant." -- something missing here; the first sentence mentions Smyth alone, so who approved Smyth's request for Smith?
Background para 1. I've read this several times and still struggle to understand it. Is the first sentence a summary of the others? The first confusion is "Henry DeWolf Smyth was a physicist from Princeton University"; I read this as meaning that he'd been there in the past, perhaps studying. Use "at" instead of "from", or "employed by" / "working for"? "insisting that Smyth work part-time at Princeton"... what was he before (full? Not at Princeton?)? "Dodds had commitments to teach Army and Navy personnel"... surely it was the university, not Dodds? "Smyth therefore became a consultant at Chicago, [...] and commuted from Princeton"... I'm now completely lost: what's the chronology of everything in this para? It needs to be a lot clearer.
Well that would be right. Henry D. Smyth was indeed a Princeton alumnus of (AB 1918, PhD 1921). He was a professor of physics (but not the Henry D. Smyth Professor of Physics), and the chairman of the physics department. Added words to this effect. The paragraph is in struct chronological order. Hawkeye7 (talk)
It's clearer. The only remaining point is his Princeton status prior to going pt. The implication is that he wasn't working there, but there's the apparent contradiction of his being there from 1935 to 1949. EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having written dozens of biographies of academics, all I can say is that this is quite normal, especially for senior ones. They hold a paid position at a university, but take sabbaticals and work somewhere else. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the President of Harvard University and among the senior administrators". Changing "among" to "one of" would make it easier to understand.
"it served as a barometer for other scientists". A barometer is a scientific instrument, so this is not the best choice of word. "yardstick" from the lead is also idiomatic.
"it was to be the public and official U.S. government history"; this is directly contradicted by the preface: "It is neither a documented official history".
Take 2: didn't the risks arise directly from the circumstances, making the inclusion of both in this sentence unnecessary? i.e. the circumstances were just the situation, not a separate set of factors in addition to the basic situation. EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"McGraw-Hill about publishing it. The editors at McGraw Hill". Hyphenated or not?
A separate question: is it just coincidental that "nearly 127,000 copies in its first eight printings" = "Between 1946 and [...] 1973, it sold 62,612 paperback and 64,129 hardback copies" (both are nearly 127,000)? EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Smyth Report was translated into over 40 different languages.[30] The report was also published by the Government Printing Office, the Infantry Journal, and His Majesty's Stationery Office, and was the October 1945 issue of Reviews of Modern Physics." Shouldn't this be in the Publication section?
Eddie, I checked the first 20 or so things above, and your recommendations are generally really good ... I hope you enjoy reviewing at FAC and keep coming back ... I see from your talk page that you're also proficient at writing. Just a few points:
Idiomatic (in this context) usually means "peculiar to or characteristic of a given language" or "characterized by proficient use of idiomatic expressions".
I was going for "especially those [constructions, etc.] considered nonstandard or colloquial" and "established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from the meanings of the individual words" (OED). EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there's the problem. OED is great for history, but there are a bunch of dictionaries (BrEng, AmEng and others) that are better at tracking actual usage. (And OED considers this a feature, not a bug ... they aim to be conservative.) For BrEng, see for instance "containing expressions that are natural and correct" and "Using, containing, or denoting expressions that are natural to a native speaker". I think if you're going to be one of those guys (like I am!) who asks people to use words more accessible to a broad readership, then it's fair for me to ask you not to use "idiomatic" in a negative sense in reviews ... nominators are bewildered enough at FAC as it is :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OED includes those definitions, so "idiomatic" is not the best choice, as you mention. Longman (formed from studying usage) includes my version as a definition and the BNC has examples from real use, too, but I'll abandon it. I might try "gratuitously casual", "unnecessarily metaphorical", or the dull "unencyclopedic tone" instead... EddieHugh (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can probably insist at FAC that writers avoid inapt or mixed metaphors. You seem to be asking for more than this ... could you clarify where you draw the line? For instance, is it okay to write "draw the line"? What's wrong with "could not fathom"?
It's hazy. My starting point is the reader's perspective and I don't assume that that person's English is excellent. I'm fond of "fathom", but it is old-fashioned. One question on where to draw the line (on drawing the line and others) is: Why use a word / phrase that many readers will not understand, when there are readily understandable alternatives? EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On your second bullet point, see MOS:REDIR: "The advantage of redirects over piped links is that they allow us to determine which pages link to the given topic using Special:WhatLinksHere". - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a few mini reviews here. I get put off a bit because articles appear to be passed once some basic checks and proof reading have been done, or because nominators expect reviewers to drag an inadequate article up to a reasonable standard. I might specialize on one aspect, as others do; perhaps on ease of reading, although I don't relish the confrontational facets that surface when (in my view) an article is fundamentally flawed and nominators want a list of faults (in the proof reading style) to correct. EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding nominators expecting you to do the work ... some wikiprojects and individuals get it and some don't, you'll find over time who you're most happy working with. As frustrating as FAC can be sometimes ... if you like looking at prose, then reviewing at FAC can be a very satisfying experience. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Maralia
I fixed a couple of very minor typos.
Can you clarify what flavor of English is intended? I see both 'organisation' and 'organization', and 'World War II' and 'endeavor' but dmy dates. I'm not fussed about the Engvar per se; mostly just confused.
It should be in US English. I've switched the dates to mdy because that was the form used in the Smyth Report (and, after some checking, was the article's original form back in 2004). It sticks out a bit, because the Manhattan Project normally used US military format (dmy). Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is a single PhD student's dissertation really the only significant modern analysis that links the Smyth Report's narrow focus to the public perception that the Manhattan Project was mostly about physics? That seems a bit lightweight as the sole evidence for a conclusion stated in the lead of the article. Surely there is more out there on this?
I noted that you've cited a blog, and wanted to comment that I'm satisfied that it meets WP:RS as it's written by a well qualified scientist who is meticulous in citing his sources.
John Barrymore was a truly, truly great actor. Possibly the finest thespian America has ever produced, his 1925 Hamlet was a huge success and he was lauded by fellow thesps such as John Gielgud and Orson Welles; the production was so ground-breaking that it is a still model for modern performances. Behind the mask of Barrymore the actor lay a very different and damaged creature who had been an alcoholic from the age of 14. His drinking, and his destructive behaviour wrecked four marriages, his career and his reputation. He ended his career playing parodies of himself in shoddy B-movies in order to pay off some of monumental debts.
This article has been through a root and branch re-write over the last few months, followed by a thorough copyedit and review to Americanise my rather British writing; an excellent cast turned up at the peer review recently, and I hope I've done justice to their thoughts. Any and all constructive comments regarding the article are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I gave an image review at the PR. However, two new images have been added since then that I'm not too sure of, namely File:Arsene Luipin still.jpg and File:Romeo and Juliet scene 3.jpg. It looks like We hope has used a standard template from posters (which generally have the copyright notice on the front) rather than film stills such as these (which, if they have a notice, is liable to have them on the back). If the source included both sides, this wouldn't be a problem, but since Dr Macro only includes the one side, we can't be too sure that the images truly are free. The third new image at least has evidence that it was published elsewhere without a copyright notice... but these two, no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Doctor Macro's Arsene Lupin page-the poster/lobby card came from there only because it has no copyright marks. This is Doctor Macro's page for Romeo and Juliet--nothing came from there. They're derived from the 2 posters/lobby cards. We hope (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd note that you are basing this off of the stills' use in the posters (rather than just including the image and expecting others to realize "yeah, this is how it's PD"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea re: doing something like this came to me recently when some non-free stills for The Temptress had to go, copyright check showed the film was renewed and the Lantern magazine were no help. I'll need to go back and make all of the stills derived from posters and lobby cards a little more obvious as to how they came to be. We hope (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all your help at PR, both on the prose, but largely on the images, which are always a ticky area!. (Thanks also to We hope for your work in tracking down the copyrights, and finding new images!) cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I see with considerable surprise that this article runs to getting on for 12,000 words. Well, it doesn't seem at all too long, and reading it a third time for this FAC review was a pleasure (except for "authored" in Legacy – ouch!). The text meets all the FA criteria, in my view: the prose is good, the balance judicious, the presentation neutral, and the focus firmly on the essential, with a leavening of just the right amount of personal detail to bring the man to life on the page. The images are excellent (though I note the exchange above) and very much to the point. I think a round of applause is called for. – Tim riley talk10:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Admittedly I did spend a few hours looking through newspapers.com on this and made some minor additions to try to fill in some gaps I saw but as it has been so impeccably well-researched it was difficult to add anything of real substance without bloating it. I'm convinced now that this has been researched as well as reasonably possible and is a wonderful summary of a core American actor. It's clearly had a lot of research put into it (8 biographies and numerous news sources I believe) and I think there's a fine balance here. Great job Schro and everybody involved with the peer review. Normally I would object to an infobox but perhaps in his case with numerous wifes and family it makes it less confusing having them there for reference. If there is support to remove it though I'm not going to argue with it!♦ Dr. Blofeld10:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. OVERLINKING ignores image captions etc, where additional links can be used. As I've used links in other captions where applicable, I've gone for one here on the grounds of consistancy; it looked a little odd being the only image without such a link when I previewed the addition. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Use a consistent date format
FN59: DC?
Quotes within quote marks should be single quotes (eg " 'Fortune Hunter' ")
FN140 doesn't match other newspapers
Fn149 should be endash
Compare FNs 160 and 170
FN191 is missing location
FN218: is this a web source or something else?
FN216 requires subscription and should be tagged as such
FN210, 211: publisher shouldn't be italicized - check for others
Support. I copy-edited this article at the start of the PR and have watched subsequent changes for American English idioms and spelling, as well as prose generally. I agree with Tim riley's comments above: this is a well-researched, well-written, balanced, readable, nicely illustrated study of this important actor, and I support its promotion to PR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Ssilvers, your huge help in Americanising the prose was enlightening in places, and hugely useful in improving the article. Many, many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (subject to resolution of all image and sourcing issues): Barrymore belonged to my parents' and grandparents' generation, and I've never seen any of his films, but I had heard of him. He seems to be one of those actors – possibly Orson Welles was another – who conducted their careers in reverse: from bang to whimper and then silence. I have learned a great deal more from this very thorough article, on which I had a lot to say (mainly quibbles) at peer review. I've nothing to add now, beyond my contribution to the escalating murmers of satisfaction. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all the work you did at PR Brian: the article would have any of the polish or lustre it has, were it not for your fine eye earlier. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1921, in The Lotus Eater, Barrymore portrayed a wealthy Frenchman in New York." − There is no mention that this is a film. Also, you might mention that JB's co-star was Colleen Moore, who said of him: "He was almost unbearable handsome. In my first love scene with him in The Lotus Eater, I was so overwhelmed I froze." (Source: Moore, Colleen (1968). Silent Star. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc. p. 112. ASINB0006BTYIM.)
I've added the film element and Moore. I'm not sure about the quote: it doesn't add much to the image we have of the man (especially given the number of pictures we've got of him here). - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After completing his Warner Bros. contract with When a Man Loves, alongside Costello, Barrymore joined United Artists (UA) under a three-film deal. For the next three years, according to Morrison, he "enjoyed unprecedented prosperity and spent lavishly"." − Why are the titles of the first two of these films reduced to a footnote? All three were very elaborate productions so I think more should be made of them in the main text. I think also that it should be note that JB played François Villon in The Beloved Rogue (and check out this review of the film by the highly distinguished film historian William K. Everson).
