Let's go fulvous! I started expanding this article at the behest of Crisco 1492 so that an FP could be fitted in without losing other decent images. Once started, I realised that this is one of the world's most widespread ducks, breeding on four continents, and deserving of a better article. Although, predictably, much of the research has been in the US, where it is pretty marginal, I've tried to paint a global picture. Thanks to Crisco for proving tweaks and comments, despite being poorly, before I brought this to FAC. Jimfbleak - talk to me?10:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: All images appear to be fine. All of them by Wikipedians, except one which is derived from an image with an OTRS tag. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This species is gregarious and is usually found in small groups, although substantial flocks can form at favoured sites, and it will mingle with other ducks." The phrase at the end of the sentence seems to be tacked on.
"The downy ducklings are grey, with paler upperparts" This is rather vague. The chicks seem to have a prominent white band around their heads: see here
" Rice is normally a small part of the diet, and in Cuban rice fields the plants taken were mainly weeds growing with the crop." Strange change of tense. Is this referring to some study?
I came across this old (1922) but surprisingly comprehensive chapter by John C. Phillips on the "Fulvous Tree Duck" here. Aa77zz (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (I'm not suggesting that it is a useful source for the article - I just found it interesting as a historical document.) Aa77zz (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The regional distribution for the S. Asian region in the map is a bit too expansive. It is far more scarce than suggested. Rasmussen & Anderton provide a far better and more conservative distribution for the region. (Will mail you the map image Jim)
I've expanded the bit in "Status" using Kear and your Turnbull ref. I can't access that Ostrich ref, and the abstract doesn't even mention this species. Despite the IUCN map, which is wrong in Southern Africa as well as India, I'm not convinced that the duck is even found in the Western Cape, which is largely farmland and semi-desert. The SASOL guide doesn't show it as present that far south and west either, and Cohen and Spottiswoode don't even include it in the checklist at the back of their SW Africa guide. And (OR) I didn't see it there, nor expect too. I can't really do anything on that without the text Jimfbleak - talk to me?09:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
image caption "In flight, showing black-and-white tail coverts" - are there any black tail coverts? All my sources mention white upper tail coverts with the tail being black.
Like other members of its ancient genus - hmm, the way the word is used, it would be best to link to something specific like Dendrocygna rather than genus. However, that would be a bit easter-eggish. Other problem is Dendrocygna looks polyphyletic so I suspect that needs an overhaul. I'd be tempted to use the word "lineage" and leave unlinked.
Hmm, sticking the male's weight without the female's looks odd where it is - I might move it down to where distinctions between the sexes are discussed.
Support based partly on supports & edits after comments by more specialist editors. A handsome bird, and anything able to invade Florida since WW2 deserves support! Only two points:
"Old and regional names include Large Whistling Teal,[5] Brown Tree Duck, Mexican Duck, Squealer and Spanish Cavalier.[14]" - don't some of these deserve redirects, & hence bolding? They could stay where they are in the text though.
There are photos of birds in London and Stuttgart, well outside the normal range given. Are these summer visitors or human-aided releases etc? Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, never seen that. I must say I often bold redirects outside the lead where appropriate, say if the term only relates to a particular section. But ok. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for range: I agree, it's odd how we don't mention if vagrants reach Europe, or if the birds may go to Europe outside the breeding season in large numbers. There's a mention of the US there, but I don't see Europe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod, thanks for support. With regard to the two points made
FWIW, I've normally done what Crisco says, bolding the main names in the lead, and listing obsolete or regional lower down unbolded
Both the European images are in collections, there are no natural European records. I'll tweak the captions to make that clear (and that's why those images are so good)
Over the last few months, I've taken this article from start to GA, and asked Tom to take some photos of the museum the next time he was in town. He went above and beyond (and is incredibly humble about it), and his photos have made a significant difference to this article for readers. So, I've asked him if he would join me as co-nominator (it will be his first time at FAC) because I believe his contribution deserves to be recognized.
This article is about Geology Hall, the sixth building built at Rutgers University. Designed by a well known architect, Henry Janeway Hardenbergh (known for NYC's Plaza Hotel), and built in 1872, the facility housed some science department offices, but is better known (then and today) for its geology museum featuring exhibits on the geology and natural history of New Jersey. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN4: is there to be something after that, or are we just missing a parenthesis?
Good piece of work. Leaning heavily to support, but a few thoughts below: adopt or ignore as you will. I'm not too knowledgeable on AmEng usage, so apologies for any obviously stupid things below:
Oops: apologies, for some reason this was only half completed. What I meant was that a line or so before you told us it was 1864, so either "six years later" or "in 1870" are fine, but both seem to be repetitive. Perhaps just "In 1870"? Your call as it's not a deal-breaker and it won't change my support. – SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"2013: US$1,215,365.62" Firstly I'm not sure we need the US (you've already mentioned the currency just beforehand, and it's a US building); I'm not sure we need the precision of 62c either?
Reply: - I mentioned "US$" to avoid any potential confusion over other "dollars" -- something I tend to do when adding inflation figures. In previous articles, I've had foreign users ask what I was converting, so in the vein of "better safe than sorry" I provide that distinction and avoid a situation that forces a reader to assume. I removed the 62c from the adjustment figure. The original amount listed cents, so I'll keep that precision for the original figure but will remove it for the inflation adjustment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Geology Hall's first floor provided the college with rooms for laboratory and lecture instruction, and housed the college's armory.[1]:p.101 The second floor was designed to accommodate a geological museum.[1]:p.101 The first-floor classrooms would house ..." May be worth having the two first floor mentions together before moving onto the second floor?
"to commit toward continuing": is that right in AmEng? It's "towards" in BrEng, but I'll leave it to you.
Done - In AmEng, either "toward" or "towards" is acceptable. And despite an occasional lapse, I usually use towards. I'll add an "s" given my respect for BrEng over AmEng.--ColonelHenry (talk)
Nice, informative article but I think the prose could be tightened up.
Who erected the building? Was it the president of the college, vice-president George H. Cook, or someone from the board of trustees? One of the major facts about any historic building, I don't see it mentioned in the article.
Reply: none of the sources that I've found or that are readily available name the builder/contractor who was responsible for construction. They name Campbell and Cook regarding the effort to build it (funds, idea), the trustees approving it, and Hardenbergh designing it, but none mention the guy who did the work. I bet if I dug deep in the University Archives I might find it, but right now that's would take a lot of time, travel, and effort just to add a few words.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Missing word: Compare this sentence "As part of the Queen's Campus, Geology Hall was included on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places and the National Register of Historic Places in 1973." from the intro with "In 1973, Geology Hall was included with six other buildings on Rutgers' Queen's Campus on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places the National Register of Historic Places." from the body. I think you are missing an "and" in the second sentence.
The first part of this sentence could be shortened: "Rutgers president William H. Campbell raised funds to construct a building to accommodate this expansion, and Geology Hall, designed by architect Henry Janeway Hardenbergh, was built in 1872." I don't think the fundraising aspect deserves more words than the design and construction of the building.
Reply: - I don't see a problem with this, and think the two parts are appropriately balanced (14 for funds (15 including "H.") 13 for design and construction). I don't consider this actionable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed tenses: "The museum, which is among the oldest collegiate geology collections in the United States, was founded by..." I think "The museum, one of the oldest..." sounds better and doesn't mix tenses.
Choice of words: "Its exhibits emphasize the natural history of New Jersey, geology, paleontology, and anthropology...". Isn't a word like "showcase" more visual than "emphasize", appropriate for describing a museum display? Don't the exhibits "encompass" the fields of "natural history, geology, paleontology and anthropology", they don't emphasize all of them, do they?
Repetitive use of the word "to": "Pursuant to the Morrill Act of 1862, this designation gave the state federal lands to sell to raise money to develop..."
Add a few explanatory words: "George Hammell Cook (1818-1889), a professor of chemistry and natural sciences, influenced the state to..." I'm guessing he was capable of influencing the state because he was highly respected?
Reply - it is the nature of a participatory republic that any citizen can influence his elected representatives--whether they are big or small. I think my discussion on Cook career offered in this passage adequately explains his importance and the platform on which he was able to "influence". I don't consider this actionable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have joined dependent clauses (no subject) with ", and". Is this correct in American English? Eg:
Restrictive vs unrestrictive: "Completed in 1872 at a cost of US$63,201.54 (2013: US$1,215,365), Geology Hall's first floor". Make it clear the building was completed in 1872. Talk about the first floor in a separate sentence.
Restrictive vs unrestrictive: "Today, Geology Hall houses offices of the university's administration and the Rutgers Geology Museum" Do you mean "houses offices" (some) or "houses the offices" (all)?
Addressed - revised to "houses some of the offices of..."--ColonelHenry (talk)
Plural noun: "The museum's collections, of which only a small portion is on display," Change "is" to "are".
Reply and other fix: - is is tied to the singular portion within the clause and is correct; feature is tied to the plural collections (and had to be changed from features).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make sense: "The museum's earliest collections began to coalesce in the 1836"
Reply: - "Coalesce" = bring together to form one mass or whole; commingle; to blend or come together; mix together different elements. Do you have a suggestion for a better way of stating this? --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unwieldy sentence: "Many of the exhibits feature items that are unique to New Jersey, including Native American artifacts, minerals, and fossils, including a set of fossilized dinosaur tracks believed to belong to the carnivorous Grallator,..." You should separate list items with a semicolon, eg "Many of the exhibits feature items that are unique to New Jersey: Native American artifacts; minerals; fossils, including a set of fossilized dinosaur tracks believed to belong to the carnivorous Grallator; ..."
Break into separate paragraph: "The mastodon, found in a marl pit near Mannington, was sold by a local farmer to a travelling circus before it was acquired by Rutgers for display." If the mastodon was an attraction while it belonged to the travelling circus you should mention that. Are mastodon skeletons rare?
Reply: - Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS a one-sentence or two-sentence paragraph would be too short to standalone. Mastodon skeletons are not rare, as far as I know, since I can name a few museums in the NYC metro area that have at least one. As for the travelling circus, I could only assume it was on display, BUT the sources don't go into detail of it being put on display, only that it was sold to a travelling circus. I cannot go beyond what the source indicates.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Missing a hyphen: "The museum displays a 2,400-year old" Change "2400-year old" to "2400-year-old".
Repetitive: "The mummy ... was discovered in Northern Egypt and brought back to the United States by a Dutch Reformed missionary who served in Egypt in the early 1700s.". Change "who served in Egypt" to "who served there".