Only because we have to prune the details somewhere. He appeared in 46 plays and 62 films, so we have to trim some of these out if we're to keep it balanced and readable. The links to the films are still there, and much of the detail can rest within those specific articles. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Word about Barrymore's problems on and off the set spread around the industry, and he did not work on another film for over a year, when he had a supporting role in Maytime." − Could it be mentioned that Maytime was an extremely elaborate Jeanette MacDonald-Nelson Eddy operetta? Jimknut (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that it was a musical: I think the key in terms of the Barrymore story here is that he had slipped into supporting roles as his condition worsened: I'm not sure that adding too much info about the film helps retain the focus on that part of his story. As always, it's linked for people to find out more if they want to. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Support This is a fine article on John Barrymore-it gives equal treatment to his talents and to his troubled personal life. I've learned a lot about both the actor and the man while reading this. He died long before most of us were born, so we need articles like this to give us a proper "introduction". We hope (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks We Hope! Your thoughts here and at PR were a great help - especially in solving the copyright questions and issues. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Abductive
I find that there is an excessive use of the "According to ..." construction. There seem to be three biographers of Barrymore; Morrison, Norden, and Peters. I would prefer that no biographer's or newspaper's name appear in the lead, since the lead is supposed to be a summary, not a place for quotes and cluttering details. I would prefer that biographer's names only be mentioned where one is saying something that none of the others are; if a sentence represents consensus, then nobody's name in particular needs to be cluttering up the article inline. Abductive (reasoning)04:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction, there are seven biographers (and the autobiography as well). I find that quite often a quote without identification can be misleading, vague or just insufficient. Sometimes we need to identify the source of a particular quote, without making visitors break their reading to establish who it was that said something. Having said that, I will go through to ensure that the use in each case is justified, or if some can be pruned. In terms of the lead, the quotes there quite appropriately: they are bold statements about the person and his position in the history of American theatre, so I am happy they remain; being such bold statements, I think we do need to provide some attribution as to the source. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: I am aware of the encyclopaedic approach, which does not necessarily eschew the use of quotes; indeed, out MoS is quite clear on the matter in WP:CITELEAD. The quotes in the lead (and elsewhere in the article), have certainly not been 'strung together' here, but the use has been carefully considered. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution of quotes is fair enough in principle, I'm actually more concerned with how often the phrase "according to" is used -- in successive short paragraphs, and even in successive sentences in Early life -- so perhaps the words could be altered in a couple of places at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Ian Rose. I had meant to do this previously, but better late than never! I trimmed most of them out: swapped some, and just cut a few others completely. Let me know if that suits, or if you've like a little more work done. CHeers - SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's plenty, tks. Will leave the review open a bit longer to see if there's any further comments on this or other aspects; unless any issues crop up I'd expect to close this by EOM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Less than neutralSupport FAC - for comprehensiveness, images, sources and writing. (the below isn't to hold this hostage so I am !voting -adding support or oppose in the FAC polling now). Doesn't not need my support. I see some ownership issues from the nominating editor and a heavy dose of attitude. This will pass without my support so I don't feel there is any issue in changing my cote from a lack of cooperation and collaboration from the nominator.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick scan shows a really wonderful looking article that seems very comprehensive at a glance. I am going to do a more detailed look but the most immediate thing that comes to mind here is; As important as Barrymore is in the family line of performers and as important as the Barrymore family and the collateral lines are to American theatre and film, I feel this article really needs a family tree. I would very much like to attempt a family tree in the legacy section to show the genealogy of the family line. Articles about the patriarchs and/or matriarchs are especially good places for the EV of the tree.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about a family tree, but decided against it in the end. As you say, the article is about John Barrymore, not the remainder of the family. We link to the Barrymore family in a couple of places, and there is an extensive tree in that article. There's also an image of a tree too, but I think that is less useful.I think the main tree is in the right place (in the Barrymore article), and I'm not sure inflating the Legacy section would be the right move, it would certainly mean getting rid of the existing image, and dropping in a block of text to explain the connections to less connected members, only to justify a tree that isn't needed: we cover the important individuals in JB's life without the need of a tree so far, and the inclusion of one would be a backward step I feel. Many thanks for your thoughts on this point, and I look forward to your closer read. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree and think just removing a good faith addition in a FAC without very solid reasons within guidelines, policy and procedure or at least a consensus of editors is just not a good idea. Disagreeing with the addition and asking to form a consensus is the normal right. The tree I created specifically for the John Barrymore article is extremely tight and small and nothing like the massive and confusing tree you point to on a page that has multiple issues. The legacy section would not be inflating the Legacy section and the choice of wording describing that content is not very civil to be honest. First, the family tree has direct relevance to the legacy section as each step in the tree is a part of that legacy. Each person is discussed at length and John Barrymore is one of the patriarchs of the family where such information will be looked for and where such a graphic illustration would be both expected and have good encyclopedic value. I believe the inclusion is an improvement from the explanation given above.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not edit war to force the issue: this thread will discuss the matter much better without the upset to the article. I will address your above points shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel if you disagreed with the content that is verifiable and are requesting proof of my burden of evidence that would be one thing, but you were basing off your own opinion. It is actually easy enough to quickly deal with. This is a good faith contribution to what I see an important encyclopedic listing of a very notable part of a theatrical dynasty. My only real objection was the removal on FAC without discussion. There may sometimes be improvements you don't agree with that others do, but if a consensus of editors is for exclusion I can accept that of course.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether an article is at FAC or not is immaterial. Any editor can add or subtract to articles, and that edit can be reverted. That was the case here. I had already put forward an objection that you ignored when you added the overly bloated tree. I am happy I did not transgress any guidelines or policies in removing it. You did when you edit warred to force it back in, when there was no consensus to have to there in the first place. I have already given some reasons why I object to the tree, but I am happy to open it up to others to form a consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The question of whether an article is at FAC or not is immaterial" Incorrect. it is especially important to be on our best behavior. I re-added the tree because you removed verifiable content for no reason other than "You just didn't like it". You also say: "Any editor can add or subtract to articles, and that edit can be reverted." Of course, which is what I did. I have not crossed the three revert rule. That would be a violation of policy. Reverting a revert does not follow BRD, but is not against policy, especially when you are not following the spirit or intention of BRD yourself. BRD is not an excuse to revert by itself. Consensus does not have to be reached before adding content. What we have is an good faith contribution that even another editor below feels was an improvement. You removed it but gave no basis in policy. You actually erred when you reverted me the second time only because you then should have allowed it to remain until consensus excluded it or accepted it. Requiring consensus before adding content is not within policy to require. Deleting content on an article is not best practice if it can be improved or if it is acceptable. We all have differing views, but to keep things out in this manner can be seen as ownership. I am sure it would not bother you if consensus was for it to remain and could live with whatever the consensus is, as I can.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Mark, the fact it's at FAC means nothing as far as editing etiquette goes, and there was no need for you to re-insert material that had been taken out. You also misrepresent me when you claim I reverted on the basis that I do not like it: I have said no such thing and had begun to outline my thoughts above which you ignored when you re-inserted the table. - SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, Gavin is right. The table is in the process of being discussed and it is not acceptable for you to shoehorn it in devoid of any consensus. I like the idea of a tree, but I'm not so sure it is of any relevance to John, more so his family, which this article is not about. I have indicated this below in my post. Cassiantotalk10:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry but that is incorrect. I also did not try to shoehorn it in while discussion was underway. It was removed with no real reasoning. I made a talk page (FAC) discussion and made my intention to add the tree (boldly) and there was no opposition while I took a few hours to make it. I didn't whip it out and shove it down his throat. Now, when he noticed it and saw the discussion he should have realized it was there and a discussion was underway and not removed it until the consensus was for the removal. Now, I believe it is relevant to John as one of the patriarchs of a famous theatrical dynasty and I stand by that.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I started the discussion and you commented an hour and a half later just about when I was adding it to the article. And whether you understand it or not, yeah....you do have to have a consensus to remove something. If I added it and you removed it, that means you don't want it and I did want it...that is no consensus. Don't you get that? The content should have stayed until a discussion. if a dispute arises that cannot be settled it would be returned to the last stable version. Is that you intent? to raise this to a level of a dispute? I'm not. I am just explaining that you were wrong for removing it once the proper discussion was made. Right now there is no consensus but you were the one who removed it. I added the content. There is no consensus for the removal.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't need to have the content in the article, my objection is on its removal without discussion and only because of opinion and not over policy or guidelines. As I said, if it is a good faith improvement that you may object to, it should be discussed not deleted unless it violates our standards in some manner. That is why I feel I see a slight ownership issue and I am not implying it is an ongoing or habitual problem or in any way something that the editor has a pattern of. I just see it here because of the way the deletion was made and accusations followed as if bullying me was the route to take. It isn't. Sorry, but while I am not saying there is something to be intervene on I am not impressed with the treatment I received here.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my objection was the inclusion while the discussion was ongoing (I had commented prior to the tree being included). I also object rather strongly to your personal attack above. I note you deleted my request on your talk page to remove it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was not ongoing. I stated what I was going to do and I did it but you removed it. That's all. Pretty simple. You insisted that I violated guidelines but didn't point to the guideline I violated. Yes, why bother going to my talk page when we are communicating right here. Look, I am sorry you feel that you are being personally attacked. That is how I feel. But I am not the one who removed the content and then made accusations of edit warring when no edit war existed and no 3rr broken. I stick by what I said as it is what I feel from the behavior here. Not from just trying to discuss you as a distraction. I just wish you would return the tree and then discuss why it should be removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should the family tree be used in the article under the Legacy section
The only other family tree on Wikipedia is oversized and extremely confusing and placed on an article with multiple issues. This small and tight family tree has great EV and direct relevance to the section and the continuing legacy of the family in theatre and film.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In polls, one cast !votes to weigh consensus. This is common. You can ping all of the participants that have weighed in if you wish. Yes, the additional comments not added directly to the poll is sufficient, we don't have to make everyone centralize their opinion. It can be in their sections.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The family tree is very good – better than anything similar I have managed elsewhere – but I don't think it belongs here. It would be silly to put it in the legacy section (the majority of people in it are manifestly not John Barrymore's legacy), and it doesn’t really belong anywhere in the main text. It would be fine in an article on the dynasty, helping people see the familial relationship between, say, Ethel and Drew Barrymore, but it would be rather in the way here, and would add nothing to the reader's understanding of John Barrymore. – Tim riley talk10:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't belong in the main article. However, I'd strongly support an article on Barrymore family where it would be appropriate to use it. Seems we already have an article on them but it badly needs work. There's a family tree in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the tree is misplaced here. If it were to be used in the "family" article it would need tweaking, to clarify a number of issues. For example, why are multiple wives linked to each other, rather than to their husband? This makes it not always clear who the mother of the offspring was. Why are a couple of John Drew Barrymore's wives shaded, unlike others? But these are not issues for this article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with all of ya. ;-) (If its the flow...I seem to find the opposite direction to travel) But I do appreciate everyone weighing in. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the family tree is not appropriate for this article, as 1) the article is long enough, 2) John Barrymore's key family relationships are clearly explained in it, and 3) there is a link to the Barrymore family, where the family tree belongs. I agree that the family article needs work, but that is the place to do it. I agree with Brianboulton's comments about the template. I think that you should try to collaborate with Schrocat, instead of arguing with hime, because if you are interested in the Barrymore family, he is a very knowledgeable person who has read all of the key sources, and he is also very experienced, as are many of the above commenters, about what is typical and appropriate for FA articles on Wikipedia. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say to leave out the family tree. All of Barrymore's relations are fully covered in the main text so I think the tree is superfluous and pads out an already full article. Jimknut (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks – I look forward to reading your comments. As the latest reviewer to come along, could you also give your thoughts on the question of the inclusion of the family tree? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the family tree is a good idea. I think, owing to the complicated lineage within the Barrymore family, this would be very helpful indeed. However, I note SchroCat's concern about not being relevant to John and more to the family itself. I completely see his point, which is why I would suggest the family tree article be put in a prominent position so one can click on it should they wish.
I understand what he is saying but that seems like an excuse that could be said about any individual as an argument to not use the tree and is actually false as it directly pertains to him.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life: 1882–1903
There seems to be a lot of "born"'s, "Drew"'s and "Barrymore"'s within the first para. Could these be cut down?
"Barrymore was born John Sidney Blyth, in Philadelphia, and was known by family and friends as Jack. Although the Barrymore family bible puts his date of birth as February 15, 1882, his birth certificate shows February 14. He was the youngest of three children. His siblings were Lionel, born in April 1878, and Ethel, (b. August 1879). His father was Maurice Barrymore, an Indian-born British actor whose birth name was Maurice Blyth. It was during a tour later in life that he adopted the stage name "Barrymore" after seeing it on a poster at the Haymarket Theatre in London. Barrymore's mother, Georgie Drew Barrymore was born into a prominent theatrical family. Barrymore's maternal grandparents were Louisa Lane Drew, a well-known 19th-century American actress and the manager of the Arch Street Theatre, and her actor husband John. Barrymore's maternal uncles were also thespians, John Drew, Jr. and Sidney." Is just an idea.
I've sort of followed your thoughts. I've adopted your suggestion on the Drews, but re-worked the "born"s: having Lionel and Ethel structured differently (one "born..." and one "b. ..." jarred a bit, so they are now both "(b. ...)". I find the "birth name" a bit forced, so left it as it was, but I've trimmed the same number of "born"s out that you did, so it should be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Much of Barrymore's early life was unsettled. In October 1882, the family toured in the US for a season with Polish actress Helena Modjeska, and the following year his parents again toured with Modjeska, although they left their children behind." -- I'm not sure the current conjunction works at the end of this sentence regarding the children being left behind. Would this be better? "Much of Barrymore's early life was unsettled. In October 1882, the family toured the US with Polish actress Helena Modjeska. The following year his parents toured again, this time with Modjeska, leaving the children behind."
"...and they remained in Britain until they returned to the US in 1886". We say that they went to London and that they remained in Britain. I think we could lose "and they remained in Britain" and take it as read that they did, unless they stayed somewhere else, which they didn't: " In 1884 the family traveled to London as part of Augustin Daly's theatrical company, and returned to the US in 1886."
"...where Lionel was already studying. He was unhappy at Seton..." -- Barrymore or Lionel?
In 1892, his grandmother's business began to suffer..." --New para, new noun.
"The loss of their mother's income caused both Ethel and Lionel to begin acting professionally" Yes, stop mucking about and act professionally you two! It maybe phrased better as "The loss of their mother's income forced both Ethel and Lionel into professional acting."
"Barrymore's father was also absent on tour ..." I bet the managers were annoyed! I take it he was absent from home because he was on tour?
"Film critic Hollis Alpert wrote that, within a week of the wedding, "it was rumored on Broadway that Katherine complained she saw her new husband all too infrequently." – I'm not sure having this as a quote adds much here and can easily work without being quoted.
"The reviews were positive, and "although none of the London critics found Barrymore superior to [Henry] Irving and [Johnston] Forbes-Robertson, many were favorable in their comparisons"– Again with this quote, this adds nothing as a quote IMO and can work just as well with the quote marks taken away.
"His first film under the contract..." – New para, new noun.
"Barrymore was offered a five-film deal with Warner Bros. at $150,000 per picture, and a share of the profits." – is the full stop after Warner Bros meant to be there? Cassiantotalk07:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so: it's the formal name of the company, and you know how Americans are with their superfluous commas and full stops! – SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"1933 was a busy year for Barrymore..." -- I am not sure of the rules here, and it maybe fine, but for some reason starting a sentence or paragraph with a numeral looks wrong. I think: "The year 1933 was busy for Barrymore..."?
"On May 19, 1942, while recording a line from Romeo and Juliet for the show, Barrymore collapsed. He was taken to the Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital and died there on May 29, 1942..." -- do we need the second 1942?
The New York Times obituary stated that during the time when Barrymore performed in Justice..." -- needs a trim I think to "The New York Times obituary stated that during Barrymore's performance in Justice..."
Verifiability
Excellent. I don't see any major referencing issues, and the article is throughly referenced.
Content Quality
Professional. Written exceptionally well, and in a professional manner. The quality is the best of the best.
Conventions
Excellent. I don't see any blatant errors in grammar or spelling.
Readability
Excellent. While some parts may be difficult to read, it can be easily comprehended by a non-native speaker
with considerable knowledge in English.
Coverage
Professional. The article is very comprehensive and in-depth.
Neutrality
Professional. There are no disputes over its neutrality.
Structure and
Organization
Professional. It's organized very well, its structure is not spaghetti-like, and if you want to know about,
let's say, Barrymore's early career, it is easy to find the section on it.
Overall
I'd rate this article on my rating scale as a Professional article. It definitely should be a featured article,
and I'm surprised on why it hasn't reached Good status yet.
User:HelloThereMinions 03:09, 24 December 2014
This is Evelyn Waugh's fourth novel, a relatively early work (he was just 30 when he wrote it) yet by some accounts his best. His personal circumstances were miserable at the time, and some of the book reflects this. In places the phrasing is dated and awkward, even embarrassing to present-day ears, but generally the wit and imagination are undiminished. I hope a few readers of the article will be minded to read the book, or at least watch the film (available in its entirety on YouTube). Thanks to loyal peer reviewers, as always up to the task. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I was one of the phalanx of peer reviewers, and my few and minor points were dealt with most satisfactorily then. Waugh is not a writer I generally enjoy, and it says much for BB's article that I was moved to get the novel off my shelves and dip in again. A fine article, comprehensive, balanced, clear, beautifully written, and as well illustrated as one could ask for in the circs. FA all the way, in my judgment. Tim riley talk22:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your peer review, your encouragement and your support here.
Thanks – and for the very helpful peer review that preceded this FAC. Your willingness to review outside your comfort zone is much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox seems to give info restricted to the first edition (number of pages, etc, but tells us the Media type was Print (Hardback & Paperback). The body tells us a paperback edition didn't appear until 1951. Curly Turkey¡gobble!04:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's no need to mention anything other than the first edition. Books tend to be re-released in a wide variety of formats—paperback, ebook, audiobook—but the infobox is not the place to note them all.—indopug (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank
I looked at just the lead section and fixed a comma; feel free to revert, as always.
"unofficial "best 20th-Century novels" lists": I'm hesitant to fiddle with capitalization inside quote marks, but that doesn't look right to me.
Thanks. The comma you added is I believe superfluous, in BritEng at least, so I've removed it. I have rephrased the "best 20th century novels" bit and removed the capitals. Any more comments? Let's see if the thing gets promoted, before you think of adding the lead to your no doubt excessive watchlist! Brianboulton (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I was a previously a peer reviewer, and had my small concerns happily dealt with there. Two subsequent minor tweaks from me, but the article is certainly better for the previous comments and improvements since PR. A further read through shows nothing to stop me supporting such an excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looked very strong from first glance, though I must admit I knew nothing of the subject. Read through with the intent of noting any quibbles and made a few very minor, mostly cosmetic, changes. This clearly meets the FA standards in my opinion. Really excellent work. Thank you, Brian, for the enlightening read. —Cliftonian(talk)09:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and kind words. I am pleased that you found the article interesting – I am sure that, dated though the prose sometimes is (embarrassingly so in a few cases), you would enjoy the nove. Some day, perhaps. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Today I'm thankful for a consistent stream of interesting FAs in subjects I wouldn't normally be tuned into. Expect comments by sometime tomorrow; ping me if I don't get around to it. Tezero (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I split the single paragraph in history; rework or revert if you think I did it wrong or, for some reason, shouldn't have split it at all.
"A small constellation" - By what metric? Number of stars? Number of lightyears separating the farthest stars within it? Ostensible "area" from Earth's perspective? Actual "area" as the sum of a series of triangles drawn among the member stars?
constellations are 2D areas of sky, covering the star patterns plus a defined territory around them. "Small" means a small percentage of the area of the celestial sky compared with larger constellations.Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many stars are in Telescopium? If no specific number is available, how many are estimated?
good question - depends on how you define it, with more powerful telescopes, all constellations have millions of stars. Have added how many stars are visible to the unaided eye in good viewing (urban/rural border area to mag 6.5) to give context.Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The centaur in the old star chart makes me think: I'm sure Telescopium is too recent a discovery to be associated with any kind of folklore or heavenly symbolism, but are any of its member stars? I mean, if you don't think this'd be straying from the topic of the article - it just might help if a bit of real-world context, as it were, were given.
"spectral class K" - What's a spectral class? At the very least link this, but ideally you might give context as to what this means, perhaps by listing a few other things that are of spectral class K.
they are described as orange giants (orange stars = class K). Can't give examples as no source does that so it'd be sort of OR. I've linked it now - giant star is also linkedCas Liber (talk· contribs) 08:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"127 light years distant" - Distant from what? Also, this is kind of an odd way to begin a sentence.
"Epsilon Telescopii is another double star, though this time a true binary system" - ???. Even if the reader could be expected to know what a binary system is, I don't see the context for bringing this fact up.
aah yes, in an older version of the article I think this came right after Delta (which is an optical double) - now it is not contrastive so rewordedCas Liber (talk· contribs) 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in both that instance and a later one, "this time" is strange wording.
"One theory of its origin is that it is the result of a merger between a helium- and a carbon-oxygen white dwarf. If the combined mass does not exceed the Chandrasekhar limit, the former will accrete onto the latter star and ignite to form a supergiant. Later this will become an extreme helium star before cooling to become a white dwarf." - Relevance? This level of detail isn't given for the other stars.
It's an unusual way for a star to form, so detail is interesting (I thought). Also makes article less listy. If above the Chandrasekhar limit, the object would detonate as a supernova.Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 13:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"RR Telescopii, also designated Nova Telescopii 1948, often called a slow nova is now classified as a symbiotic nova system" - restructure/alter somehow, like "While RR Telescopii ... is often called a slow nova, it is now classified ..."
"This is an unusual distance from the star" - Unusually high or low? Also, this could be worded a little more clearly, e.g. "This is an unusually high/low distance for the brown dwarf to be from HD 191760".
I noted that you are in the habit of providing page numbers for book sources but not journals. Is there a reason for that? For example, I looked up the Traulsen article and there are page numbers on the PDF.
I'll add page numbers from long journal articles usually but never did it for short ones as a rule. Not sure if there is a clear guideline on this Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fn 39, not sure why the "retrieved" is here, as you don't put it in the fn for other online sources.
formatting mistake - fixed. The referencing for this article was in a format that I don't normally follow but decided to stick with it rather than change all to what I usually do. Was in other format - conformed nowCas Liber (talk· contribs) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Smith citation, just the PDF logo is there. In the Toddy citation, the logo is there followed by "(PDF)".
I present William Wurtenburg, a very obscure 19th century American football coach. Born and raised in New York, going to Yale and playing on its football team appear to be the climax in Wurtenburg's life. He was a college football coach for six years, then spent the rest of his life giving people ear exams. Prior to my work on this article, the most comprehensive biography of Wurtenburg was a two-paragraph mention in the National Cyclopedia of American Biography. After a few months of hard work, I now believe this article will be the most comprehensive work ever made about this man. I received some help from Jweiss11 on fixing some of the mistakes I had made, and this now appears to be some of Wikipedia's best work (definitely its best on a random, obscure college football coach). - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County05:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I have to say that I'm disappointed nobody has given this a review, nearly a month into the FAC. When I went through the article, I found it to be well worth my time. There are a few issues detailed below, but I think this is solid overall and deserves more attention than it's getting.
Early life and college: Do either of the sources provided explain why Wurtenburg was ejected from the Princeton game? That is a point that caught my interest, and it may explain why Barbour replaced him.
Unfortunately not. The New York Times source is citing the fact that Barbour was the replacement quarterback, while Whitney (1891), which cites his ejection, simply states "[...] when Wurtenburg was disqualified in the Yale-Princeton game".
1890s: Whether the Quakers' name is Penn or Pennsylvania should be made consistent throughout.
Done. Changed the one Pennsylvania to "Penn".
Who was Navy's third rival in 1894? I see Penn and Penn State, with no Army game, and the lead says they played three rivalry games that year.
The third is Navy's "friendly rival" Georgetown. Added that to the article.
I think its probably due to both the date range and the c. Considering the range is all that is available, I don't know what to do with this.
You could try removing the circa and just leaving the date range, which would be accurate in a sense since he wrote the content in different years. I don't know offhand if that would fix it, but the idea may be worth a shot. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – All of my comments are now resolved and I'm satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria. Again, I hope other reviewers decide to spend some time with this one; I'd hate to see the FAC be archived due to a lack of reviews. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)I'll add comments here as I go through the article. I've completed a pass through; this looks like a solid article, but I have a few questions and comments below.[reply]
"His final contribution to football was publishing a book about Yale football": is the title known? If so, it should be included.
"Sometime around then": a little colloquial. I'd suggest "At about that time" instead.
Changed it to your suggestion.
"Wurtenburg began taking medical classes in his freshman year. Later that year, he joined the school's football team." Two short sentences makes for a jerky rhythm. How about "Wurtenburg began taking medical classes on his arrival at Yale, and joined the football team partway through his freshman year."?
Done.
"was named national champions": I don't know whether in U.S. usage it's more usual to say describe a team as "national champion" or "national champions", but if it's the latter, shouldn't it be "were named", not "was named"?
I honestly have no clue what the proper wording should be. I never really gave it any thought. I'll raise a question on the WP:CFB talk page in the morning, because I'm too exhausted to do it right now.
Alright, now I'm just waiting on a reply.
Do we know when he graduated from Yale?
Yes. It was in 1893, which I added at the end of the "Early life and college" section.
It appears he didn't play football for Yale in 1890; is that correct?
Yes, it appears so. None of the sources I found mentioned anything about him playing in 1890.
I don't quite follow the sequence of events at the end of his time at Yale. He gave up his position at quarterback after 1889, but after being thrown out of his final game (in 1891, it seems) he was "replaced at quarterback". Can you clarify?
I tried to word it a little better in the article. Basically, rules in early college football were not very well established or enforced. Unlike with today's 4-year playing limit, an athlete back then could, in theory, play on a team for as long as they were good enough, iff they had some sort of connection to the college (Paul Dashiell spent a year at St. John's College as a player, six years at Johns Hopkins as a player and grad student, and two years at Lehigh as a professor). In the case of Wurtenburg, he played his four years, apparently took a break in 1890, and attempted to return in 1891 as a grad student, but was ejected and never played again. I have no clue how many games Wurtenburg played in during 1891 (probably not very many, since he is not listed in any of the team's official rosters) but he definitely was thrown out of the last game and his spot was given to someone new (Barbour). I hope this helps. Sorry for the long explanation and for possibly any unnecessary details.
I think what's confusing me is the phrase "gave up his position at quarterback". I assumed it meant he switched to another position, but I think you meant he quit playing for a while, so of course another quarterback came in. Do we know if he played at quarterback in 1891? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I now understand your confusion. We do not know what position he played at in 1891, and he did leave the team following 1889. I tried rewording that part to make it seem clearer. Is it better now?
"Wurtenburg began his coaching career on October 6 of that year": the last year mentioned prior to this sentence was 1893, so I think some rephrasing is in order since he apparently wasn't hired till 1894.
Simply took out "that year" and put in "1894". Is that better?
"He instead accepted a position as the head coach of the Dartmouth team": we haven't had a date for several sentences at this point so I would suggest "as the head coach of the Dartmouth team, starting in the fall of 1895".
Changed.
"After concluding his football career, Wurtenburg opened up his first medical office in 1889": should this be 1899? It comes after the events of 1898.
Whoops! Yes, it should be 1899. Nice catch.
"At some point around 1904, Wurtenburg began pursuing a career as a physician. He set up his office not far from his residence...": doesn't this conflict with the comment that he opened his first medical office in 1889, even if that's actually a typo for 1899?
I attempted to clarify this. It was more he started to dedicate himself to his medical career. Poor wording on my part.
"Sometime between 1902 and 1925, Wurtenburg collected a series of newspaper articles": the Worldcat link above gives the title as including the date range 1902 to 1915, so I think you can change this to "between 1915 and 1925".
Changed to 1915.
Not knowing much about American football, I don't know what the difference is between the roles of the umpire and referee, so I don't know whether this is relevant, but via newspapers.com I found three accounts of games Wurtenburg refereed for Yale in October 1904, one of which (the Oct 9 issue of the Washington Times) you include in your list of sources. Does this contradict what you have about his role changing?
Unfortunately, I do not (yet) have Newspapers.com access, so I cannot access the articles, but it seems like they would probably make me need to do a little rewriting. Any chance I could get the links or something?
Thanks for the clippings. Yes, this information does affect what I have in the article, and I changed it to include these games. I don't know how well it works grammatically, thought. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 06:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:William_Wurtenburg.png - most likely OK, but could you clarify the publication a bit? Is "1888 Yale football portrait" a yearly journal? We just should be sure, when the image was first published (the source is a collection from 2006).
File:Frank Barbour.jpg - "University of Michigan Football Coaches: Frank E. Barbour" - same here, is that a journal? Most likely OK, but could the source be clarified a bit? (year, author, any kind of bibliographical info)
2 other images are OK (PD with active source links).
I clarified my source for the Wurtenburg image; it was from a book published in 1916. As for the Barbour image, it came from here and I could not find it anywhere else, so I removed it from the article. I replaced it with another, albeit worse, image of him, from the 1893 Michigan team portrait, which was published the same year. Thanks for the review, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 03:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like the new image better. Certainly not quality-wise, but it's a more natural shot of him. Thanks for the fixes, all OK now. GermanJoe (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SandyGeorgia
Exeter is not the kind of place one wanders in to after bouncing around or "eventually ends up at" :) :) Can this please be rephrased? It gives a funny impression of what it takes to get in to Exeter.
Wurtenburg attended a number of schools as a child, eventually ending up at Phillips Exeter Academy, ...