Preposition: "planning to place the museum's exhibits in permanent storage". I think "place ... into ... storage" is correct, instead of "place in".
Reply - After checking Oxford, Webster and Collins, I don't see a difference denotatively--and usage is indicated as correct either as in or into some place since expressing the situation of being enclosed or surrounded by something; expressing movement that results in being enclosed or surrounded by something. Storage would be one of those "somethings". I don't consider this actionable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Missing word: "close the museum". Shouldn't that be "close down" or "shut down" to imply it's permanent?
Reply - "close" is an entirely appropriate idiom according to several dictionaries. The previous clause mentioned putting the exhibits in "permanent storage" which prefaces the nature of the closure. I don't consider this actionable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Word choice: "A letter-writing campaign from alumni and the general public successfully convinced". I think "persuaded" is better than "successfully convinced".
TO FAC COORDINATORS: I contacted Ottre to inform him/her that I addressed the comments above,[3] however, I notice by the user's contributions that Ottre has only had three edits in 2014, two of which were at this FAC--and only 14 edits in the last two years[4]...so I do not expect Ottre to come back to review my responses herewith to his/her comments. Please take this into account and consider that I have made an good faith attempt to address Ottre's comments adequately.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...to expand its curriculum to include science and agriculture education. - hmm, I know it's neat but looks a bit funny to my eyes....I think I'd say " to expand its curriculum to include [teaching/courses] in science and agriculture." or somesuch
Its exhibits showcase the natural history of New Jersey, geology, paleontology, and anthropology and include fluorescent zinc minerals from Franklin and Ogdensburg, a mastodon from Salem County, a dinosaur trackway discovered in Towaco, and a Ptolemaic era Egyptian mummy. - would a colon be better after "natural history of New Jersey" as what is coming after is alist of things belonging to that object?
Done semi-colon added, created a dependent clause re: geology/paleontology/anthropology, and created a new sentence with the second half of the sentence. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hardenbergh and the trustees agreed that building with brick would be too expensive -- "building with brick" --> "this material" (avoids two bricks...)
Not thrilled about the gallery, but concede there is alot of nice visual material and don't feel strongly enough for it to be a deal-breaker. Ideally the section on exhibits could be longer to incorporate some of this material in hte body of the text....
Reply" I could increase the material on exhibits by going into detail on some of the items (since some have generated some literature in journals), but I wanted to err on the good side of WP:SUMMARY. Tom provided a lot of visual material with the collection of photographs and since there were only so many opportunities to use them in text, I thought a gallery would put them to good use. I've never really been thrilled about galleries (since many are badly executed), but I would rather show Tom's great photographs and a gallery serves that aim.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: - I think I've addressed your concerns above, please review my responses to see if they suffice and if you see additional things needing to be addressed. I appreciate your help.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
okay, tentative support on prose and possibly comprehensiveness. I can't see anything else to improve unequivocally and do not know enough to be hugely confident some notable tidbit has been missed, but if the consensus is that it hasn't then I think we're over the line. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Shoebox2
Tentative support on the basis of characteristically elegant prose and attention to detail. However I do feel like one or two of the gallery photos could be eliminated without much loss (do we really need two views of the staircase?) and it could be made clearer when/why the classrooms for the physics, military science, and--especially--geology departments were moved. Shoebox2talk21:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was necessary, only that some photos seemed more relevant than others. :) These are lovely photos, and I can understand why you'd be reluctant to leave any out. Shoebox2talk21:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: It is my understanding that the military science department was phased out with the WWII training programmes (i.e. V-12, etc.), and then transitioned into the ROTC programmes post-WWII; further that as the university expanded, first at the turn of the 20th century and then after WWII, the various science departments moved as other buildings were built. The physics department moved to the Busch campus (which was developed for all the math/sciences/engineering depts, etc.) in the 1960s, and geology later. However, there's little that says exactly that, therefore, no source = cannot be included. I'll look, but I had looked before and wasn't successful in finding anything for that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rutgers-geology-exterior.png - an 'own work', seems fine.
File:Cook,gh.jpg - subject of photo died 1889, which means even if it had not previously been published, it would meet the US criterion of "120 years from date of creation". So licence appears sound.
File:Rutgers University Geology museum stone tools exhibit.JPG and all subsequent images - 'own works', not portraying art works or other copyright items, seem fine.
Mirror symmetry is an interesting example of an idea in theoretical physics that has had a significant impact on pure mathematics. This article was promoted to GA status back in September, and I've done a lot of work since then to bring it to FA status. Polytope24 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in light of the work done on the article since its nomination. Ozob (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Comment. While I enjoyed reading this article, I'm a professional mathematician, and sentences like, "Then the area element of the torus is which integrates to on the unit square" are perfectly clear to me. That's not so for the average reader. The average reader finds mathematics at best unintuitive; at worst they find it terrifying, even if they think that physics is fascinating. In particular, most laymen are intimidated by equations. Stephen Hawking, when he wrote A Brief History of Time, was told by his editor that every equation halves the number of people who will read the book. There was a nice article by Steven Strogatz in the Notices of the AMS recently on writing mathematics for the general public which discussed this same issue in depth. So while I think that the article is very good for someone with some technical background, I am not sure that others will find it so appealing. Ozob (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too, too, true. Even if, as I expect is the case here, the topic is never going to be understood by those without some advanced maths, there should at the least be a summary in the lead that bends over backwards to explain in lay terms roughly where the topic fits in, and what those who do understand it use it for, or in. I can see an effort has been made here, but it does not really work. The lead seems generally too short - Enumerative geometry (which seems a bit simpler to grasp as a concept) gets a long section below, but is not mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your comments. I have modified the lead slightly, following Johnbod's suggestion, to explain the idea of enumerative geometry. Please let me know if this is an improvement.
About the level of mathematics, I'm not sure what I can do exactly. The current article does require a little knowledge of complex numbers and calculus, but this is already way, way less background than you would really need to understand mirror symmetry. A proper treatment of mirror symmetry would require very advanced ideas from complex algebraic geometry, symplectic geometry, and homological algebra, not to mention very advanced knowledge of quantum field theory and string theory.
Somehow I would like to include a precise discussion in the article without assuming all this background. The approach taken here seemed appropriate because it comes from another encyclopedia entry by Eric Zaslow in "The Princeton Companion to Mathematics". I welcome any specific ideas about how I might make the mathematical parts of this article more accessible. Polytope24 (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me suggest some changes. Consider the Overview section. It starts off with a subsection called Idea, and this section attempts to explain where mirror symmetry might come from. The Idea subsection can be caricatured as:
Duality is a thing relating two theories
String theory requires extra dimensions
Extra dimensions are eliminated by compactification
There are two Calabi–Yau manifolds
Mirror symmetry is interesting to mathematicians
This is oversimplified, and not exactly what the article says, but it's what I think a lay reader will get out of it. Imagine that someone who has no prior knowledge of mirror symmetry comes to this article and reads this subsection. They are looking for The Story of Mirror Symmetry. They stop near the beginning of the next section when they hit the first equation in the article, (technically it's not an equation because there's no equals sign, but those weird w's are intimidating nonetheless). The story that they get is the one I outlined above, and—to be honest—it's going to be opaque to them. It starts off with abstract nonsense (duality), continues with five-dimensional unicorns (extra dimensions), then a meaningless long word (compactification), something named after some Calabi-Yau fellow, and then bland assertions that mathematicians think it's important. I think the article presupposes background in mathematics or physics that the general reader will not have.
I would suggest greatly expanding this section, roughly along the following lines (I apologize for any errors; I'm a mathematician, not a physicist):
String theory is a model of the physical world where elementary particles like protons and electrons are modeled by tiny one-dimensional strings.
String theory in four dimensions is inconsistent, but string theory is also the best available model for quantum gravity.
If we add extra dimensions to string theory, then it's not obviously inconsistent.
In order to make these extra dimensions accord with both everyday experience and with existing experimental verification of general relativity and quantum physics, they must not show up in any experiment we can do right now.
One way of doing this is if the extra dimensions close up on themselves. If they close up on themselves and are too small for our equipment to detect, then they will be consistent with prior experiments.
Not all ways of having these extra dimensions close up on themselves have the necessary physical properties. The extra dimensions must be shaped like something called a Calabi–Yau manifold (named after Eugenio Calabi and Shing-Tung Yau).
Even if string theory with the aforementioned extra dimensions is a correct model for the physical world, nobody knows which Calabi–Yau manifold is the right model for the physical world. This requires experimental observations that we cannot currently do.
Furthermore, there is more than one way to create a string theory from a choice of Calabi–Yau manifold. Two ways of doing so are called the A-model and the B-model.
However, it turns out that the choice of an A-model or a B-model is irrelevant. An A-model on a Calabi–Yau manifold is the same as a B-model on a different but related Calabi–Yau manifold. This related manifold is called the mirror of the original Calabi–Yau manifold. Mirror symmetry is the study of how A-models on a Calabi–Yau manifold relate to B-models on its mirror.
Mirror symmetry is a type of duality, meaning that the mirror of a mirror is what you started with. There are many kinds of dualities in physics.
Mirror symmetry also has mathematical consequences such as enumeration of rational curves.
In physics, mirror symmetry is justified on physical grounds. Mathematicians want to be able to prove the existence of mirror symmetry using pure logic, with no appeals to physical necessity. In some but not all cases this has been done.
Now, that's much, much longer; it's a lot to write, and a lot to read. But it can be done without any mathematics whatsoever, and it can be done so that the reader understands The Story of Mirror Symmetry. In addition, a reader who has the background to understand some or all of the mathematical details will be much better equipped for the rest of the article. That said, I think that this treatment applies to many of the later sections: They can be written using less formal mathematics and more prose and pictures. For example, complex structures on a torus can be described as measurements of the sizes of the torus's holes (since that's most of what the period lattice is capturing). In some ways the symplectic geometry section already does this, since it talks about area, but the discussion is in terms of a volume form , and that kind of language foreign to many potential readers. The more that the article relies on prose, the more accessible it becomes.