I did some copyediting and also fleshed out the lead a little more
MOS questions that I no longer know the answer to:
are we supposed to translate yards into meters for, say, 35-yd run?
are the dashes okay?
Did he choose to leave his coaching position at Darthmouth? Might want to make that clear
The article says that he set up a medical office in 1889, not far from his home. Then it says in 1904 he decided to dedicate himself to being a doctor and set up an office near his home. I'm confused.
Welcome back, Karen! Re. your MOS questions, I think conversions are recommended as a matter of course (also, I couldn't see an obvious reason it's "35" in the lead and "thirty-five" in the main body), and I have now converted some dashes if that's what you meant.
For my part, AwardGive, is everything that appears in the Head coaching record table cited in the main body? If not then I'd expect the table info to be cited.
Alright, firstly, to answer Karanacs: Thanks for covering the first two points, Ian Rose. For the third point, his time at Dartmouth is a blank spot in coverage, so I am not sure if he left or if he was kicked out, so I simply said he was replaced. Will that work? And I fixed the fourth point. Removed the repeating of him opening his office.
Uh, I didn't see any direct response or action re. the two-pronged statement "I think conversions are recommended as a matter of course (also, I couldn't see an obvious reason it's "35" in the lead and "thirty-five" in the main body)"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "35" vs. "thirty-five" discrepancy is simply due to how I write. I would have preferred to have written "thirty-five" for both, but I felt like 35 would be better for the lead, since it takes up less space and allows a shorter intro. However, I am fine with altering either one to help with consistency. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 05:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, to respond to Ian Rose: Again, thanks for covering Karanacs first two concerns. Yes, the information in the table is supported in the 1890s section. Laser Brain's "long list of nearly repeated web sources" all support the information in the table. And thanks for getting a source review. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 04:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Laser brain
Fn 1, you have the page number for White both here and in the biblio entry. You don't do this for any of the other books. Is there a reason for the inconsistency?
I did this because White is (I believe) an encyclopedia of famous and semi-famous Americans, so I wanted to include the page of the entry. However, I have no preference over keeping the page number in the bibliography or not.
Fn 2, page number? I don't understand the significance of the phrase in the fn.
For Harrison (or at least the copy I looked at), there were not page numbers, so "Andover and Exeter: Growth of a Rivalry" is the chapter I found it in. I don't know if it's right to do that or if I formatted it wrong, but I did that to specify where I got it from.
Fn 11, this story was on the front page of the New York Times?
I could swear it was when I first looked at it, but I could find no evidence of what page it was on, so I just removed the page number.
The Wurtenberg Scrapbook of Newspaper Clippings about Yale Football is in Worldcat.. please look it up and add the OCLC. Do you actually have this book? How do you know what's in it?
I added the OCLC. And no, I do not have a copy of the book. Nor have I actually seen a copy. It appears that there are only one, maybe two known copies still left.
Sources review:
I'm dealing with this first – general review comments will follow.
Can you clarify the nature of the source in ref 1?
Ref 41 requires pp. not p.
Ref 80 requires a subscription
Ref 84 - format: why is the title repeated?
Ref 87: space after p.
Ref 125: ndash not hyphen required
Ref 143: format of page range inconsistent
Ref 183: retrieval date required
Ref 184 requires a subscription
Refs 194 and 195 could be combined
There needs to be consistency in the displaying of publisher locations for books. At the moment it seems to be about 50:50
The OCLC for the Charlemagne Tower book is 527765. I could not find the 1825 J & H Miller edition of the "Complete History" in WorldCat; the oldest version appears to be this
I've corrected that. The date "September 1825" also appears on the title page.
Any reason for the wikilink on some publishers, e.g. Bantam, Atheneum Books, but not others?
Not particularly. I inherited a mess on this and cleaned up the worst of it
an income of 25,000 livres - An income (monthly or whatever) or an inheritance?
Land and other property producing that income.
The young Lafayette, aged 14, seemed a good match to him for his 12-year-old daughter, Marie Adrienne Françoise, and he spoke to the boy's guardian - Perhaps "The young Lafayette, aged 14, seemed a good match for his 12-year-old daughter, Marie Adrienne Françoise, and the duc spoke to the boy's guardian"
The Continental Congress had been overwhelmed by French officers recruited by Deane, - La Fayette was not the only one who ignored orders? I thought the sending of such officers was cancelled
They may not have received the orders. As I understand it, they went to America by various means. The sending of officers by the French government was cancelled, for that time. Deane recruited others privately, obviously to excess, and had been doing so for months. Half of Europe was seeking military careers (and fast advancement) in the Continental Army. At least one source mentions that Lafayette was not on active duty at the time, he was in some sort of reserve. The technicalities of status of when ancien regime officers were required to do things is a little beyond my knowledge.
4,800-livre gold-encrusted - is the price necessary?
I suppose not.
Georges-Washington Lafayette - why the hyphen, when that article doesn't have one?
On reconsideration, hyphen deleted.
Through the next years, Lafayette made his house, the Hôtel de La Fayette in Paris's rue de Bourbon, the headquarters of Americans there. - when did he return to France? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrase to make it clear that it was a visit, that year only.
standardize: the King or the king
Got them all, I think.
Lafayette reluctantly leading them.- Why was he reluctant?
His troops supported the march. Lafayette felt it was a violation of the soldiers' oath to king and country to march on the king's palace. But he could not persuade them of this. So he either leads them, or as Unger puts it, risks "mutiny and possibly, a useless death at the nearby lamppost".
for the mishap - I think this comes across as a little POV
Fixed.
They hired as agent a multilingual young physician from the Electorate of Hanover, Justus Erich Bollmann, who acquired an assistant, a South Carolinian medical student named Francis Kinloch Huger, son of the Benjamin Huger, whom Lafayette had stayed with upon his first arrival in America. - That's a lot of clauses and parentheticals. Could it be simplified?
What happened to Bollmann and Huger?
They were also captured, separately from Lafayette, and held for a few months while the Austrians conducted a very detailed investigation, mostly aimed at whether members of the unit guarding Lafayette had been complicit or just careless. The verdict was just careless. One soldier was cashiered. Bollman and Huger were eventually deported from Austria. Huger returned to the US and greeted Lafayette in 1825. There's a surprisingly interesting book I drew heavily from for this section.
In March 1825, Lafayette began to tour the southern and western states (and following). - How did Lafayette respond to this? Did he consider it undemocratic as well?
If he did, he suppressed it. Lafayette wasn't always consistent.
The news coverage from that doesn't seem to mention the various grants of citizenship by the states. My guess is they either didn't do their homework or ignored the memo from their staff and waved the flag happily. Thanks for the review.
Support - Excellent article on an important historical figure. I'm sure a lot of Americans wouldn't have recognized the full extent of Lafayette's international impact, so this article does well to educate them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
"19th century depiction" -> "19th-century depiction" (check for other MOS errors)
As France does not have freedom of panorama, all French buildings and sculptures must include the licensing status of the original work as well as the photo
File:Woundedatbrandywine.jpg needs a US PD tag, and what does the original source say about its provenance and authorship? Same with File:Marquis_de_Lafayette_2.jpg
File:Barren-hill-map.jpg needs a US PD tag; same with File:Washington_and_Lafayette_at_Mount_Vernon,_1784_by_Rossiter_and_Mignot,_1859.jpg, File:Lafayette_1825.png, File:La_Fayette_et_Louis-Philippe_-_31_juillet_1830.jpg, File:Mort_du_général_Lafayette.jpg
File:Le_serment_de_La_Fayette_a_la_fete_de_la_Federation_14_July_1790_French_School_18th_century.jpg: reproduction of 2D work doesn't warrant PD-self
Support: Lafayette is not widely known in the UK (we are quite insular about other nations' heroes) and although I knew a little about him I found this article admirably educative. I did a long A-class review here, and I think all my main concerns were addressed there. A few issues on sources to be resolved (see above) but these can easily be fixed and are not reasons for withholding support. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reviews and support.--18:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Support – the following minor prose quibbles and a single reservation about the length of one section notwithstanding.
Early life
"left the marquis title to his brother Michel" – this reads as though he chose to leave Michel the title, rather than its being a matter of entail over which he had no control.
"The comte enrolled the boy" – I had to check back to be sure this count is great-grandfather de La Rivière
Both clarified.
"presenting himself to King Louis" – in what way presenting?
He would ceremoniously march in to see the King every noontime to ask if the King had any orders and proudly convey to his commander that the King had no orders, which was invariably the case.
Departure from France
Image caption – "diner of Metz" is a touch Franglais: either the "of" should be in French or the "diner" in English, I'd say. As it is, the diner of Metz suggests a fast-food restaurant.
Cut.
"Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes" – I don't think we'd normally give surname as well as title for a member of the supporting cast such as Vergennes.
Sliced.
"exact revenge against England" – Britain, please.
Enlarged.
Barren Hill, Monmouth and Rhode Island
"Lord Howe" – is this the same bloke as the Sir William Howe we met earlier? If so, those not familiar with the propensity of members of the British ruling class to change names, styles and titles may be confused. You could just call him Howe here, perhaps.
Cut.
"to go home on furlough" – not a noun I knew till now. Perhaps a blue link?
Change to "leave".
Hero of two worlds
"Although Washington demurred" – at emancipation rather than the purchase presumably, but it is ambiguous
Clarified
Assembly of Notables and Estates-General
"organized an armed mob" – can one organise a mob?
"led"
"Royal Army" – capitals wanted?
Retreat from politics
"The retired general remained relatively quiet" – this is the second "the retired general" in two paragraphs.
Reduced.
"crowned Emperor Napoleon I" – was he really styled "Napoleon I" at the time? (I don't know the answer, but seems unusual. For instance the English monarch we now call Elizabeth I was called just Queen Elizabeth until the accession of another sovereign of that name in 1952.)
Numerically deprived.
"the Emperor Napoleon's power" – perhaps just "Napoleon's"?
Untitled.
"Louis's government" – just ess-apostrophe, I think
S erased.
Grand tour of the United States
"The arts benefitted by his visit" – perhaps an EngVar thing, but I spell it "benefited", and so does the OED
Someone seems to have changed that.
"While traveling up the Ohio River by steamboat, Lafayette's vessel sank" – the syntax goes off the rails a bit here: I think you need "he was" after "While" to make it work, otherwise it's the vessel travelling by steamboat.
Done.
Final years and death
"Georges-Washington sprinkled upon him" – on his coffin, I assume
The source isn't clear. Perhaps not.
Assessment
"who they thought above such things" – would "whom" be insufferably pedantic?
Someone seems to have massaged that out.
"In 2002, Congress voted to grant Lafayette honorary citizenship" – have I missed something? Was the citizenship granted him in 1784 rescinded at some point?
See my answer to Crisco, above.
That's all from me. It is a very long article, but justifies its length, I think, except perhaps for the Grand tour of the United States section, which at 883 words – particularly as there is a dedicated article on the subject – I would like to see trimmed. That apart I enjoyed the article immensely and learnt a lot. Clearly headed for FA, and my reservation about the length of the one section is not strong enough to stop me supporting. – Tim riley talk13:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll trim it a bit but am reluctant to go too far. This is his largest involvement with the English-speaking world after 1784 and the French politics may get dull.
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"His duties were mostly ceremonial ... but included marching in military parades,": The "but" implies that marching was something different from or more than ceremonial. I'm not following; that sounds ceremonial to me.
" the Seven Years' War (known in America as the French and Indian War)": I've heard that the international war was widely known as the Seven Years' War (including in America), but that the North American part of that war was called the French and Indian War.
"He met Deane, and persuaded him to include him despite his youth.": Don't use "him" to refer to different people in the same short sentence.
Thank you for the review and supports. I've made those changes.
Support
Very readable, nice pace. Some minor glitches, which I tried to fix (revert if you'd like), and I did remove some extra links. Will finish and support later tonight or tomorrow. auntieruth(talk)22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice job. I made some changes (minor) to the last few sections, which were the roughest of the article, especially the historiography section. These are always the hardest to write. ;) I haven't spot-checked sources, but I can so later today if someone hasn't done it already. auntieruth(talk)16:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lafayette has always been one of my favorite historical figures - so glad you decided to bring this up to snuff. Some small niggles:
Early life: nowhere does it say that his mother was the descendant of a comte. I assume that the comte referred to his her grandfather, but this should be made more clear.
I've done that.
Departure from France:
so both his in-laws and his uncle were de Noailles? How closely was Lafayette related to his wife?
He wasn't, as near as I can tell. I've clarified it was an uncle by marriage, his father-in-law's brother in fact
there were other officers on his ship. Where did they come from? Did he recruit them or just join up with them?
de Kalb (not mentioned in text but in a caption) was in it from the start, de Broglie recruited the others as part of his plot to eventually become a leader in America. This went nowhere, but 11 of his officers went with Lafayette, but the Continental Congress had no use for them, and they went back to France, not exactly happy. Only Lafayette and de Kalb were accepted. I felt all of this was too much of a sidelight in what was going to be a long article so I cut it to the bare minimum.
This article is about the 2010 running of the Sylvania 300, a NASCAR race at New Hampshire Motor Speedway. Nascar1996 originally brought this article to GA status on November 2010, almost four years ago. Shortly thereafter, the article was taken to peer review. The goal was for this to be taken to FAC; however, for whatever reason, that never happened. After doing some additional copyediting and addressing all of the peer review comments, I now believe the article is complete and meets the criteria. I'll also add that this is pretty much uncharted territory as there are no other NASCAR related articles currently at FA status. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey:, thank you for your comments. I am going to be quite busy over the next few days and am unsure how much I'll be able to accomplish, but I'll try to address these concerns by the end of the weekend at the latest. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I may be around a bit tonight, but I cannot promise that I'll be able to anything before the weekend. But I promise I WILL get to it as soon as I can. Thanks! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I've got everything taken care of with the exception of double-checking the quotes, which I will get to before the day is over. Thanks for your review; I have to head out for a bit now, but I'll finish addressing the concerns as soon as I can. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Curly Turkey
Please note that I know nothing about racing—I didn't even know what a stock car was before clicking through to find out. I'll assume the level of play-by-play detail is appropriate. Feel free to disagree with any of my comments or revert any of my copyedits.