I think a good example in this regard is homotopy groups of spheres, which explains a very advanced mathematical topic to a general audience. Eventually, the article becomes more technical and less accessible, but for a while at the beginning the reader needs very little background. Since you're aiming for mirror symmetry (string theory) to be an FA you'll have to aim even higher and correspondingly make the descriptions even simpler. Another excellent article is group (mathematics); it's written at a level where anyone interested in recreational mathematics should be able to follow (and the more technical stuff is in group theory). I don't pay much attention to physics articles, so I don't know whether there are any good examples like this among the physics articles; perhaps yours will be the first! Ozob (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these helpful suggestions, Ozob. I just finished making some major revisions to the article. I have significantly expanded the Overview section following your suggestions, and I have also collected the mathematical portions of the article in a separate section that readers can skip if they do not have the background. I don't really see how I can remove any of the math while still explaining what I wanted to explain (the relationship between complex and symplectic structures of mirror manifolds), but I made a serious effort to simplify the exposition and make the mathematics less dense. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. Polytope24 (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It works a lot better for me, but I will wait for expert comments. As I said above, I never expected to be able to understand most of the article, but the lead and overview now seem to explain pretty clearly where it "fits in" (to quote myself above). Thanks for the prompt and extensive rewriting. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll wait for Ozob to chime in here, but I just wanted to say that if the mathematical sections of the article are still a problem, I have an idea about how to remove most of this material and expand other sections of the article, possibly making it more accessible. Polytope24 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you've done with the introduction, and what I want to say is: More! I think you could give the entire rest of the article the same treatment. The geometry of tori, for example, is very visual, and I believe that you can give a treatment that is accessible to everyone. And similarly for symplectic manifolds because they're so closely tied to classical mechanics. I think the article's progressing very well, but it's still not done. Ozob (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I made a bunch of changes to the article, and I think it's much more accessible. The content is basically the same, but I've removed all the technical mathematics and described these concepts more intuitively in other sections of the article. Please let me know what you think. Thank you. Polytope24 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! The article is much, much more accessible. I have a few more comments, though:
The overall layout feels odd. The history seems like it should be closer to the start (often a historical introduction to a subject reads well), and the applications seem like they should be further down.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think the article says clearly anywhere that constructing mirrors is still conjectural. My understanding of the state of affairs is that it's much better understood than it used to be (in particular I think Mark Gross has some nice work on this – by the way, the article links to the wrong Mark Gross), but there are still cases where it's somewhat mysterious.
Also, now the article has no equations whatsoever. While I think the article is better now than it was before, it might be that it's gone too far towards accessibility and now does not have a full and complete description of the subject. Take a look at Emmy Noether, for example: It gives the reader a look not only to Noether herself but also at her work. Some parts of it are inaccessible without some background, but those parts are relatively few, and they often come together with simply descriptions.
Despite my suggestions, I'm running out of feedback for the article. I think it's now at the point where it would be good for some non-technical people to look at it. Ozob (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your comments, Ozob. I think the article has improved significantly as a result of your input. I've made some changes to the to address your points 1 and 2. The history section is now the second section rather than the last.
I'm not sure what to do about your third point. Mirror symmetry is not a subject where you have one big central equation, and my previous attempts to include math in the article involved too much handwaving and circumlocution. I considered adding more information about Hodge numbers of mirror manifolds, but this topic is only tangentially related to the actual mirror duality, and I would need a lot of space to explain it in a reasonably accessible way.
Actually, I think the article looks much better now that I've changed the order of the sections. The previous version had the applications section right after the overview, and this made it seem like something was missing from the article. Please let me know what you think, and tell me if you have any specific ideas about what sort of technical details I should be including in the article. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I'm not an expert in mirror symmetry, I don't know what kind of technical information is important to include and what isn't. My feeling about the current version is that it stops just shy of giving any details because those details are hard to make accessible. For example, I don't know how one explains derived categories to non-specialists. But if the article is really going to try to explain homological mirror symmetry, then it needs to have some kind of description of what the derived category is, what the derived categories of coherent sheaves and of the Fukaya category look like, why these are expected to provide interesting information, and how they're expected to be related. Right now, the article starts down this road, then quickly stops. There is much more to say about homological mirror symmetry, and the reader can see that, but the article avoids it. Until the article really wrestles with details and makes the details accessible (if not to a complete layperson, then to someone with very minimal training in physics and mathematics), then the article isn't complete. This is a very hard thing to do, but the article isn't FA quality without it. Ozob (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm perfectly happy if a maths article becomes completely incomprehensible to me in the lower sections, so long as I feel the broad topic has been explained in terms a lay person can just about understand at the start. There should be enough mathematical detail to keep mathemeticians, who are always likely to be the main readership, happy, but it doesn't need to be (and probably can never be) comprehensible to the lay reader throughout - I for one am content to drop out after a certain point. Johnbod (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may be overstating the need for accessibility in later sections of the article. I don't think we can seriously expect the article to make derived categories accessible to the layperson (I remember struggling with them myself). But the article shouldn't omit these topics entirely. Ozob (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I expanded the section on homological mirror symmetry. It's should still be accessible to a broad audience, but now it gives a more detailed description of the two categories. Polytope24 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! I object, however, to the last sentence: There are well-known links between symplectic and complex geometry. These are best explained by Unitary_group#2-out-of-3_property.
Looking over the article again, I realized that I don't really know what mirror symmetry is good for in physics. I get the impression from the article that it helps in doing calculations; why? Why should looking at a mirror manifold be any easier than looking at the original manifold? Ozob (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the impression that mirror symmetry appears in physics as a kind of technical tool; is there physical intuition for why it should sometimes be easier (or harder) to work on the mirror manifold? Ozob (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a useful technical tool in physics because it simplifies things mathematically. I'm not sure if there is a more intuitive reason for this.
I think you're assuming that the change of manifolds is what simplifies the calculation when in fact it's the change of theories. Let me know if there's a way to clarify this in the article. Polytope24 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I am. I guess I don't really understand the difference between type IIA and type IIB string theories and therefore I don't understand why switching theories would be significant. The article doesn't currently explain how either of these theories work, so we can't expect the reader to understand why mirror symmetry would be physically important. I guess it would help if the article tried to address this as part of the overview section. Then, later in the article, it could sketch how the correspondence between theories on mirror pairs works. That would not only avoid readers getting misconceptions (as I did) but also make the article more comprehensive. Ozob (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK! This gives me a much better sense of why mirror symmetry would be useful and physically relevant.
At this point, I'm out of criticism for the article; I don't know how to make it better. I'll mark myself as supporting this article's nomination. Ozob (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now ready. Near to support After the responses to my comments above, and Ozub's change to support, I'm very near to support. I think the comments just below are sensible, and I also wonder if the 6 "see also"s can easily be reduced by mentioning some in the text (I hope none are already mentioned). Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johnbod. The topics linked in the "See also" section are actually not part of mirror symmetry per se. What I've tried to do here is collect links to a handful of other examples of ideas in modern theoretical physics that have influenced the development of mathematics. These would presumably be of interest to readers interested in mirror symmetry. Please let me know if this is an appropriate use of the "See also" section. Polytope24 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Polytope24: My understanding of ALSO is that it probably isn't an appropriate use: "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic ..." Of course, a featured article is supposed to be comprehensive. If you do keep some links: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." RockMagnetist (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, FAs, at least when passed, tend to have 3 SAs or fewer. It might be better to string a sentence together about "ideas in modern theoretical physics that have influenced the development of mathematics" with them as examples. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I went ahead and removed several of the links. I left only the ones that are rather closely related to mirror symmetry but not closely enough to include in a survey like this article. Polytope24 (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I am a physicist, but I have had little exposure to string theory, so my comments will be mainly about readability. Overall, this is a well-written article, and I congratulate Polytope24 for doing a great job of making it accessible. However, there are some stylistic problems of the sort that tend to creep into mathematical writing. Some I fixed myself, but there are a few that I didn't feel BOLD enough to fix. For now, I have only looked at the Overview:
Consider making the first section heading String theory instead of Overview.
Per Manual of Style, the section headings generally should not repeat the article title. I'm wondering whether Homological mirror symmetry could be replaced by Homology.
'the manifolds are said to be "mirror" to one another' is ugly. Would mathematicians object if it were replaced by "the manifolds are said to mirror one another"?
The garden hose analogy is a bit puzzling, since the hose is actually three-dimensional. Is the ant really "inside" or is it restricted to the surface?
The paragraph on duality: It's jarring to start discussing "physical systems" and switch to "theories", unless you explain why they are the same thing. Also, there is some flab here. How about replacing
If two theories are related by a duality, it means that one theory can be transformed so that it ends up looking just like the other theory. The two theories are then said to be dual to one another under the transformation.
by
If one theory can be transformed so it looks just like another theory, the two are said to be dual under that transformation.
"In the late 1980's, it was noticed" needs to be replaced by something more definite (i.e., the names of the noticers).
"In the context of topological string theory, mirror symmetry states that two theories, the A-model and B-model, are equivalent in a certain precise sense." This doesn't seem to add any new information to the preceding text.
You're welcome. The illustrations are gorgeous, by the way. I moved a couple to the right because I think they look better there, but I don't mind if you move them back. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made a bunch of changes to the article. Here's a summary of what I did to address your points:
1. I changed the headings in the overview section to include a reference to string theory.
2. I don't see any way of abbreviating the term homological mirror symmetry. I hope that's okay. This is a phrase that appears in all the literature on the subject. Also, the term "homology" is only very indirectly related to homological mirror symmetry.
3. Changed "mirror" to mirror.
4. Fixed garden hose analogy.
5. Revised the paragraph on duality following your suggestion.
6. Credited Cumrun Vafa and others with the discovery of mirror symmetry.
7. Tweaked the sentence on topological string theory to emphasize that I'm introducing two new terms here: the "A-model" and "B-model".
Most of these changes look good. However, my third point had to do with grammar, not typography - "to mirror" would be better than "to be mirror to". It's something I have noticed about the use of mathematical terminology: often, a definition that makes grammatical sense in its original context is grafted without change into a sentence where it is not good grammar. Also, for point 7 it might help to have a link to the section in which they are described. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the links you requested and changed the terminology slightly. It would be a little odd and unconventional to say the manifolds mirror one another, so instead I wrote that they are mirror manifolds. Polytope24 (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Homological mirror symmetry:
Is it correct to refer to a Calabi-Yau manifold as "a Calabi-Yau"?
I'm wondering whether the description of categories is complete. Is the morphism a structure-preserving mapping between branes? If so, what structure is preserved? Is the "state" of an open string entirely determined by the endpoints, or is it something more?
People often refer to Calabi-Yau manifolds as Calabi-Yaus, but I can change this in the article if you like. As for the morphisms in the derived category, I have worded the explanation such a way that it is technically accurate without going into too much detail. The morphisms in this category are indeed structure-preserving maps; they are obtained from morphisms of sheaves. The set of all morphisms between two branes has the structure of a vector space, which physicists regard as the state space for strings stretched between the two branes. If you like, I can explain this in the article, but I think it's probably best to leave it as it is. Polytope24 (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for your detailed explanation of morphisms - I think you should put it in. You're near the end of the article, and this is by far the most difficult section (in fact, it probably should be the last section). It's difficult because it is loaded with abstract concepts, and I'm sure a reader who made it this far would appreciate anything that you could do to make it more concrete. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Strominger-Yau-Zaslow conjecture:
I removed the figure that just pictures a torus, because (though pretty) it is redundant and forces you to specify which picture of a torus you're referring to in the text.
"says how these circles are arranged" - "determines" maybe? Also, aren't there an infinite number of choices for B? Later you mention an "auxiliary space", so a bridge to this concept would help.
In the second last paragraph, does applying T-duality amount to mapping the red and pink circles onto each other? If not, is there some other way of picturing the dual torus?
I tweaked the language in this last section to hopefully address your concerns. The point about T-duality is that all of the longitudinal circles are inverted, giving a new torus which is "fatter" or "skinnier" than the original. I hope my revision makes this clear. Polytope24 (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General comment - I think this will be my last comment. This article is looking really good, and I'm ready to support it. However, there are still several places where you use the words "some", "many" or "X are certain Y", and these are often vague. If you can replace any of them with more concrete statements, the prose would be more crisp (as in User:Tony1/How to improve your writing). RockMagnetist (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it meets all the featured article criteria. I don't have the expertise to say whether it is comprehensive, but there are no obvious gaps, and Polytyope24 has done an excellent job making it comprehensible to a non-expert. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Sorry, Polytope24, for being late to the review process. All your hard work with Ozob and RockMagnetist has paid off, as the article is very readable given the mathematical sophistication of the topic. From a content point of view I think I am very near full support for FA status. Just a couple of comments.
In the context of comprehensiveness, in Strings and compactification section you mention superstrings, but nowhere else in the article. The rest of the article talks about Calabi-Yau manifolds as seemingly ordinary varieties with e.g., their defining polynomials containing no Grassmann variables. For superstrings, are there super-Calabi-Yau manifolds? Do these supermanifolds have supermirror symmetry? It would be super if you could clarify this.
In the Theoretical physics section, it is said, "mirror symmetry can be used to understand properties of gauge theories (a class of highly symmetric physical theories appearing, for example, in the standard model of particle physics). Such theories arise from strings propagating on a nearly singular background, and mirror symmetry is a useful tool for doing computations in these theories.[45]" But reference 45 doesn't really support this assertion. In chapter 36 of the Hori et.al tome, there is no mention of mirror symmetry being applicable to the standard model. It only discusses gauge theories, like N = 2 supersymmetric SU(2) gauge theory in four dimensions and large-N Chern-Simons theory. These are quite specialized gauge theories with special symmetries. As far as I know, the geometric engineering approach hasn't mapped the standard model in an analogous fashion. Hence it isn't clear that the standard model has a mirror symmetry.
1. The part of mirror symmetry that I'm most familiar with is homological mirror symmetry, and there you certainly don't need any supermanifolds. Everything is formulated in terms of an ordinary Calabi-Yau variety. The book by Hori et al. discusses the superspace formalism for supersymmmetric field theories in Chapter 12, but there it's the worldsheet that's being treated as a supermanifold, not the target space. I don't know if there's some formulation of mirror symmetry where the Calabi-Yau manifolds are promoted to supermanifolds.
2. My reference to the standard model was only supposed to provide a context for the discussion of gauge theory. I have modified the language in this section to emphasize that the gauge theories studied using mirror symmetry are not part of the standard model.
Thanks, Polytope24, you have addressed both my issues and new wording concerning the standard model looks good to me. The article has my support for FA status. --Mark viking (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this article meets all the featured article criteria for content: the prose is clear and concepts well-explained, the the coverage of the topic is comprehensive, the inline citations look to support the assertions (my quibble regarding the standard model above was a matter of wording, not a bad reference) and a spot check of some of the references showed that they all checked out. I'm not an expert on MOS compliance in FA, etc, but in regards to the content, the article is FA class. Well done, Polytope24! --Mark viking (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks as though the article has had quite a bit of attention since your crie de coeur on the FAC talkpage, which is how I noticed it. I can't comment sensibly on any of the article's substantial content, which is way outside my range of comprehension. However, I did notice that in the relatively short lead the words "mirror symmetry" occur ten times, which is over-repetitive and could, I am sure, be reduced by a few textual manoeuvres. Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments First, given the complicated technical nature of the subject, this article does an excellent job in providing a relatively accessible account. While reading I noticed a few things:
As currently phrased the tone of some of the remarks about lack of mathematical rigour in the physical formulation of mirror symmetry can be misread as being a little judgemental. (I am sure this is not intended, but different people may read things in different ways). Take for example the line in the lede: " Although the original approach to mirror symmetry was based on nonrigorous ideas from theoretical physics, mathematicians have gone on to rigorously prove some of its mathematical predictions". This could be phrased more neutrally as (for example) "Since the original formulation of mirror symmetry based on physical intuition, rigorous mathematical proofs of some of it predictions have been formulated." (OK, maybe not the smoothest suggestion.) This avoids a few unwanted suggestions, such as a dichotomy between physicists and mathematicians (even if that does exist to some extent. Similar phrasing occurs again in the "enumerative geometry" section.
"A Calabi–Yau manifold is a special (typically six-dimensional) space..." If I recall correctly, Calabi-Yau manifolds can have any (even) number of dimensions. The word "typical" seems out of place. (The thing you seem to want to stress is that the six dimensional case is of most physical interest.)
"In a paper from 1985, Philip Candelas, Gary Horowitz, Andrew Strominger, and Edward Witten showed that by compactifying string theory on a Calabi–Yau manifold, one obtains a theory roughly similar to the standard model of particle physics" It has been a while for me, but isn't Calabi-Yau compactition required in order to retain some degree of supersymmetry? (Which is necessary for some popular models of beyond the standard model physics, but not for the standard model per se.) Please double check that this phrasing is accurate.
"Such dualities arise frequently in modern physics, especially in string theory." Is "frequently" the best adverb here? You could take the position that dualities are actually quite rare. However, they are very useful when they exist and therefor very important.
One more comment, some of the papers referenced are missing DOIs, while others do include them. This should be at least consistent. (As annoying as the task of tracking them down an adding them can be.)TR16:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I made the following changes to the article:
1. I certainly didn't want the discussion of mathematical rigor to sound like an attack on physicists. I have changed the wording to emphasize that this has to do with methodological differences between the two subjects.
2. It is possible to talk about Calabi-Yau manifolds in dimensions other than 6, but the six-dimensional ones are the most interesting even for pure mathematicians. I changed the wording to avoid confusing the reader.
3. The sentence about Calabi-Yau compactification is true as stated, and it's also related to supersymmetry. I added a few words mentioning this fact in the article.
4. The word "frequently" is perhaps not the best choice, but I would say that dualities are really quite ubiquitous in theoretical physics. I changed the wording in this sentence.
5. I'm working on tracking down the DOIs of these articles.
The change you made for 3 has a small problem. As it reads now, it suggests that the standard model has supersymmetry.
And for 4. I would call "ubiquitous" somewhat of an over statement for someting for which the occurences outside string theory can be counted on one hand. It would be a lot safer to state that: "Such dualities play an important role in modern physics, especially string theory." This is also more informative.
I just fixed #3, and I'll take care of the DOIs as soon as I get the chance. As for #4, I disagree that "ubiquitous" is an overstatement. In addition to the dualities relating different versions of string theory, you have lots of dualities in field theory, like Montonen-Olive duality, Seiberg duality, the relationship between Chern-Simons theory and the Wess-Zumino-Witten model, the AGT correspondence, 3D-3D correspondence, 3D mirror symmetry, and various generalizations of the AdS/CFT correspondence. In many cases, these dualities don't just relate individual theories, but entire families of theories. It is true, of course, that all of these theories are related to string theory. If you like, I could emphasize this more in the article, or I could list some of these dualities to justify my use of the term ubiquitous. Let me know what you think. Polytope24 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concern In general the article is very good. I think at this point the only concern is comprehensiveness. The biggest problem with this is that most reviewers (myself included) are not in a good position to judge whether the article is comprehensive. However, I am a bit concerned that the article is missing the state-of-the-art. Reading the article, a reader may be left with the suggestion that nothing has happened in the field since 2000. Maybe this is indeed the case, but that seems unlikely to me for a field that seems rather active.TR10:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, TR. You make a fair point. I just added a paragraph to the end of the history section mentioning some of the recent developments in mirror symmetry. Polytope24 (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a wealthy American business executive, equestrian, and philanthrophist who gave tens of millions of dollars to support education, rowing, and equestrians sports. Despite his unfortunate death and the circumstances surrounding it, he was a good man and touched the lives of many with his generosity, and many more by practically inventing the second mortgage market. After a very detailed GA review that was as rigorous as some of the best FAC reviewers, I believe the article is ready for prime-time.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I had a page number for fn19. As for the rest, the library that had the newspaper articles clipped in one of their archive files, I didn't remember seeing page numbers on the clippings. And it would be a 90-minute drive just to check. Per Wikipedia:CITE#Newspaper_articles says "page numbers are optional". I would consider news/commentary magazines to fall in this category as well (I.e. Mother Jones)--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do some periodical refs say "in work", and others just "work"?
In the 1980s, Caspersen and Beneficial began a 15-year effort to redeveloping Harbour Island into an upscale residential and commercial development similar to Baltimore, Maryland's Inner Harbor. Could you be more specific regarding the specific year they started this? Also, "effort to redeveloping" feels stilted to me; how about: "In the 1980s, Caspersen and Beneficial began to redevelop Harbour Island into an upscale residential and commercial development similar to Baltimore, Maryland's Inner Harbor, something that took them 15 years to complete."