Not necessary for FA, but you might want to consider alt text for the images
was a [[NASCAR]] [[Sprint Cup Series]] [[stock car]] race: when links appear side-by-side they appear as a single link; can this be recast so that the three links appear separate? Also, you might want to link all of "stock car race", as the target is "stock car racing" rather than "stock car"
which ends the season: "ends" and not "ended"? As the rest of the sentence is in th epast tense, if this is really supposed to be "ends", perhaps it could be qualified (e.g. with "normally", "regularly", whatever) so it doesn't appear to be switching between tenses.
leading the most laps with 176: this doesn't appear to be in the body anywhere—it's only mentioned in an image caption. Also, I had no idea what it meant until I read that caption—maybe rewrite it here the way it is in the caption?
The two drivers who failed to qualify for the race were Jeff Green and Johnny Sauter.: you might want to bump this back to the bit about the qualifying procedure
Not done. If you insist this is better wording, then I will fix; however, the drivers who failed to qualify are usually mentioned last in qualifying reports. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once qualifying concluded Keselowski said, "I felt I got a shot at the pole before I qualified but you never really know. When I ran the lap I knew I gave up a little bit of time right in the middle of both corners but I had a plan going into it and stuck to it and it worked. I’m really proud of that lap.": I'm not sure what this quote adds to the article.
Again, if you insist, I'll remove it, but to me, it's the pole winner describing his lap, just as the winner would describe the race. While it may not be necessary, I don't think it hurts the article or falls under anything such as WP:TRIVIA. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other Chase drivers were farther down the scoring list,: Well, obviously, unless there's a zeroeth position.
In "Standings after the race", you might want to consider {{div col}} with "|colwidth=<something appropriate>" instead of {{col-start}} with a hard number of columns. Setting a colwidth allows the browser to choose whether to put the tables side-by-side or one after the other based on the size of the screen; using a hard number of columns will force the second column off-screen on small screens or screens that are taller than they are wide (say, on smartphones).
I apologize for what could be seen as a "dumb" question, but as my 7th grade teacher once said, "The only dumb question is the one you don't ask." How exactly do you do this? I've tried altering this and can't seem to come out with something that looks good. Do you mind doing the honors and fixing it yourself or at least giving me text that I can copy and paste into the article? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to handle it with this edit---I forgot to add MOS:DTAB formatting to those tables before, so I've done that too. For some reason the tables won't align---I've looked at the html produced and can't see why. Do they align in your browser? If it's an issue, just revert it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it still doesn't look right (the exact same thing happened when I was testing it out), but thanks for your efforts! I hope you don't mind, but since it seems to be an issue for both of us, I've reverted it back to where it was after your first edit seems to have gone through fine, though. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to replace the semicolon syntax for pseudo-headers (e.g. ";Drivers' Championship standings") with bolding (i.e. "'''Drivers' Championship standings'''") or even actual headers (i.e. "===Drivers' Championship standings==="), as it would be more semantic—the semicolon syntax is meant to create a definition list, the bolding of which is incidental (somebody someday might decide it's better for definition list terms to appear in italics, in pink, or as a marquee). Using unsemantic markup can affect, for example, screenreaders, which may tell their users that a definition list is about to begin—and then it doesn't.
This is how it is done on almost every other article like this. I'd very strongly prefer to leave it this way for consistency's sake, but if you want it changed that badly, I'll give in. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to imply that you're "foolish" or anything, but I think this is "foolish consistency" territory. Using the semicolon for bolding is so persistent because it's easy, not because it's appropriate. Anyways, in this case the headers would be best as "|+" captions rather than what I suggested above. If you undo the div cols I added, I'd suggest retaining the captions at least.
One more thing here---the in the "Drivers' Championship standings" the "Points" are centred, but in the "Manufacturers' Championship standings" they are right aligned. Any reason for that? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is in good shape. A couple of minor comments below.
I was surprised by the level of detail on lead changes; can you confirm that this is normal detail for an article about a NASCAR race?
There is no "normal detail for an article about a NASCAR race" because the quality of the articles can be vastly different from one race to the next. Some pre-2007 races don't even have articles yet. However, the other articles that are at GA status put this much detail into the race summary; I can try to trim if you insist it is too much, but there are other articles that go into this much detail. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentence says the race is "a stock car racing competition involving the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series". "Involving" doesn't seem quite right -- it's a part of the series, so the series includes it, but I don't see why one would say it "involves" the series. I'd suggest cutting the reference completely as the best way to fix it, because the next line explains that it's part of the 2010 series. As it stands it's a little repetitious, and I don't think the reader loses any information if you cut it.
"Bowyer appeared in victory lane": shouldn't this be "in the victory lane"?
See above. "Victory lane" is the term used for where the winner celebrates; similarly, "pit road" is not "the pit road" because it is the actual name for the area of the track where the pit crews service the cars. If one "the" is going to keep this from reaching FA, I'll change it, but the above reasoning is why the "the" is not currently included. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the standard terminology, I see no problem with keeping it, unless you had other reasons to change it. I've struck my comment, but I think it would be fine to go back to your original terminology, which I assume is what a NASCAR fan would expect, and link it to victory lane. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 27 is used to support the comment about Bowyer's car's rear bodywork being the cause of the problem, but it looks like it should be citing 28 instead.
Any reason not to mention the team's plan to appeal? Did they appeal, and if so what was the outcome?
I did not mention the team's plan to appeal because the team did not plan to appeal. Most NASCAR penalties, even ones as severe as this one, are simply accepted by the teams if it is clear the acknowledged their mistakes. That appears to be the case here, as I can't find anything that confirms the team ever appealed the penalty. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I admit I missed that. I'll try to research that; of course, if they did appeal, the penalties were not overturned, but I'll take a look. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I messed up. The team apparently did appeal, as seen here. I'll make an addition discussing the appeal and the results.
That looks good. I think it would be even better to mention Childress's argument about the wrecker pushing the car; the tolerance error was tiny, and his explanation seemed plausible to me and I'm sure would interest most readers. Could we add a few more details about the appeal? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Mike. I'm currently driving home from New York, but I'll be home by the end of the night and will try to address these issues over the weekend. Thanks, again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The track's turns are banked at two to seven degrees" This isn't really the same as what the source says: "Variable banking at 2/7 degrees" At any rate, is the track banking really a necessary detail for a race article? Are their other race FAs you can compare with?
There are not any race FAs that I can compare with; as I noted when I initiated the nomination, this is essentially uncharted territory. I can change it to something like "The track's banking in the turns varies from two to seven degrees" or remove it completely if you would prefer. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting of the "Standings after the race" section is weird on my screen. The smaller table is several inches to the right of the larger table. Why the gap?
Any idea why the archive links appear differently in some of the footnotes in the References section? For example, in fn 2 "the original" is the clickable link; in fn 3, "archived" is the link. Weird.
Some of the images in the article seem gratuitious, especially the ones of racers that aren't even taken at this race. The photo of Hamlin hanging out down at the bottom is especially out-of-place.
In my idea, it gives the reader an idea of the pole winner, race winner, point standings leader, etc, and it illustrates the article. If you insist, I can remove them, but I'll note that this is not unusual for other articles. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that a large percentage of the sources you used to write the article are from NASCAR—a source that obviously has a vested interest in presenting the race and drivers in a positive light. Have you done some additional searches for sources that might be more neutral and offer other perspectives on the race?
Yes, and they are already in the article. NASCAR publishes the practice, qualifying and race results, along with other news articles pertaining to the weekend's headlines. But I do have other sources from ESPN and have added some, let me know if you need me to find more, if possible. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Thank you for your concerns. I've added some sources to the article and tweaked some things, and I've given my reasoning for leaving others untouched. If there is more you would like done, please let me know, but I may be rather unresponsive during the rest of the week with schoolwork as mid-terms for me begin next week. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have any NASCAR or general motorsport experts cast their eye over this? Non-expert review is vital to help ensure comprehensibility for the average reader but we should have someone familiar with the subject as well…
I'll note that while I'm not a NASCAR expert, I'm very knowledgeable about open-wheel racing and racing in general. Nothing struck me as incorrect while reading, nor did I notice any mis-used terminology or omissions. --Laser brain(talk)01:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Andy, that certainly helps. I followed motor racing myself for quite a while, mostly production cars (Australian parlance for "stock cars") -- which of course these days are really "super cars" -- so at a pinch I could recuse from coord duties and review myself. Anyway, let's see if anything comes of the WikiProject request while we await image and source reviews (the latter only if your source spotcheck didn't include source formatting/reliability, let me know). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending final checks -- Okay, couldn't resist, recused myself from coord duties to review and copyedit (a little). It all made sense to me, the prose was engaging but neutral, the structure logical and the detail quite sufficient. Assuming an image review (and source review if Andy didn't get round to that) comes back clean I'll be happy to offer my full support. I hope we'll see more of your work, and don't forget that we can always use reviewers who've familiarised themselves with the FA criteria to comment on other active FACs... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:NHIS Wiki.jpg - OK, self-published under CC BY-SA 3.0 but not much information on the image page. Can't find any evidence indicating possible copyvio.
File:Clint Bowyer Darlington-2010 Hartford-Firesuit.jpg - not OK - doubtful that the uploader has the rights to release this image into PD. His other uploads at Commons are clear copyvios, and I will be tagging them as such shortly.
Thanks, I've got to study for midterms for the rest of the night and can't do much research (I've procrastinated enough already), but I'll fix these as soon as possible. Regarding the last source, that was the only book source I could find, and I included that as I am still new to the FAC process and was unsure if book sources were required or not. But it seems that is not the case, so I'll remove that and add a better source. Thanks again! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a painting which was of huge social impact in the United States when reproductions were first exhibited in 1913, but has since been essentially forgotten. A note, however, that sources are often conflicting; even such seemingly simple issues as when the painting first reached the US have more than one version, supported by equally reliable sources.. This article was PRed by Tim riley, SchroCat, Cassianto, Wehwalt, and Sarastro1. I believe it is a neutral and thorough treatment of this subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After fourteen years on display at the Met and other institutions, it was put into storage. As of 2014 it is not on display.": Most readers are going to come to the conclusion it's never been on display since 1971, even though you don't specifically say that, because this is a narrative about the painting ... readers will expect that if something significant happened, you'd be telling them. But later you write: "it had been hung in the museum around 2011".
This is an excellent article and has improved greatly since I last looked at it, however you know my concern over at least one particular passage and the source used to cite it. In the "Acquisition by the Metropolitan Museum of Art" section the line: "In September 2014, the Met's website listed the painting as not on display...". My concern is the wording used with the source not actually supporting the dating used and is an arbitrary date given for the moment when the website was accessed for the information. The website/source does not mention a date as to this particular claim. There are versins of the source used. One is a cached/archived record of the website that was cached by WebCite (an outside archive company not related to the museum or website as the source). It is this actual site (that is still available online) that is the actual source, not the cached record made by a private company. The only fact that can be summarized here is the fact that the: "Met's website states the painting is not on display". It seems to be an matter of the source not really supporting the claim of dating and simply writing it as above seems to be the best route here.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the concern I stated. We discussed this at length and no consensus was formed about the issue that I recall. How would you like to handle the issue now?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simple enough: What do other reviewers think? Or, once we get a source review, the source reviewer? I've already told you what I think, and you've told me what you think. The question is just one of consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being pung I obediently attend, and having read the preceding exchange and reread the main text I am on balance content to line up behind Crisco. Tim riley talk02:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding the point correctly, WP:CRYSTALBALL is policy, and one interpretation of that policy is the guideline WP:DATED. If we say "Met's website states the painting is not on display", then next month, we're lying ... we don't actually have any evidence (yet) that it's not on display next month, just this month. On another point: the lead says "As of 2014 it is not on display", and that seems to come from "In September 2014, the Met's website listed the painting as not on display, though it had been hung in the museum around 2011." I don't think that a ref that shows that the picture wasn't up in September 2014 proves that it wasn't up at all in 2014 (although of course, if you have snapshots of the website at other times this year, that would work). Perhaps the lead should say "As of September 2014 ...". - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To base the interpretation of policy on WP:DATED it states: "..to signal the time-dependence of the information.". How is the information time dependent if the source makes no mention of time? Where does the "September" in "As of September.." come from? From an outside web snapshot. We need an actual reliable source to make a claim of something like "As of (or "since") [this date]]" for any additional policy or guideline to take effect beyond making sure the reference supports the claim and that the summary of the source is based accurately off the content from that source. Even using simple math requires numbers given by a reliable source or how can we mention it? This is what confuses me in this situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely fine with using {{As of}} 2014. Mark's point, and it was brought up a while back, is that the Met's website itself does not explicitly give a date, whereas we are using it to support an as of statement with a definite time frame. The date portion would be supported by something that does have a definite time frame i.e. the webcite archive. However, Mark takes issue with that, because he thinks WebCite is not an RS, and/or that the date has to be on the Met's website itself to be cited. I've opposed this, both because I think it is very fine hair splitting with what WP:OR and WP:RS say (the same level of obviousness as WP:CALC and WP:TRANSCRIPTION, IMHO) and because a simple statement that the website says it is not on display (or that the painting is not on display) is liable to date (and thus make the article incorrect). That's my understanding, at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is, not just a weak sourcing, but creating the source (the WebCite web Cache/archive that was created on that date) that is added on top of the original source to cite, not just the actual fact that the webcite states it is not on view, but give an arbitrary dating for the as of that...as a reference point, has no encyclopedic value put to slide a gauge to a date and proclaim that as a date to say "as of" when the facts and situation don't seem to call for it. Why can't that simply say "While owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it is not displayed". Why are we even narrating what the museum says on the source...why not just summarize the facts. It seems less engaging as prose to try and...almost bend the sentence to reference the web site itself as stating something just to create the time-dependency. It may no be a form of OR, but it seems like unnecessary dating as the source date is fabricated by the time of the archiving of an outside entity not involved with the source and not RS. It seems un-encyclopedic to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this obsessive discussion is completely ridiculous. On a particular date their website states it was not displayed. That's all you can and should say. You certainly can't say "While owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it is not displayed" (even apart from the wierd grammar). They may have displayed it in the past, & might put it on display next week. Let's move on. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I disagree. Look, I have never seen this done before on Wikipedia where a source is dated by the day an editor checked it without a reference making the claim. But I am not resisting the fact that editors accept this. I just don't agree. But I support this FAC as it is a very well done article. It isn't perfect, but it is very good.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All images are PD and have sufficient source and author info. Source links all active.