Reply and fixes - I think I should rephrase it as "began a 15-year effort to redevelop" and remove the -ing -- it never was "completed", I don't have a specific year that it started, nor do I know what's the more accurate or intended definition of "start" (the initial idea? the completion of planning? the beginning of construction?) to be more specific.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source states that he purchased Harbour Island from a Beneficial subsidiary in 1979, and "broke ground" there in 1983. The source doesn't state if he had done any improvements between '79 and '83, and exactly when the 15 years ended, in '94 or '97. I think the solution is to say that when and from whom he purchased the island, and don't mention the 15 years. How about this instead: "Caspersen purchased Harbour Island from a Beneficial subsidiary in 1979, and in 1983, began to re-develop the island into an upscale residential and commercial development similar to Baltimore, Maryland's Inner Harbor." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After seven years of dwindling business, Beneficial converted the it into office space and renamed it Knights Point in 1995. "The it"? Are you talking about the island itself? If so, how can you convert an island into office space? Please clarify.
As per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, the last 2 paragraphs are too short. I think that you can combine them, as long as you make a transition between the two ideas, something like: "Caspersen's next business acquisition was Knickerbocker Management, which he founded in 1998 with a few partners. Knickerbocker, a private investment firm that oversaw approximately $1 billion in assets of trusts and foundations, had offices in Gladstone, New Jersey and Hobe Sound, Florida."
In 2005, Caspersen sought a seat on the town commission in Jupiter Island, Florida, and ran on a platform concerning conservation and limiting development, and burying utility cables. I know you've already linked Jupiter Island in the lead, but I think you should also link it here, since it's the first time you mention it in the body. I don't think that "a platform concerning conservation" is accurate. How about putting a semi-colon after "Florida", and then: "...his platform focused on conservation, limiting development, and burying utility cables."
Barbara Caspersen serves as an emeritus trustee at Drew. The present tense usage here doesn't fit in with the past tense uses everywhere else. How about: "As of [year], Barbara Caspersen has served as..."
...a fact that Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Harvard alumnus Daniel Golden attributes to their father's generosity. Again with the present tense usage. How about "has attributed" or "once attributed" or "in [year], attributed to"? Who is Golden and why did make this statement? Was he Caspersen's friend? And was it because their father financially supported all four in law school, or was it for another reason?
Done - Golden wrote a book critical of the legacy of privilege and wealth in elite universities. They were not friends--or even associated with each other. It comes down to Dad gave money to his alma mater and it bought his sons seats in their respective classes. Some sources actually go as far as claiming his sons were smart enough to get it on their own--a statement that is not appropriate to add to the article. I think I've clarified that in my revision.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2nd paragraph: I think that you could simply combine this paragraph with the first one.
In the weeks after his death, accounts of massive financial difficulties began to emerge. Needs to be more formal. How about: "In the weeks after his death, reports of Caspersen's financial difficulties began to emerge." "Massive" is both peacocky and unnecessary, since you describe the difficulties next.
Next sentence: Repetitive, since you already stated this, almost word-for-word, earlier. I think that you could remove the earlier sentence, since this is more about Caspersen's behavior before his death than his actual career.
Reply and addressed differently - It's a good suggestion, but I think the earlier mention should remain simply because it would be awkward not addressing the particulars of the resignation at that point since it's intrinsically connected to the political career, removing the first and keeping the second mention would make that fact seem rather disjunct and somewhat random/out-of-place without its context as the end of his career in elective office. After thinking about it, I opted to remove the second mention, since I'd venture to think the average reader would immediately pick up on the association between his pre-death behavior and the earlier mention of the "claim" he gave upon resigning.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you should rewrite the 4th paragraph; it's halting and awkward. How about: "Caspersen was facing legal difficulties as well. The American government began a crackdown on tax havens and offshore bank accounts used by wealthy Americans to evade paying taxes, and according to The New York Times, Caspersen's name had emerged in the government's investigations. It was reported that Caspersen's name was turned over to federal investigators by Swiss banking giant UBS earlier in the year, and in connection to Liechtenstein Global Trust (LGT), a private bank controlled with Liechtenstein’s royal family. Caspersen, who was reportedly facing audit by the Internal Revenue Service, was suspected of owing as much as $100 million in back taxes and fines or possibly facing imprisonment."
During his 20-year tenure, he is considered "the man who put American combined driving on the international map" as American riders and drivers earned 71 medals, including 25 gold, in the Olympics, World Championships, and Pan American Games. Tense problems; could be clearer. How about: "He was considered "the man who put American combined driving on the international map". During his 20-year tenure, American riders and drivers earned 71 medals, including 25 gold, in the Olympics, World Championships, and Pan American Games."
The Hamilton Farm property was owned by Beneficial and located next to the corporation's headquarters. You're missing "was" between "and" and "located".
In 2003, he pledged $30 million—the largest single donation in the school's history—to help jump-start the law school's capital campaign of which Caspersen was chairman. Awkward; how about: "In 2003, he was chairman of Harvard Law School's capital campaign, which he helped jump-start by pledging $30 million—the largest single donation in the school's history."
In his honour, a special collections room in the law school's Langdell Library bears the Caspersen name. I think this is a little redundant. How about: "The law school honored Caspersen by naming a special collections room in its Langdell Library after him." (BTW, this is an article about an American, so it should have American spelling.)
Also, in April 2012, Harvard dedicated part of a 250,000-square-foot multipurpose construction project as the Caspersen Student Center to house student organizations, journals, and social activities. Did both honors happen in 2012? If not, I don't think that you need the word "also". How about: "In April 2012, Harvard dedicated part of a 250,000-square-foot multipurpose construction project, which housed student organizations, journals, and social activities, to Caspersen, calling it "the Caspersen Student Center".
However, Harvard's decision to name the facilities after Caspersen was criticized, citing the alleged tax evasion. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Harvard alumnus Daniel Golden criticized that Caspersen's generosity to Harvard guaranteed his four sons admission at the law school. This could be improved, too. Plus, we see that Golden's above comments about Caspersen's generosity weren't complimentary. How about: "However, critics attacked Harvard's decision to name the facilities after Caspersen, citing the alleged tax evasion. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Harvard alumnus Daniel Golden claimed that Caspersen's generosity to Harvard guaranteed that his four sons were admitted to the law school.
Caspersen and his wife have been involved with Drew University. His wife has served as trustee (currently as an emeritus trustee) and as both chairwoman and vice-chairwoman of the Methodist-affiliated liberal arts college's board. I think that you could omit the first sentence, which would mean that you'd have to revise the second. Why is it important that you mention Drew's Methodist affliation? How about: "Barbara Caspersen has served as trustee (currently as an emeritus trustee) of Drew University and as both chairwoman and vice-chairwoman of the the college's liberal arts board."
In 1999, Caspersen and his wife provided a $5 million gift for expanding graduate education programs. Excuse me for my feminism, but I really don't like the phrase "and his wife". This sentence also needs some clarification; how about: "In 1999, the Caspersens provided a $5 million gift for expanding graduate education programs at Drew."
In honor of their service to the university, Drew renamed its Graduate School as the Caspersen School of Graduate Studies. "Graduate School" doesn't need to be capitalized, and what graduate program? The new name should be put in quotes, not italicized.
Reply - I was under the impression that we shouldn't use quotes because they can be misinterpreted as "scare quotes". I had chosen to italicize the things named after him and have done so consistently. During the GAN, the reviewer only asked that they be consistent. WP:MOSTITLE doesn't directly encourage or discourage this practice in this particular example. For which programs, I refer you to the Drew University article, in particular the Academics section.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The university's Rose Memorial Library houses a collection of books, manuscripts, artifacts and papers of Nebraska-born author Willa Cather (1873–1947) assembled from items given by several donors—including significant contributions by Caspersen and his wife. It is regarded as one of the best collection of Cather's papers assembled in the United States. I think you could improve this, too. How about: "The Caspersens were significant contributors to the university's Rose Memorial Library, which houses one of the best collections of books, manuscripts, artifacts and papers of Nebraska-born author Willa Cather (1873–1947) in the United States."
Reply I did not address this one because the suggested revision completely changes the tenor and purpose of the sentence, which is the Cather donations, instead the suggestion removes the focus on the donation of Cather's papers and focuses it on the library itself as the aim of their donation which is inaccurate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Caspersen's donated funds to build a four-level annex to Brown University's historic John Carter Brown Library, dedicated in 1991, that was named in honor of his parents. Errors and clarity problems. How about: "In 1991, Caspersen [or the Caspersens] donated funds to build a four-level annex, named in honor of his parents, to Brown University's historic John Carter Brown Library."
Done - I rephrased to "dedicated in 1991" at the end, since I don't know when the money was "donated" but only know that the completed result of that donation were dedicated in that year.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Caspersen also served as a trustee of the Peddie School starting in 1970, and as the board's chairman starting in 1976, joining philanthropist Walter H. Annenberg in giving $10 million to the school in 1998. If Caspesen made the donation to Brown alone, you only need "he" here, and I don't see how being trustee and chairman are connected with his donation with Anneberg, unless it was how he bought himself on the board. If there's no connection, I suggest separating the phrases into independent sentences.
The Caspersen Campus Center, which opened in 1996, and Caspersen History House, dedicated 2006, were named in his honor. Again with the italicizing. Also, you should insert the word "in" before 2006.
Under his stewardship, the trust provided over $118 million in the 25-year period from 1976 to 2001. You already state that he worked with the trust starting in 1976, so you don't need to say it again. How about: "During the 25 years he worked with the trust, it donated over $118 million.
Okay, I believe that I am finished here. I'll accept Niikmaria's source spotchecks, and if you resolve all the above issues, I'll give my support. Thanks for educating me about an interesting figure. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I'll get the chance in the next day or so to address your concerns--been tied up with some IRL matters.--ColonelHenry (talk)
Support. Great article, nicely put together. I've made a couple of very minor tweaks here and there: feel free to rv if you disagree with anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Shoebox2
Support with pleasure. An elegantly written, very readable and well-organized article that despite falling well outside my usual sphere of interest caught and held my attention throughout. Shoebox2talk21:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Ian Rose
As I have a FAC of my own open right now I'm recusing myself from delegate duties here and there to review, so I'd like to take a look at this one in the next couple of days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say I found the prose quite clunky in places. Rather than write out every concern I've cut to the chase and copyedited, but of course ready to discuss the changes. Outstanding points in the meantime:
I'll leave the final decision to you but I don't think it's necessary to link to 'current' countries or national groups like Norwegians, Russians and Poles. Linking both Norwegians and Norway is especially overdoing it.
I assume "was graduated" is a valid Americanism -- I'd expect simply "graduated" otherwise.
Reply: A person doesn't graduate, the university graduates them to a degree. It's probably a little elitist to phrase it in the transitive sense (I prefer to avoid the intransitive vulgarism for the same reason that someone saying "I am an alumni" or "he was an alumni" or "referendums" irks me)--the student earned a degree, the school graduated them and the action was done unto the student.[7]. In another article, someone accused me of being "posh" for using the "was graduated" idiom--but the subject of that article was rather "posh" as well.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a practising pedant I can hardly fault you there, its just that "graduated" is so common that I fear you'll have drive-by editors changing it anyway. Personally I don't mind if you leave it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that language is what language does, and people do graduate, whatever the historical origins of the term. I worked in a university and saw hundreds of my students graduate, and indeed graduated several times myself, and in all the paperwork i ever saw, in all contexts, i never once saw reference to a university "graduating" someone. I would actually go so far as to say that such a formulation is incorrect because it is anachronistic (or is archaic? ;-)) Either way, I'd change it or, as Ian says, others will keep doing it. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: from American Heritage Dictionary: The verb graduate has denoted the action of conferring an academic degree or diploma since at least 1421. Accordingly, the action of receiving a degree should be expressed in the passive, as in She was graduated from Yale in 1998. This use is still current, if old-fashioned, and is acceptable to 78 percent of the Usage Panel. In general usage, however, it has largely yielded to the much more recent active pattern (first attested in 1807): She graduated from Yale in 1998. Eighty-nine percent of the Panel accepts this use. It has the advantage of ascribing the accomplishment to the student, rather than to the institution, which is usually appropriate in discussions of individual students. When the institution's responsibility is emphasized, however, the older pattern may still be recommended. A sentence such as The university graduated more computer science majors in 1997 than in the entire previous decade stresses the university's accomplishment, say, of its computer science program. On the other hand, the sentence More computer science majors graduated in 1997 than in the entire previous decade implies that the class of 1997 was in some way a remarkable group. •The Usage Panel feels quite differently about the use of graduate to mean “to receive a degree from,” as in She graduated Yale in 1998. Seventy-seven percent object to this usage. Chances are 77 percent of the Usage Panel graduated in 1930, but still. Anyone changes it, I change it back. Best part about it being on my watchlist.--ColonelHenry (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i think you just made the best case against the formulation you are seeking to defend. The Americal Heritage Dictionary, a conservative institution by your comments, found greater consensus among its panel for the usage I have suggested, then it did for the formulation adopted in this article. Furthermore, it emphasises its appropriateness when the focus is on the individual receiving the degree rather than the operation of the University, and the former is the case in both instances in this article. I think if you try to revert a change of the term back to its current use, you'll hit an issue with WP:OWN and going against the kind of consensus implicit in the AHD figures. And, given the AHC has a stronger consensus for what i would term the contemporary use, i'm puzzled as to why your defending the more anachronistic one? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Why...(1) "Accordingly, the action of receiving a degree should be expressed in the passive, as in She was graduated from Yale in 1998. This use is still current, if old-fashioned, and is acceptable to 78 percent of the Usage Panel." (2) "The Usage Panel feels quite differently about the use of graduate to mean “to receive a degree from,” as in She graduated Yale in 1998. Seventy-seven percent object to this usage." I don't know what about that is NOT clear. the use of "should" implies one option among several acceptable ones. This is usage I've chosen, this is the usage I'll maintain--just like that one editor whose only contribution is changing "comprised of" wherever he finds it--sorry, I have to stand for something--even against the vulgar debauching of the language by the herd. As for WP:OWN, I couldn't care less. It's usually the go-to policy in order to avoid debating the issue--much like a thought-terminating cliché. If someone mentions WP:OWN, they've lost the battle IMHO. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may have confused you. I wasn't arguing for the awful formulation "She graduated Yale", which the Panel rightly rejected: I'm arguing for the formulation that the largest proportion of the Panel recognised as acceptable and acknowledged was more prevalent in contemporary English: "She graduated from Yale". (just to be clear, i don't care about this as an FAC issue, but i don't understand why one would stick to a formulation that will trip up virtually every contemporary reader, because they won't have seen it before.)hamiltonstone (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And those are probably the same contemporary readers who say "I am an alumni of X university"...and probably majored in communications or exercise science or some other discipline lacking rigor. Sorry, it's elitist of me, but I don't think highly of them.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<Sigh> Why are you avoiding the central argument here: that the contemporary formulation was endorsed by the highest percentage of the AHC Panel and acknowledged as more currently prevalent, not merely adopted by apparently second-rate exercise scientists? I take it you do not dispute my other contention, that the formulation adopted here is seldom if ever used in contemporary writing? Where will our readers have seen it before? I would have thought we would avoid wording any WP article in a way that made it more difficult for a reader, when an alternative wording was available that was correct? I just don't get the point of that. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you said "i don't care about this as an FAC issue", it indicated to me that no reply seemed to be required. As far as I'm concerned, you have wasted my time arguing about the usage of "was graduated" vs. "graduated"--only an absolute drooling moron would be confused and most people would neither notice nor care about the difference. Your argument is specious and tedious since in the presence of several acceptable options, I take the liberty to choose one and I chose one--and thus am well within my right to say "piss off" if someone insists I forgo my perfectly valid choice to choose another based on a matter of preference. Therefore, I am done with this. I don't care if you didn't get the answer you wanted. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed "were" added to complete the proper usage. If I really wanted to be a stickler, it was formerly preferred to say "was graduated at" instead of "from" or less "by", or muttered something about "was" and vestiges of Latin's ablative case in English.--ColonelHenry (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Harvard alumnus Daniel Golden claimed that Caspersen's generosity to Harvard guaranteed that his four sons were admitted to the law school" -- this was highlighted in a previous section, does it deserve two mentions?
Reply: I mentioned it to reiterate Golden's context--however, while anticipating a reader might forget the context, I haven't been happy with this. I'd be glad to change this--the sole reason I haven't fixed it/revised it is that I've been at a loss despite my displeasure for what other, better options there could be to replace this. Can you think of a better way to accomplish the reestablishment of the context without the needless repetition? --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really think of a "non-repetitive" way of putting it because it's the same point in two places. Because the second mention leapt out at me, I do feel you can do without it. It's true the accusation could legitimately be mentioned in either spot but to me it seems more appropriate under Personal life, where you discuss his sons' education for the first time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Caspersen [or the Caspersens] donated funds" -- I'm sure you haven't used this equivocal language lightly but I'd hope we could improve it for an FA-class article; can we say funds were donated in his name, for instance, which would seem to cover things?
Reply: - the more prominent implication in the States when someone says "funds were donated in his name" is that someone else did the donating and that the funds were not his. I don't know where that bracketed parenthetical came from, so I removed it from the text.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, back to the lead, as this is a content question as well as a prose one: I tweaked the sentence about his suicide in the lead as it just read abruptly to me the way it was; I also found it a bit odd that after you describe it as a surprise (and I don't doubt it was) there seem to be no expressions of shock mentioned/cited when you discuss his death in the main body... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: That tweak is o.k. with me--it is a good rationale. All deaths are a surprise, suicides all the more--so the implication is there already without having to be reminded of it. All surprises, I have learned, are primarily a form of violence.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One new point: I noticed "honour" in the lead -- shouldn't this be written in AmEng? You might need to check the whole thing for other instances. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply/Done - I'll alter the honours to honor (there were 4 iterations), but I've never been partial to the exclusionary rationale of the strong national ties suggestions (all predicated on the deontic modality of "should")[8].--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the centenary year of the beginning of World War I, I decided to expand and polish some old bios of participants in that conflict, in light of newly available sources. This article on the second-highest scoring ace of the Australian Flying Corps is my first attempt. Like his great friend and fellow No. 4 Squadron ace Harry Cobby, King's aerial combat lasted barely nine months, making his achievements all the more remarkable. He also did some newsworthy things as a civil pilot in the early 1920s before settling down with an engineering business and a young family, until again putting on the uniform, this time for the RAAF in World War II. Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent MilHist A-Class Review, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Dan, fine w. your edits. FTR, it occurred to me while reviewing those changes that the significance of the balloons could stand some explaining so I've added/tweaked a bit there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Elwyn_R_King_A03717.JPG: when/where was this first published? Same with File:E02661Cobby1918.jpg, File:E04146JonesAFC.jpg
Not stated in the Australian War Memorial source files.
File:P00826.128Snipe1918.jpg: even though the Australian government thinks this is PD, that doesn't mean that they were the copyright holders who released it, nor does it necessarily mean this is PD in the US - the second licensing tag needs replacing, unless we can show that the photographer was a government employee. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how such a shot would originate with anyone but an official Australian photographer but it's not specified; I can replace with PD-1996, which in fact is what I'd normally use for a pre-1946 AWM image anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, As this is a biography I would state the age at which King died, so the reader doesn't have to jump back to the beginning of the article, note the DOB/DOD, do math, and return just to put the context of his age into the narrative. Besides, stating the man's age has a certain ring to it in terms of who the person was. The DOB/DOD by itself does not, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Re: Featured Articles. I'm not sure what the 'expectation' is for the bibliography and citations, but I noticed that none of the citations are linked (with |ref= and ref link) to their respective listing in the bibliography, while most of the citations spell out the name of the book, external link, etc, each and every time a given citation is used. To get an idea of how this is often remedied, look at the References in the Tadeusz Kosciuszko article. e.g. Every time Storozynski is used for a citation, only the author's name, year and page number are used, while the citation links to the source in the Bibliography where the book title is spelled out only once (and any external PDF link is listed only once, not every time it's used for a cite -- I counted 17 external pdf links in the text.) This convention is esp handy if the title, links, etc are lengthy. However, as I said, I'm not sure if this Bibliography/citation convention is expected of FA's, but I thought I'd mention it for your consideration -- so other than that, the article looks good to go. If you like, I could make the conversion. Since this is only a citation convention, not a content dispute, I don't think it would make the article unstable if we made the change and were quick about it. (i.e.one editing session) I've done this for numerous articles and could do it with my eyes closed and would be more than happy to (in my sandbox first) if there is approval from the major contributor(s). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your considered comment. I think I can safely say from long experience as a writer, reviewer and coordinator at FAC that the prime expectation for FAs re. referencing is internal consistency. Generally speaking, the style I employ here is the style I've employed on dozens of similar articles as I find it clear in appearance and straightforward to implement. The PDFs for citations is deliberate. The Australian War Memorial has been kind enough to digitise the official histories of Australia in both World Wars, chapter by chapter. So the link to each official history you find in the References section is to the book as a whole, but the links in the Notes section are to individual chapters, which I think makes it simpler for anyone spotchecking sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is well written with a wide range of sources, new and old. With a reservation about the bibliography/citation convention used, the article is FA material. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a live jazz album by pianist Thelonious Monk's quartet. It was Monk's first successful live recording, while the album's title referred to his reputation as an enigmatic, challenging musician at the time. Short article, of moderate importance, at least in jazz. Print sources were derived from GoogleBooks previews, such as this one of Charles Fox's "Jazz and Swing" piece in Gramophone magazine that is cited in the article. If a reviewer requests, I can find whichever is needed for verification purposes. Dan56 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tezero
Background comes in a little late in the game; it starts with "After returning to the New York City club scene with his new quartet" without mentioning where Monk had been before or with whom he had been playing.