One small question about the gallery: the first 3 images aren't clickable for full view or more image information (on a 1920 x 1080 screen with Windows and FF). Can the captions be trimmed a bit? First one doesn't really need "September Morn", the next 2 would be OK without the quoted text.GermanJoe (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Educational, informative, well written and comprehensive are just four reasons as to why this article should be promoted to FA in my view. This made for some happy holiday reading for me! Cassiantotalk11:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not just me that's branching out. I like to find a nitpick if only to show that I've read the article, but your skill and the previous reviewers have left me no crumbs. Great stuff Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Over the last three months I've watched this article expand from a stub to the comprehensive, well written, balanced account now presented. It is neutral and successfully conveys what some perceived as a controversial subject in an educational and encyclopaedic manner. SagaciousPhil - Chat10:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone still reviewing for crit 2, compliance with Wikipedia's house style? Samples only as they caught my eye, check throughout needed:
WP:NBSP. On my screen 7 million is wrapping. Also, c. 1913. And others ... please review throughout ... anywhere a word might be split from a number on a screen should use nbsp to avoid wrap.
WP:MOSNUM. 163.8×216.5 centimetres (64.5×85.2 in), spaces around the x are shown correctly in the infobox, but not in the text.
Most of the short citations end in a period, so they should all end in a period (consistency in citations).
MOS:LQ query, samples only ... he had boasted "If I had never seen it from the day I put down my brushes after painting it, I could make a perfect copy". However, not having copyrighted the work, he did not receive any royalties from the marketing frenzy in the United States; he recalled, "Nobody was thoughtful enough even to send me a box of cigars".
Separately:
he gave a price of 50,000 francs ($10,000) – more than he expected anybody to pay. $10,000 in what year's dollars? then or now ? conversion used?
valued at an estimated $30,000 (in what year's dollars? then or now? conversion used?)
Hi Sandy, thanks for the comments. #3 is generally (or, at least, in my experience) part of the image review, though it appears to have been skipped here; I'll do it. You are correct about #1 and $4, I'll go through them now too. The spaces in #2 apparently had trouble with screenreaders; Graham87 could probably explain that better. Both prices are in contemporary dollars (I thought that implicit agreement was that, unless otherwise stated, prices are contemporary). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me on #3 being related to an image? Citations, not captions? We'll see how Graham responds (he's Da Man on accessibility and screen readers), but see The Raft of the Medusa. Not sure on the implicit assumption of then dollars, nor do I know where to find that in MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I found something at WP:MOSNUM that may be helpful:
In some cases it may be appropriate to provide a conversion accounting for inflation or deflation over time. See {{Inflation}} and {{Inflation-fn}}.
So, for example, I just read a Mike Christie article about very old science fiction magazines, and it discusses something like (don't quote me, this is from memory) them costing a nickel. In that case, the context makes it clear that it is then-dollars, so I didn't ask the question. But in this article's case, it is not so clear to me. Also, did we do the convert from francs to $, or did the source? And do we know if the sources are giving then-current dollars, or something else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about #3, my apologies. I'll have a look tomorrow to see if something is missing (that's usually part of the source review, which hasn't happened here yet). The 50k francs is from this source, and the 10k is from this one. Prices appear to be contemporary (one is only two years separate from the exhibition, so any difference would be minor). "May" is not a requirement for present day values, but including such values should be doable for US currency. Something like this then? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My change to the convert template wasn't an accessibility issue, but rather because I couldn't stand the repeated units in the original template which used "x" as the separator parameter like this: 163.8 by 216.5 centimetres (64.5 in × 85.2 in). I changed it to use "*" on the advice of this thread at Template talk:Convert, so it appeared like this: 163.8×216.5 centimetres (64.5×85.2 in). I've just changed it to use "by", so the measurement appears like 163.8 by 216.5 centimetres (64.5 by 85.2 in). Graham8701:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Graham! Crisco, I'll unwatch now, then, and leave it to you to sort out currency issues. I'm wondering if @Ceoil:, @Modernist:, @JNW:, @Kafka Liz: or any other of the FA art cabal have looked at the article? (Always good to have our resident topic experts on board!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As a peer reviewer, my comments were dealt with admirably at the time. Since then the changes have only strengthened the article further. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Broken ref link: Two citation templates use {{SfnRef|The Pittsburgh Press 1913}} thus there are duplicate ids and the links are going to be ambiguous.
Comment (not a showstopper): The uses of {{sfn}} work. But there are proper uses like {{sfn|Monfried|1971|p=9}} and odd uses like {{sfn|San Francisco Call 1913}} where the date is in the author field.
Comment (consistency, not a showstopper): For some reason there are also uses of {{harvnb}} such as {{harvnb|Witchard|2009|pp=126, 186}}.
Fixed the first point. Last two points: standard in articles I write. Harv for footnotes (reduces the number of clicks for readers) and for references with "quoted in" or other necessary additions. Renders the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Ewulp
The only glaring flaw I'm finding here is in the "New York" section of "Controversy and popularity", where the work on display in the window of Braun and Company is described first as a painting, then in the second paragraph as a print. A footnote explains that sources differ on whether the work displayed was the original or a print, and cites Brauer (2011) and The Tuscaloosa News (1937) as identifying the work on display as the original painting. But this is erroneous in the case of The Tuscaloosa News, where the picture in the art dealer's window is identified as a reproduction. The Sun (May 14, 1913) describes the picture as "less than a foot high", and quotes Ortiz: "The picture in the window will not be removed even by a customer anxious to buy it. The copy in the window now is the only one we have", which suggests a print, not the original. When Ortiz was interviewed by Middletown Times Herald (March 16, 1933), the work was again identified as a print, and Taylor (2012) calls it a print. I haven't read Brauer, but unless she offers compelling evidence that Ortiz was misquoted or confused about the work on display in his window, I think we should assume she got this detail wrong. Ewulp (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just Brauer (though I thank you for identifying that mistake with the Tuscaloosa News). The Met's catalogue states "soon after it was finished it was sent off to this country to find a purchaser. When it was displayed in the window of an art dealer in New York, Anthony Comstock...". The 1935 Time article says "In May 1913, white-whiskered officious old Anthony Comstock was strolling along 46th Street in Manhattan when he was halted in his tracks by the shocking sight of the original painting of September Morn boldly displayed in the front window of Braun & Co." (emphasis mine). I agree that it was almost definitely (like, 99.999999% definitely) a print, but the sources are more ambiguous. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case a slight tweak of the text might be in order. Although the disagreement among sources is explained in a footnote, not everyone will read the note; and even if they do, the slipperiness regarding just what was in the NY dealer's window is likely to prove distracting—in any case, it was for me. Possibly the sentence beginning "Anthony Comstock, head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice and nationally recognized for his campaigns against "smut",[o] saw September Morn[p] on display..." could be rewritten as: " Anthony Comstock, head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice and nationally recognized for his campaigns against "smut",[o] saw September Morn—sources differ on whether it was the painting or a reproduction[p]— on display..." Then in the sentences that follow. "painting" could be replaced by "work" or "picture" wherever needed. For instance, the line that begins the section's third paragraph—"After two weeks, when the dealership had sold every print it had, Ortiz removed the painting"—is sourced to The Sun (June 27, 1913), which explicitly identifies the work that enraged Comstock as a print and describes Ortiz as removing the picture after every copy except one had been sold. Ewulp (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cant say I think much of the painting, but there is a very good story here, which meticulous research and an engaging writing style has brough to the fore. c/e'd about half the article, but it was light weight stuff. Impressed. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure if I'm allowed to support, as Ceoil already has, but I would like to. It's an excellent article - well-written and well researched. One thing that stuck out: "illuminated by a lighting which prominently interacts with the model and setting." - not sure I understand what is meant, and it's a bit of a clumsy construction. Is there a better way of saying this? Kafka Liz (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit it reads oddly to me too, partly because of the apparent redundancy (illuminated ... lighting). What about replacing "illuminated by a lighting" with "illuminated by the morning sun"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Went with "prominently lit by the morning sun". How's that? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 15
This article is about the American Secretary of State, Senator, First Lady, and once and possibly future presidential candidate. It's been GA for a long time, it had a couple of runs at FA a number of years ago, and has been kept in an FAC-ready state ever since then. Now I'd like to try for FA again. I think it meets all the criteria and it's been very stable in terms of content. I thank in advance any reviewers for their comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Nikkimaria
File:Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop.jpg: source link is dead
Now modified to the current State Department source.
File:Hrcraad.jpg: do we have an approximate date for this image?
Did some digging, found the date and circumstances, updated the image description accordingly and also updated the caption in the article under review to give the date and a better description of the event.
File:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.jpg: source link is dead
Now modified to an archived link.
File:2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png: is there any merit to the complaint of the IP? If not, it should be removed from the image description
"Primaries" is used by people in two senses, one to cover the whole nomination campaign, which includes caucuses, and the other to mean the specific kind of nomination contest known as a primary. I've removed the IP's addition but have modified the image description text to discuss that caucuses are included. There is no need to modify the article under review because the image caption already mentions caucuses and the article text already indicates that Obama did much better than Clinton in them.
Can we get accessdates for some of these web sources, such as Ref#123, #129?
I've added the original accessdate for ref #123, somehow it got lost along the way. Not sure what you mean regarding ref #129, that's a news source with a published date.
Should that be "Teachers College Press" rahter than "Teacher's College Press"?
Yes, now corrected.
I wonder why the issue about her maiden name is shunted to a footnote
It is in the article text: "During her husband's campaign, Rodham began to use the name Hillary Clinton, or sometimes "Mrs. Bill Clinton", to assuage the concerns of Arkansas voters;[nb 1]" The Note is to further expand upon the detail of how this came to be and give a quote from her, without derailing the narrative thrust in the article text.
In the "Notes" section there's a lot of external linking without explaining what the sources are (and which is also susceptible to link rot)
When I originally created the Notes section, there was no way of doing nested references, so the cites were all inline. Once there was a way, I started using it for new Notes, but didn't change the older ones. I have now done so. I did leave two Notes, 4 and 16, in the inline form, because those Notes are about the sources themsleves and read better that way.
What is the logic behind putting some things in "Notes" and others in "Footnotes". I'mn thinking of statements such as ref#6: "Her father was an outspoken Republican, while her mother kept quiet but was "basically a Democrat". and #16: " The teacher, Paul Carlson, and the minister, Donald Jones, came into conflict in Park Ridge; Clinton would later see that "as an early indication of the cultural, political and religious fault lines that developed across America in the [next] forty years""
Basically, longer asides or explanatory descriptions got put into Notes while shorter ones stay in footnotes. The #16 one is kind of borderline, but I felt it was tangential enough not to merit a Note.
Ref#52: "This Google Scholar search result produces nearly one hundred hits showing citations of her paper in academic literature.": This likely constitutes WP:OR
Source changed to a journal article by other academics which explicitly states that the paper has been frequently cited.
Ref#s 74 & 75: ditto
Not sure what you mean on these. The cites to these two of her articles are just to identify them; all the commentary on them follows and is from third-party sources.
Ref#211: this is a primary source---is there not another that can be used to cite this statement?
I've looked but there is nothing that is good as a replacement. I think it is appropriate here because the article text has Clinton "saying" what the source supports.
Ref#383: see for example Franklin, op. cit.: I think we're supposed to avoid things like op. cit.
Actually, WP:IBID seems to allow op. cit. It's only used this once, it's to avoid creating a Note just to get a nested reference, and the referent of the op. cit. is just three references above it.
Can we get pages for:
Ref#31 "The Class of '69"
Pages now added, as well as a url that is now available.
Ref#54 "Adults Urge Children's Rights"
News source replaced by a book cite with page number.
Ref#122 "First Lady President?"
I couldn't find page numbers for this but I did add a url for the full article which is now online.
Ref#128 "St. Hillary"
I couldn't find page numbers for this but I did add a url for the full article and fixed the title which was slightly off before.
In para 2 of early life, there are 3 consecutive sentences starting, "She..." - and htey are a bit short. I think we could combine two to make them flow more smoothly
I've reworded this and combined two sentences, in combination with one of SNUGGUMS's comments.
Clinton first proposed marriage to her following graduation but she declined. - no idea why?
I've added "..., uncertain if she wanted to tie her future to his." This is elaborated on in the next section, when she eventually decides to follow Bill to Arkansas rather than stay in DC where here career prospects were better.
Once there, she pushed successfully for Wal-Mart to adopt more environmentally friendly practices - hyphen needed in there?
I don't think so, based upon the notion that adverbs ending in "ly" don't get hyphens when in compound modifiers. I know there are some exceptions to that, but this Google Books search doesn't show others using a hyphen.
ok
and was silent about the company's famously anti-labor union practices - ...undecided about the adverb - wondered whether "notoriously" was more apt (but as a left-leaner I would say that)...then wondered whether we need an adverb at all......
I think it's important to indicate Walmart's attitude towards unions has had a lot of visibility, and 'famously' is more neutral than 'notoriously'.
ok - wondered if "famously" was too positive a word but pratice speak for itself, so yeah point taken.
The last 4 paras of the Early Arkansas years section are a bit small. I though maybe some more details about chelsea's pregnancy and birth but became mindful of the overall size of the article. I recommend making into 2-3 paras for flow here
Hmm. The paragraphs are each on a different topic, and while working on a different article in the past with another editor I got converted to the school of thought that having differently sized paragraphs is a good thing and helps prevent visual tedium. As for Chelsea, I've never been sure of what to add here. Hillary said it was the "most miraculous and awe-inspiring event in my life" but plenty of mothers say the same thing. I could say she was named after the song "Chelsea Morning" but that's better in her article, where it already is.
Agree neither of those facts add anything here.
She earned less than the other partners, as she billed fewer hours,[100] but still made more than $200,000 in her final year there. - given the size of the article, I'd recommend losing this, or just saying she worked a bit less as a subordiante clause if need be as I don't think it adds a huge deal...
I get what you are saying, but I put financial details like this in the article because the Clintons have often said they didn't have much money and that was the rationale for the Whitewater investment, her cattle futures trading, and the high-priced speaking engagements they both did after leaving office. Indeed there was a flap earlier this year when during a book promotional interview Hillary said they had been 'dead broke' when they left the White House. I also thinks this helps describe what her legal career was like.
The firm considered her a "rainmaker" because she brought in clients, partly thanks to the prestige she lent the firm and to her corporate board connections - be good if you could remove the need for a second "firm" in this sentence.
Used a pronoun instead. Also added a link for this meaning of "rainmaker".
the Clintons deflected the charge - I'd say "countered" as "deflect" suggest "obfuscate" or fubb a reply, where as their counter seems coherent.
Changed to 'countered'.
baking cookies and having teas, - having "teas"? not "tea"?
The plural was in her original quote ("... I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas ...", given in the Note), so that's what I used in the text.
Actually, I think she did mean "teas", as in the genteel activity of hosting multiple events where tea is served - not staying home drinking tea herself. FWIW. Tvoz/talk08:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to 'Unconvinced', which is supported by the source.
I'd link caucus at first instance.
I've reworded a couple of places to try to get the first reference to where it talks about how Obama dominated them, since that's an important point, and I've added the link there.
To sum, my queries are pretty minor quibbles really. The article is balanced, comprehensive, well-written and neutral. If anyone does complain about the length, the only section that I think could be trimmed would be the 2008 presidential campaign. It is a little blow-by-blow and maybe some of the detail could be sent to the daughter article. But I am not fussed myself. Well done! Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 00:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"She participated in swimming, baseball, and other sports"..... be more specific in "other sports", or perhaps say "She participated in sports such as swimming and baseball"
Reworded per your suggestion.
Is it necessary to say her father was "otherwise a traditionalist"?
Yes, I think so. As stated in the following paragraph and a footnote, he was an outspoken conservative and did not have an easy personality in general. But he did want his daughter's life not to be limited by her gender, and that may have made a difference in her becoming what she has.
"was of the opinion" is quite a mouthful, try thought or felt
Changed to 'felt'.
"Clinton first proposed marriage to her following graduation but she declined"..... any particular reason she declined?
Now added, see same comment from Casliber above.
"Other segments of the public focused on her appearance, which had evolved over time from inattention to fashion during her days in Arkansas, to a popular site in the early days of the World Wide Web devoted to showing her many different, and frequently analyzed, hairstyles as First Lady, to an appearance on the cover of Vogue magazine in 1998"..... not sure if this is really needed
I feel strongly that it is. She talks several times in her Living History memoir about all the attention her different hairstyles got, much to her surprise. One of the early 'viral' websites was about all her different hairstyles. And there's been plenty of commentary about what she looked like in her student or Arkansas days. The article needs to reflect all this.
Yes, there was actually a notable amount of coverage on the her hairstyle. This sounds superficial on the face of it, but is only documenting the public reaction.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"privately was reported to be furious at him and was unsure if she wanted to stay in the marriage"..... give a more definitive statement than "reportedly"
Almost by definition, no one knows how she reacted in private. But we have to say something in a case like this, because for sure her public reaction wasn't the whole story. So I used the Bernstein biography as a source, which seemed the best and fairest in this matter. Nevertheless I think it warrants a 'reported'.
It would help to include what made her decide to stay with Bill after finding out about his affair with Monica Lewinsky
There are many theories, some of which are alluded to in the 'public reactions' paragraph. Readers can consult the various biographies used as sources for in-depth psychoanalyzing on this question. But at the end of the day, only she knows why she stayed. I included her quote on this, about still loving Bill and how fully alive he is, which I'm sure is part of the reason but I'm also sure is not all.
"There was a variety of public reactions to Hillary Clinton after this" isn't really needed
I shortened it to 'Public reaction varied:'.
The following statements are missing citations:
"She was sworn in as United States Senator on January 3, 2001."
Cite added from existing source elsewhere.
"which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council resolution after pursuing with diplomatic efforts"
Simplified description and moved it under the prior source. The article on the resolution should be the one to describe its complexities.
"It passed the Senate 74–25."
Prior source covers this, so indicated.
"Her last day as Secretary of State was February 1, 2013."
Cite added from existing source elsewhere.
Is "finally" really needed in "The debt was finally paid off by the beginning of 2013"?
Yes, I think so, because it took so long and constituted a burden hanging over her.
"In September 2014, she became a grandmother when daughter Chelsea gave birth to a baby girl" is completely unnecessary, Charlotte belongs in Chelsea's article rather than here
Have to disagree on this. There has been lots of news coverage of Hillary as a grandmother, what it might mean for her politically, etc. It merits a brief mention here.
Why does "political positions" consist of public rankings of her political affiliations and not what Clinton herself identifies as?
I don't think she's ever self-identified to an ideological label like that - she and Bill generally tried to avoid that. And even if political figures do self-identify, it is often inaccurate and/or pandering, such as when Mitt Romney characterized himself as 'severely conservative' in front of CPAC.
May as well remove this section altogether, then. It doesn't seem appropriate to include political labels when she doesn't describe herself as such.
The largest paragraph in this section uses various metrics that political scientists and analytical journalists have devised to measure members of Congress in their voting patterns. That's a useful and completely legitimate thing for this article to include. And the best of those break the analysis down by economic, social, and foreign policy issues, which helps avoid some of the oversimplifications of single-axis left vs right spectrum. Another paragraph gives ADA and ACU ratings, which is a shorthand for liberal vs conservative that many observers have made reference to in this past. The third paragraph, about how the public views her ideological position, is interesting but not as compelling as the other two, so I've now moved it to last in the order. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"New York Times writer" → "The New York Times writer"
I think the 'The' is usually left out in such usages.
Having 7 citations for "Clinton has often been described in the popular media as a polarizing figure" seems excessive per WP:OVERCITE
There was a whole hoorah about including her being polarizing this in the article back in the 2007-08 timeframe, and the eventual resolution was to show six cites in favor of that characterization and two cites against. My philosophy is to honor such agreements even if many of the participants have moved on. I'd fold the sources into one footnote each except that many of them are used in other places as well and thus can't easily be shared.
"Memorable" in "A memorable 2012 Internet meme" seems like WP:PEACOCK
I've taken out the 'memorable', since it's redundant to 'viral popularity'.
"Its viral popularity illustrated the public's interest in the more human side of Clinton"..... I'm skeptical about the tone of this
Well, there's two book sources that say this. There was something about it that caught people's attention - there are still news stories about it now, two years after the fact.
I've changed it to "It achieved viral popularity among younger, technically adept followers of politics." This is directly supported by the existing sources given. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments. I did have a concern about one of your direct edits, which removed 'French Canadian' from her ancestory. The source involved, this NEGHS piece, seems to treat it as a separate ancestry from either French or Canadian, as does the existence of Category:American people of French-Canadian descent, which you also removed her from. I don't have strong feelings about the ancestry parts of articles, but other editors do, so are you sure this removal fits in with usual WP practice? Wasted Time R (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Yes, I'm sure my edit fits practice, and that category is very misleading as it is based off of a common misconception. The piece you've given actually at one point says Antoine Martin was born in Ontario to French natives, easy misunderstanding. Just a few more things and this is good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits)22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Break up her 2008 Presidential Run and her Sec of State section with more Level 3 headings. [16:16, November 30, 2014 MONGO]
I've done that for the Secretary of State section, as it can be divided into two halves. I haven't done it for the 2008 presidential campaign section because it doesn't divide easily (almost all of it is the primaries and caucuses during 2008) and because I don't see any other examples of campaign sections being divided and because I don't want the Table of Contents to become too overwhelming.
I'll read it over this coming weekend and get back to you. If I don't then ping me. Right now I'm leaning no opinion but that is based on my belief that she may have the next POTUS and if so then this current article will be greatly superseded by new events.--MONGO02:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks in advance for reviewing the article. Of course you are entitled to view this aspect as you like, but for what's it's worth, the FA precedent is that looming presidential elections are no barrier to FA promotion. John McCain made FA in August 2008, three months before the general election that he was in, and Mitt Romney made FA in early November 2012, four days before the general election that he was in. And here we are still two years out from the 2016 presidential election. There is no guarantee that she will run - several recent pieces in the political press have been to this point - and certainly no guarantee that she will win if she does. And if she does become president, we'll deal with it in the article when that time comes. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion to Featured Article. Let me say that I am no fan of the subject, so I deliberately looked to see if there was white-washing of those things that Hillary Rodham Clinton is considered controversial for. I did not see any omissions regarding those issues. I will say that the image selection does show the subject in a mainly positive light, but we are limited by what is available due to licensing issues. With over 2200 edits to this article, Wasted Time R has obviously been a dedicated editor on the subject matter of this article and deserves commendation for that dedication which has ensured we have a neutral, expansive, complete and comprehensive article as of this date and time.--MONGO19:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support and your praise. I understand your concern about the photo selection and it's true that much of what is available are official photos of her meeting with world leaders while Secretary of State, which tend to be staged as to make the participants look good. However, I was able to find and add one of the "reset button" photo op with Sergey Lavrov, which is an example of one of these meetings that didn't turn out as desired in the long run. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mark Miller
I have worked with Wasted Time R on this article so I hope I am able to still support it at FAC. It is of Feature Article quality biography, neutral and very well written.
Support for comprehensiveness, engaging prose, neutral, focused but still broad in coverage.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but think it depends on how involved one is with the article beforehand. If you were a frequent editor, that might be a COI, though you'd definitely be able to help address comments in an FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits)21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not a disinterested voice, but I think User:Mark Miller's 'Support' should be allowed. The contributor analysis tool seems to be down right now, but I believe that most of his activity came in 2013, with less than 20 edits and a few talk page posts when there was a discussion with another editor about how to handle a couple of things in the Secretary of State section. I don't think that counts as a "frequent editor" in the larger scheme of things. And WP:FAC doesn't say anything about striking even in that case - it says, "To support a nomination, write 'Support', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this." And he has indicated his prior involvement. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have been editing the article for some time now. Since 2009 under the username Amadsientist (but the history now shows the edits under this name beginning in August 2009 [12] showing just over 60 edits for that month). I have debated a number of issues on the talk page and made many edits including image alteration, text contributions, consensus discussions etc.. I may not be a major contributor but certainly a long term editor whose hands have been on the article for 5 years or more. I wasn't sure how the support !vote worked here and I should be more prepared. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't recognize the renaming of Amadscientist. Yes, your description of your involvement is how I would characterize it as well. And thanks for your support of the FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support and kind words. The nature of the beast is that WP editors more commonly get complaints than praise, so the latter does not go unappreciated! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank
I looked just at the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always.
"continued to oppose most of its domestic policies.": I don't know what "continued to oppose" means; frequently opposed? Also, most things that any administration does are uncontroversial, so she didn't really oppose most of its policies; many of its initiatives, maybe. Also, "its" is arguably ambiguous; a less savvy reader might think you're talking about domestic policy in Iraq.
@Dank: thanks very much for your comments. Regarding your direct edits, the only one I have an issue with is your elimination of "However" in the part of the lead dealing with policy efforts in her First Lady years. I know some editors consider it a word to avoid, but that doesn't make sense to me in a case like this where it is an informative connective. The difference here is essentially between:
"In year Y, Alice failed at major task A. However, in Y+3, Alice did tasks B and C."
"In year Y, Alice failed at major task A. In Y+3, Alice did tasks B and C."
The first version indicates to the reader that B and C are related to A in some way and that in some partial way Alice's initial failure was made up for by later successes. In the second version, the reader doesn't know if B and C are related to A at all; it could just be a chronological narrative of things that happened.
I've searched for however in this article, and if you were the writer, you use the word the same way most people use it: what follows negates or strongly mitigates what precedes. Did the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program negate or strongly mitigate the lack of a national health care program? - Dank (push to talk)
Yes, it provided health care insurance coverage for children who would otherwise be uninsured, so it mitigated the earlier failure among a significant subset of the uninsured population. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My objection isn't a copyediting objection ... that is, if editors agree that the State Children's Health Insurance Program substantially mitigated the lack of a national health insurance program, then "however" is fine. If not, "but" would be better. I'll leave this now and ask again when it's scheduled for TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "continued to oppose most of its domestic policies", the "continued" is meant to indicate she opposed Bush domestic policies from the beginning, not just after 9/11, which is what the beginning of the sentence is setting up. But I agree it's kind of mysterious if you don't read it that way. I've chopped the sentence and made a new one of "She opposed most of Bush's domestic policies." Let me know if that reads okay to you.