"It comprises a single chorus." - Strange wording; if it only appears once, it's not much of a chorus. If you mean that it only includes a chorus repeated over and over again, keep the wording but add "repeated at length" or something to the end.
Per Wikipedia:FACR 2.c, the references should be made to follow one of the two different formats currently in place. My personal preference is to use the shortened-entry style found in the earlier footnotes, rather than the full-citation style found in many of the later ones, but the main thing is that they should be consistent. I also applaud your use of the term "Bibliography" for the alphabetical list of sources, and urge you to resist any suggestion to change this to "Sources", "References", or the like. If you take my advice, the full-length citations in those later notes should be moved to your bibliography, where they will provide a convenient way for the reader to survey the sources you have used, in an alphabetical list instead of helter-skelter throughout the footnotes. Otherwise, I would say this article looks very handsome indeed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the right idea, though it looks like you have got about four more to do. For unsigned items, it is customary to use "Anon." in authpr-date citations, although it is also possible to invoke a "corporate author". The main problem with doing this is that some items may resist such identification, and once you have got one "Anon." in the list, anything else without a personal name looks odd. In case of items without a date of publication, use "n.d." (for "no date"). If you find there are several "Anon." items with the same year, differentiate them with added letter (e.g., "Anon. 1856a", "Anon. 1856b", etc.). I notice also that you have got one item in the bibliography with "et al." This abbreviation should only be used in inline citations, for items with more than three authors. The listing in the bibliography should list all of them before the year of publication. I'm afraid you are on your own dealing with the "sfn" template in such cases, however. I have no experience with this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed anything, done! The All Music Guide books that have the "et al." have about a hundred writers ([11]), so I don't know how I could list them all--I chose only Planer because his review/piece from page 895 is being cited. Also, Jerome, do the bibliography items require "Anon." or "n.d."? Dan56 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding. The All Music Guide book that you name is an example of what is called a "collective work". That is, it includes signed articles from a large number of contributors, all under the editorship of just three people: Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, and Stephen Thomas Erlewine. This is similar to references such as the New Grove Dictionary of Opera or the German MGG. When citing a specific article from such a book, you should put that author's name and the article title (enclosed in quotation marks) in the bibliography, followed by the title of the collective work (italicized), and the editors of the volume. In a reference work with the articles arranged alphabetically by title, it is optional to add the inclusive page numbers of the article, though in this case it may be advisable to do so. I believe you are citing two different articles from the All Music Guide, and so you should have two different entries in the bibliography. Because this particular book collects together "reviews" of individual albums, you may need to modify this simple plan a little bit. Planer on 895, I imagine (GoogleBooks won't let me view that page) must be an album review (of Misterioso?) within the article on Thelonious Monk, and so the entry should look something like:
Planer, Lindsay (2002), "Thelonious Monk: Misterioso". All Music Guide to Jazz: The Definitive Guide to Jazz Music, fourth edition, edited by Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, and Stephen Thomas Erlewine, 895. San Francisco: Backbeat Books. ISBN9780879307172.
Since you are using citation templates with which I am unfamiliar, the exact results may differ somewhat, but in general this should give you the idea. In this case it is incorrect to add "et al." to Planer's name, since she is the sole author of the album review, and note that author names should only be inverted when they are being used for alphabetization purposes. This is why many bibliographical templates have fields both for "author name" on the one hand and "last name" and "first name" on the other. In the above example, the editors' names should be in normal name order; inverting them only creates chaos for the reader.
I am not sure what you mean by your question about whether bibliography items require "Anon." or "n.d.". These are placeholders for items that do not give an author's name or year of publication, respectively, and are therefore used in both inline citations and bibliography entries. Indeed, you should be unable to link from one to another with the "sfn" template, unless they appear in both locations. I currently see six anonymous items in your bibliography: the first two entries, and the four beginning with "Misterioso OJCCD 206 2" and ending with the Original Jazz Classics Collector's Guide. Some of these are undated, and so should have "n.d." The others should have their year of publication, like this in the inline citation for the Original Jazz Classics Collector's Guide: "Anon. 1995" and like this in the bibliography: "Anon. (1995)". Needless to say, they should be alphabetized under A for "Anon.", just as if this were an actual author name, and then sorted by year of publication. You can place the "n.d." items either all before or all after the dated ones, but if there are two or more, it will be necessary to distinguish them with subordinate letters, just as you would do for two items from the same year by the same author (e.g., "Smith 1911a; Smith 1911b", therefore "Anon. n.d.(a); Anon. n.d.(b)").—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I've fixed the alphabetization problem, and added the missing letters differentiating the three "Anon. n.d." entries. The author last name and date should appear exactly the same in the inline refs and the bibliography. This raises a further issue: I presume the inclusion of a day and month within the parentheses in some of the bibliography entries is forced by the template. Author-date citations should display only the year but, if they have got more than that in the bibliography, then so should they in the inline (i.e., footnote) author-date references.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to be so difficult, but at least some of those items require the month, season, or even exact date to differentiate different issues of magazines and the like, all of which within one year may have, for example, page 23s. The normal bibliographic layout is to put the month (or day and month, in the case of weekly magazines or daily newspapers) in parentheses following the title of the publication or, if a volume and/or issue number is given, after that information. When both volume and issue are given for a magazine or journal, this is optional, for for popular magazines and newspapers, volume and issue numbers are rarely available. It is in these cases that the more exact publication date become crucial—it just doesn't belong up front with the author's name and year of pubication.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not problem at all--after all, this is the place to dot my article's I's and cross its T's. Is this in line with your point, Jerome Kohl? I restored some of the full dates I had removed from those popular magazines and newspapers (who did not have both volume and issue information) but I placed the full dates in an "Issue" parameter instead so they don't appear where they would have if placed in the "Date"/"Year" parameter. Dan56 (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. You're getting the idea. The only remaining problem is that you should not duplicate the year in the "issue" field—just the month, or the day and month where that is appropriate (as in the Village Voice items, for example).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everything that really matters is now done and dusted. There are some optional things you might want to consider, in the following six entries:
Anon. (1959). "Thelonious Monk". Down Beat (Chicago) 26 (16)
Christgau, Robert (2005). "Noise on Music Central". The Village Voice (February 22) (New York). Archived from the original on April 12, 2013. Retrieved April 11, 2013
Fox, Charles (1964). "Jazz and Swing". Gramophone (London) 42 (August).
Giddins, Gary (1976). "Two Labels Pull Out the Old Bottles". The Village Voice (September 20) (New York).
Hentoff, Nat (1959). "Thelonious Monk Quartet – Misterioso". Hi Fi Review2 (May)
O'Meally, Robert G. (1997). "Jazz Albums as Art: Some Reflections". In Bowles, Juliette. The International Review of African American Art14 (1). Hampton University Museum.
Schuller, Gunther (1958). "Thelonious Monk". The Jazz Review (New York) (November)
First, the places of publication given for all of these except Hi Fi Review are not usual, unless there are two or more journals (or newspapers) of the same name that need to be differentiated. Second, there is a sort of "rule of thumb" in bibliographies that page numbers are mandatory for scholarly journals, but are not used with popular magazines (Forbes, Radio Times, etc.). I would judge most of these to be popular magazines, so the lack of inclusive page numbers is acceptable, but I am confused by the last entry, which looks like a scholarly journal, but is attributed to an author (Bowles Juliette). If this person is the editor of a journal titled The International Review of African American Art, then she should not be named (editors of journals are never named in bibliographies); on the other hand, if she is the editor of a collective work of that title (a book, that is), published by the Hampton University Museum, then a place of publication is needed ("Hampton, VA", presumably) and the funny "volume/issue" stuff is probably an error and should be removed. Is it a book, or a journal? The formatting should make this clear. (I rally can't believe this is as complicated as it actually is. I did this kind of thing for sixteen years, and it is all quite automatic to me. You must be going mad!)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Reissues" is a fairly short section, perhaps you could restructure the article with "Release and reissues" and "Critical reception" sections?
"Release and reception" is structured chronologically, so to merge that paragraph from "Reissues" or splice it into "Release and reception" would interrupt the flow, topically and chronologically, at least in every configuration of a merge I considered. Dan56 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Release history" section, you might be interested in putting the references in a separate row, although that is purely a matter of personal preference and is certainly not a make-or-break deal.
These are all very minor suggestions, and I trust that you will address them all as necessary, and I will give my support to the nomination. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Recording and production" section: I think "in 1958" should be added to the end of the first sentence. It gives context to the July 9 and August 7 dates that follow without years.
"Release and reception" section: is there a reason why the album ratings template is not used? Not that it has to be there, I'm just curious.
Only the two All Music writers gave it a score, so there's nothing to "supplement" if the two scores are mentioned in prose. Plus, it makes room for an image of Griffin. Dan56 (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some minor suggestions. Other than that, the article meets the WP:FACR criteria for prose and style very well indeed. Focused on the lead section and went through all the refs that were freely accessible online.
WP:FACR 2a: the lead section doesn't sufficiently explain how/why this record stands out from the rest of Thelonious Monk recordings. In the revision from Feb24 there was still a line "It was his first successful live recording." It was later removed. Would like to see something to the same effect, if possible.
In the lead section: "After most of his original ensemble had departed... he returned with his new quartet". If you separate the lead section from the rest of the article, the reader is expected to understand why the old lineup was notable enough to be mentioned in the introduction before the actual recording ensemble. I'd highlight the ensemble from the second residence here and leave the detailed explanation of lineup changes to the actual article below.
Background section: The Kelley book (p. 239) says about Coltrane: "Coltrane was also ready to move on. Miles wanted him back and Trane himself was considering a solo career". Wiki:" while Coltrane left because Miles Davis wanted him to return to his own group." I suppose it is common knowledge that he went back to Davis, but the ref "Kelley (1995) p. 239" isn't saying so. Could this be made more precise?