How about "she opposed Bush domestic policies from the beginning"? - Dank (push to talk)
I don't think the "from the beginning" is needed anymore now that it is a separate sentence – it is clear that the timeframe of that statement is not tied to the 9/11 responses of the preceding sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for "policies", I think that implies non-trivial choices and not just praising motherhood and apple pie. And the rest of the article uses the word in the same sense, such as when she received criticism for playing a role in policy formation while First Lady. So I've left that word in, but if you strongly object, I'm open to trying to change it. I'm not crazy about "initiatives", because I think it implies new policies only and not modifications, continuations, restorations, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poulenc is the third French composer I’ve put up for FAC, after navigating Fauré and Massenet through the process. He is still, fifteen years after his centenary, too often thought of as a lightweight, and some of his music is indeed deliciously frivolous, but he also had a profoundly serious, religious side, and I hope the current article does him justice on both counts. The article has had an exceptionally thorough peer review here, which included an image review by User:Crisco 1492, as well as top-notch input about the text from an all-star cast of Wikipedians. – Tim riley talk 22:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Tim riley talk21:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I reviewed this article and made copy edits. I believe that it is comprehensive, well researched and well written, giving the reader a clear picture of this composer and his music. I believe that it satisfies the FA criteria and am pleased to support its promotion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our article doesn't capitalise the V of "La voix humaine", any reason you do?
I think the capitalisation in our article on La Voix humaine is debatable. Though we'd normally expect a common noun like "voix" to be uncapitalised in a French title, there is no doubt that the composer's practice was to capitalise it (e.g. "Denise et moi redonné La Voix humaine à New York") a practice followed by his biographer Carl Schmidt. Practice varies on the documentation with the available CDs. Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians doesn't capitalise "voix", but from the same publisher The Oxford Dictionary of Music does. On balance I incline to the view that the composer and his principal biographer should be followed. I'll mention the point on the talk page of the opera. Tim riley talk10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the two met, his music " just to be certain, I would say "the two met, Auric's music"
"leg-Poulenc" - forgive me, is this a play on "leg pulling"?
It is, as explained in a footnote for the benefit of non-anglophones. I ran it past two American and one French editors at PR, who gave it the thumbs up. Tim riley talk10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" talked a load of rubbish" this is a little colloquial, is it a quote?
"who had been Poulenc's only piano student (EMI)" would it be beneficial to the non-expert reader to say, in this first instance "(released on EMI)" or similar?
Support I was a happy camper at PR, where my minor concerns were met, and my tweaks were unmolested. Happy to support such an excellent article. – SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Another happy PR person. I think this is an excellent article that easily meets the criteria, with the qualification that the music section is a little beyond my expertise. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, gents both! Comment from non-specialists is so valuable at PR and FAC: it tells the nominators whether they have made themselves clear. (I have two Poulenc experts from PR who know much more about him than I do, and can comment on my assertions of fact.) Greatly appreciated non-specialist comments and support, meanwhile! Tim riley talk20:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN9, 44, 84, 117: which Schmidt?
FN10 has a stray period after the title
FN28: OED should be italicized
Compare FNs 3 and 70 and 162
FN90: Times should be italicized
No citations to Décollogne
Hinson and Romain should include US, but why does Schmidt 2001 include state when the other US locations don't?
Thank you for this keen-eyed review. All attended to except for the comment on FN 10, which puzzles me as I can't find a period/full stop in it. Tim riley talk19:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've nothing significant to add to my comments at peer review (which were considerable). The article is briskly informative, comprehensive, stylishly written – everything in fact that a featured article should be. On an unrelated matter, I am sceptical of the value of the WP custom that adds the phonetical version of a person's name when pronunciation isn't obvious. How many of our readers can actually interpret phonetic spelling? It would make more sense to me if you wrote: (pronounced "Poo-lonk"), but I guess that suggestion won't get many votes! Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your earlier comments and your support here. "Poo-lonk" shouldn't get any votes, as, perhaps unexpectedly, it's pronounced "Poo-lank". Nobody loves the IPA but it's the least ghastly option, I think. Tim riley talk18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While you're here, Crisco, can I just double check that you're happy with my responses to your image review at the PR? And in particular ought I to replace that church window? Tim riley talk18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: imo you've captured the two sides to Poulenc's personality and musical character, and his place in music history, in a very readable article, outstanding even by FA standards. Just two things:
"talked a load of rubbish": fair enough if that's how the translator rendered it, but in that case I think it should be in quotes
The sources don't say, but I'd guess it was a sign of his personal modesty. I think it was Elgar who said that when he contemplated Beethoven's Fifth Symphony he felt like a tinker looking at the Forth Bridge. Something of the same here, I suspect, but I don't really know. Thank you so much for your support, and for your very pleasing comment, above. I shall need a larger size in hats. Tim riley talk21:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comments
Since Crisco has participated both at PR and here I'm happy to go with his image review at the former.
We seem to have established an informal (and no doubt ultra vires) convention for composer Life and Works articles that a single repeat link per mention is OK in the Works part, on the grounds that it is practically a separate article. I hope this is OK. Tim riley talk18:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... a coin where it is perhaps fortunate that the engraver did not have to inscribe the subject's full name. The usual tale of a poor design and worse sales, with bit appearances from some of the Gay Nineties people from my political articles.Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Source review
Just a couple of quick thoughts/comments:
Of the 43 footnotes, all but two are shortened. The article from The New York Times hasn't been shortened, which is understandable since it isn't a book like the others, but footnote 32 is citing a book. I think that should be shortened like the other books for consistency. (Also, you might want to add |via=Google Books to the full citation for that source, and any others where it would be appropriate, to indicate that the online copy is hosted there.)
You may want to enclose the list of books below the footnotes with {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} so that the text size and other formatting matches up with the list generated by {{reflist}}
You many want to consider adding |lastauthoramp=yes to the full Swiatek & Breen and citation so that it uses the ampersand in front of the last author in the list. That way it would render the authors of that source "Swiatek, Anthony & Breen, Walter".
It would be nice if ISBNs or OCLC numbers were added where possible. For example, based on the Google Books information for the Adams book, the OCLC for that source is OCLC191237505.
You may want to tweak the Peck source to use |volume=vol. 1; once the value for |volume= expands like that, the boldfacing is dropped. Also, it makes it clearer that the "I" is in fact a volume number.
You may also want to change the Slabaugh citation to use |edition=2nd since I think that's more commonly rendered with the numeral than spelled out.
Corporate designations like "Inc", "LLC" and even "Company" are typically omitted from the names of publishers in citations. The fact that Whitman Publishing was division of Western Publishing in 1975 is also pretty superfluous to the goal of a good citation: enabling a reader to locate a copy of the source to consult.
All of the above are offered as thoughts to improve on the consistency in formatting the sources used. In general, I find the sources used to be of the standard expected for a Featured Article (high-quality reliable sources). Imzadi 1979→06:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those. I have gotten most, I think. I'm going to stay pedantic and keep with the LLC and all that. Your comment on the Slabaugh book (Whitman/Western), it was raised in a source review on another FAC as the ISBN (as I recall) was recorded as for Western, so in an excess of caution I'm going to keep that status quo.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have done something of a peer review here, so quite a few comments but nothing of huge significance:
Lead
"it was the only US commemorative prior to 1983 to be a silver dollar" → "it was the only US silver dollar commemorative prior to 1983"
"valued at several hundred dollars to tens of thousands" – the "at" should be "from" (idiom is from–to not at–to)
I don't think it's necessary to trundle out Lafayette's multiple names here – there's a linked article which readers can consult for this information. Is there any reason why the first two short paras shouldn't be combined?
Second para: "suggested" → "suggests" (and perhaps throughout)?
"King Louis XVI ordered that he not go on the demand of the British ambassador." Somewhat clumsy, and vaguely ambiguous. I suggest "...on the demand of the British ambassador, King Louis XVI ordered him not to go."
"The marquis escaped through disguise as a courier": Is "escaped" the right word? Presumably he wasn't being held captive. I'd prefer: "The marquis got away, disguised as a courier"
"The reasons for this included that the 19-year-old sought no pay from the nascent nation, and also Congress received a letter from American envoy to France Benjamin Franklin, stating that Lafayette's family was wealthy and influential." Maybe 1775 is a little early for "nascent" (i.e. new-born), a year before the Declaration of Independence? Otherwise, the sentence does not parse well at the moment. Perhaps: "The reasons for this included the 19-year-old's refusal to accept pay from the nascent nation, and also that Congress had received a letter from Benjamin Franklin, American envoy to France, stating that Lafayette's family was wealthy and influential."
Clarify that Cornwallis was the British commander at Yorktown (not everyone knows this)
The sentence that ends the section needs attribution.
Generally – I found this section somewhat overdetailed, diverting focus from the coin. The importance of Lafayette in US history, and thus the justification for the commemorative coin, could be summarised more briefly.
"which though reported favorably by the committee" – should be "reported on", but "which though received favorably by the committee" would be more elegant
"Another means of fundraising was a proposed commemorative coin" – probably "Another proposed means of fundraising was a commemorative coin"?
Preparation
The words "when Barber wrote to Roberts" don't seem necessary within the narrative
"Afterwards, Barber reported to the Mint Director, "I think we will hear no more of the Lafayette prayer" and that Peck now appreciated that the space available for a design, even on a silver dollar (the largest US coin) was limited, "and as it is the desire of the Committee [commission] to have the monument displayed, the prayer will have to find some other place". Super-long, super-complicated for a single sentence. Needs reorganisation.
Design
"Slabaugh noted" and "according to Slabaugh" should not occur within one sentence
"United States of America" and "Lafayette Dollar" appear at the top and bottom of the obverse." It's not clear what coin this sentence is referring to. It follows immediately on information relating to Krider's medals, and reads as though it's about them, though I doubt that it is.
"which customarily in art means Lafayette died on the battlefield..." etc – is there a source for this and the other given assumptions?
Some punctuation missing un this quote? "Lafayette is represented in the statue as a fact and a symbol, offering his sword and services to the American colonists in the cause of liberty he appears as the emblem of the aristocratic and enthusiastic sympathy shown by France to our forefathers." A sentence break is necessary, best after "cause of liberty" but possibly after "American colonists".
Whose description of Saint-Gaudens is "Barber enemy"?
Vermeule describes elsewhere the conflicts between the two, though not in great detail, and the tone I felt justified it. However, I've added a more explicit reference the relevant text of which (available in Barber coinage) is " the 1891 competition turned the two against each other for the rest of their lives".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Production and aftermath
Do we need the verbatim 120-word report from the Public Ledger, rather than a short paraphrase?
"The commission was tardy in giving the final order for the statute to Bartlett" – spot the superfluous "t"
Overlinking of Bowers (see last para of previous section)
I don't see this, the only consecutive cite to Bowers is in the paragraph beginning "The commission was tardy" and the first anchors a quote.
In the fifth para the date "July 4" is repeated several times in close succession (I know it's my birthday, but...) At last one of these should be tweaked.
Collecting
"Buying a professionally graded and certified specimen should avoid this problem". This reads like advice to collectors, and does not sit well in an encyclopedia article.
The Lafayette dollar is valued from several hundred dollars to tens of thousands, depending on condition. - perhaps indicate that this is current, and for collectors?
It's general enough that it isn't going to change anytime soon. I'll add a "by collectors". It's worth the same whoeever owns it.
The first Columbian half dollar had been sold for $10,000. - didn't you mention this coin already, but not link it?
1983-S Los Angeles Olympics dollar - worth redlining?
I really haven't considered doing modern commemoratives yet, but it's an early one and got lots of coverage so it's a possibility. Will redlink.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really don't have much to add. This is an excellent article, in a line of excellent articles, and my only issues are all minor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you most kindly for the review and support (I haven't thanked Brian yet as I haven't tracked down the source I need to check the quote he queried).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Only two passing quibbles: "DuVivier" or "Du Vivier" (we have both), and I boggle at "mementoes", but am perfectly willing to be told to keep my Limey nose out of American spelling. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. It continues to astonish me how Wehwalt manages to make the (to me) dry subject of numismatics so readable. All good stuff! Tim riley talk15:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support, and the kind words. I think "momentoes" is the less common form, so I've changed it. Also, the "wrong" Du Vivier is in a quote so I've added a sic template. Many thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SchroCat
Very interesting and readable, and leaning heavily to support. A couple of comments before I commit: you've probably considered them already, but no harm in looking again.
Background
"American envoy to France Benjamin Franklin, ...": should there be a comma pre-Ben?
"The marquis and his son George Washington Lafayette arrived": I'd have stuck a couple of commas round the name, but your call.
Inception
"A total of $45,858.30 was obtained..." I know opinion is divided in giving approximate modern equivalents, but some idea of whether this was a million, ten million or more may be useful (even in a footnote)? Your call, either way.
My position on these things is there is no adequate way to relate the value of money back to a time when even a middle-class family would have hot and cold running servants. The fact that the children were asked to bring cents is an indication that money was worth more then than today. (I expect that today the children would be expected to bring in at least a fiver.
Design
"The obverse of the Lafayette dollar features jugate, or conjoined, heads"… You've linked jugate in the Preparation section – would the conjoined explanation be better there?
No, the reader there can use the link to find out what it means. If the reader skips that section and comes right here, he still gets an explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Design
"His horse has two feet up, which, by some accounts, in art means Lafayette died on the battlefield, which he did not—one hoof up would mean a battlefield wound, and all four feet on the ground means the subject died a natural death": I thought this had been debunked as an urban myth somewhere…? (Although for the life of me, I cannot remember where I read it!)
See the discussion with BB. It seems to apply broadly to ACW statues, but 1899 was about the time they were building such things, so it has some relevance.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"why [sculptor and Barber enemy[26]]": is there a reason the citation is before the punctuation?
I'm trying to make it clear that the citation is intended to go to "Barber enemy" as some question was raised concerning this by BB.
Production and aftermath
"Philadelphia Public Ledger reported," I know Americans seen to have a phobia of the definite article, but would you even eschew one here too? (Feel free to tell me not to interfere in colonial punctuation matters if I'm hopelessly wrong...!)
Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