It was originally "in pursuit of a solo career" in the article, before another editor revised it here. I assumed he was going to review here as well, but if not, would the original revision--"in pursuit of a solo career"--suffice? Dan56 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Coltrane was back with Davis in January 1958, but he recorded Soultrane in February 1958 and kept recording and releasing his own work while with Davis until April 1960. I understand why Kelley wanted to highlight both joining Davis and his solo plans, as both avenues existed and were notable in Coltrane's career. Could both of those be combined here? --Sk4170 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Schuller 1958 is here Couldn't find the explanation to the album title there. Is it the correct version of the full review or is there something missing? Hard to say, as the Google Books version is not accessible.
The title track "Misterioso" "first recorded in 1948". I wonder if it's worth clarifying here that there indeed was an early Monk recording of the piece for Blue Note. The ref "Kurtz 2008" says that "it was recorded by The Seer in 1948". I have no idea what "The Seer" is, other than confusing.
Kurtz had been referring to The Seer (the painting used for this album cover) as an artistic representation/metaphor for Monk at the beginning of his review for Jazz.com. Kurtz was being fanciful, but he was referring to Monk in that sentence too. Dan56 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear enough, Kurtz' fanciful play with words managed to confuse me! What I was trying to say, when looking for the missing Down Beat ref from Google Books, I found a Down Beat review (Down Beat June 17, 1949, p.14) of a single release "Misterioso/Humph" (tracks listed in this order) from The Thelonious Monk Reader (p. 32) and was wondering if something like this "first recorded for Blue Note in 1948") was an improvement. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up p. 32 at GoogleBooks, but couldn't find where it said that it was recorded in 1948. Is the recording year on a different page? Either way, I've added a different source to verify the improvement you've suggested. Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Beginning in July.." -> "beginning in July 1957" to clarify the timing of his first residence, as it is at the beginning of a paragraph.
In the Composition section: "one of Monk's newer compositions at the time", Keepnews 1959: "There is one new piece: Blues Five Spot". I think it is more correct to say like Keepnews that there was one new composition on this record. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in this album is over five decades 'old'. This track was 'new' in comparison to the rest of the tracks on the record. It's good as it is now. --Sk4170 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I kept reading the Reissues section over and again thinking something was missing, until I realized that only the 2012 release is mentioned there, but the first digitally remastered album release with two bonus tracks from 1989 is not. Both releases are included in the Release history table below, but I feel that both should be mentioned in the Reissues section, too. Without checking the table, it suggests that Tarantino remastered the recording in 1989 and it wasn't released until 2012. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added "also" to "On May 15, 2012, Concord Music Group also reissued the album"--"remastered on CD" suggests it was a reissue as well. Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this sentence "In 1989, Misterioso was digitally remastered on CD by mastering engineer Joe Tarantino, who used 20-bit K2 Super Coding System technology at Fantasy Studios in Berkeley, California" describes the remastering process, who did it, when, where and how. That's why it didn't occur to me that the release info was already in there. --Sk4170 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, Dan56! I added a couple of comments above, a new one regarding the Keepnews ref, and one more thing from my notes that I forgot to bring here. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments above, Dan56. I wasn't able to verify all the refs due to restrictions at Google Books. Perhaps someone else can. Here's the list:
The snippet verifies the above, but not the year 1959 in the release history table. Is it correct to assume that p. 56 is about Down Beat's 1959 jazz critic's choices of records released the same year? Using that as a source for the release year is perhaps a little random. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Kelley p. 243" verifies only "Keepnews returned to the venue on August 7". No word of attendance, nor whether it was an evening show or matinee or whatever. I suggest replacing the ref with "Anon 1995 p.70" where "over-crowded" and "recording equipment" are mentioned and moving "Kelley p. 243" right after "August 7". --Sk4170 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hentoff's critic was verifiable from the Google Books snippet view, with some effort. However, couldn't verify the release year detail. I couldn't see the release date from the snippets and can't assume the release year of the publication is also the release year of the record. Could that ref be replaced with something else. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Absolutely appreciate you pointing that out! Major change--found a better source, which verifies 1958 as the release year. Dan56 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, there's a space where the release year should be, unlike most other entries there (Anon 2001 p. 304). Also Monk in Action has no release year listed there. But I found something better! Googled with "Riverside RLP 279" and found "Monk, T. Quartet Misteriose" (yes, the spelling is incorrect) listed in the "LP new releases" section on the Billboard Magazine December 1, 1958 issue (p. 41). Is it safe to assume that it was released in time for the Christmas market, and this entry on Billboard magazine is not advance info on a 1959 release. On a different note, the "Hentoff 1959" ref is still there: "Misterioso was released in 1958 by Riverside" in the Release and Reception section. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that particular book, the space implies its the last year listed above it (for consecutive entries), but doesn't matter at this point--great find! I've added it, Sk4170, and removed the Hentoff cite from "Release and reception" ([12]). Dan56 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you changed the Misterioso release date to the date of this Billboard issue that I was lucky to find from Google Books. Are you sure about this ??? I don't know how things were done back in the day, but as long as there is no solid release date for the record given in any of the sources we've been able to read this far, isn't it a little bold to assume it was released on the same day it was mentioned on Billboard mag new releases page. I think it's good evidence on the release year being 1958 instead of 1959, but are you really sure it's the actual date? --Sk4170 (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't verify the page# of the publication. Again, Fox's review is used as reference to release year in the Release history table. Could that be replaced with something more appropriate. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fox: "Although this LP was recorded — 'live' (as the saying goes) at the Five Spot Cafe in Nov York — in August 1958, it has never been issued here before. It's hard to know just why there has been this delay, for the music is well up to standard." (p. 202). Best source available for UK release. Dan56 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Tenor saxophonist Johnny Griffin's hard-driving style perfectly fit pianist-composer Thelonious Monk's music and their 1958 quartet (with bassist Ahmed Abdul-Malik and drummer Roy Haynes) was well documented during one night at the Five Spot Cafe; a second CD (Thelonious in Action) is take from the same evening. Of the two releases, this one gets the edge due to Griffin's memorable improvising on a heated version of 'In Walked Bud.' Other highlights include 'Nutty,' 'Let's Cool One' and 'Evidence.'"
Thanks, Dan56! Mystery about no access, but now "Yanow 2001" is checked. Added some comments (diff), i.e. on Hentoff 1959/Anon 2001/release year issue above. Once those two points are fixed, I can give my strong support for this fine article. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! Here's my strong Support for this article. Thanks for asking me to review this Dan56, it's been an interesting journey into the world of Thelonious Monk. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Spike Wilbury
I'm interested in the Giddins article from which you extract "hard bop" as a genre. I was unable to find this article, even in library databases that index Village Voice back to that year. Can you provide more information on this article, including page number, and how you obtained it? Is there a scan of it online somewhere? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cited "hard bop" on back in June, when I found the Village Voice article through Google News Archive, before it was shut down in December (Google_News_Archive#History). Fortunately, though, I was able just now to use google.com/newspapers to find it again ([13]). As far as verification, in discussing the albums recorded by Monk--naming Thelonious in Action and Misterioso from the Five Spot recording by Keepnews--and other Keepnews-produced jazz artists on Riverside Records, he writes, "With few exceptions, the music is East Coast or Chicago style hard bop." Dan56 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dan, I skimmed the article and didn't see anything of obvious concern, but I'm afraid I didn't get a chance to scrutinize it to the point that I would feel comfortable supporting. Sorry! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Binksternet
Clunky prose repetition of "twenty years of career struggles and obscurity" in the lead section and " twenty years of career struggles and obscurity" in the article body. Same with "vividly" and "enthusiastic crowd". The lead section should not repeat the article text! Rather, it should summarize article text.
I don't see any guideline that says material can't be repeated in the lead. If anything, I've found "... the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body..." (WP:LEADCITE). Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articles are supposed to contain prose that rises significantly above the average. If clunky repetition is to be defended rather than fixed then my !vote is to oppose the FAC. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the guideline I cited had the average article in mind. Could you please tell me where it says, if anywhere, that something that's in the body cannot be repeated in the lead? "Released in 1958 by Riverside Records" should be excluded as well? This, along with the "twenty years of..." (important as background), seem like significant enough points to include in the lead. The sentence with "vividly" and "enthusiastic crowd" would be significant since this is a live album and the atmosphere or setting would be of great interest to readers, especially since the background section discusses the venue and Monk there. Again, significance I suppose can be debatable, but I don't feel like words being repeated a few times in the lead is an issue, especially if no guidelines or policies don't look at it as an issue. Dan56 (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline WP:LEAD says to summarize; it does not say to repeat. The strict following of the WP:LEAD guideline should have been a requirement for this article to attain GA. More to the point, the guideline WP:Featured article criteria seeks "engaging" prose, even "brilliant" prose. The repetition of such words is clunky prose. If you want to keep the repetition, then you are holding the article back from FA quality, and I will not recommend it be promoted. You are free to choose. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then there's a conflict with how WP:LEADCITE is worded and what different editors find to be engaging prose per WP:FAC. I don't see how repetition of a few words disqualifies something as a summary per WP:LEAD--naturally, a summary will repeat at least some words, and the "According to Keepnews" bit isn't even repeated in whole. Would these tweaks suffice? Dan56 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you say aloud when discussing the group of Miles Davis? Do you pronounce it as "Miles Davises group" or "Miles Daviss group"? If the latter then no change is necessary. If the former then it should be written "Miles Davis's group", with the apostrophe followed by an ess.
Some textual separation should be introduced to tell the reader that Monk's "Just a Gigolo" is not quoted within the song "In Walked Bud". The context is that the previous paragraph was about a single song which contained quoted bits of other songs. The reader now expects the next paragraph to be about one song with inserted quotes of another song. The reader should be told that "In Walked Bud" has ended, and a new song has begun, the solo piano piece.
But it says "the only song on the album", and there's no mention of "quoting" in the paragraph. Furthermore, the track listing makes this evident--I don't see how a reader would make that mistake. Dan56 (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hentoff did not really "pan" the saxophone playing of Griffin. It's true that he writes "There is, for one thing, too little space for Monk's soloing and somewhat too much for tenor saxophonist Johnny Griffin." He continues by saying Griffin is "impressive by means of his unabashedly emotional 'cry' and his excellent timing. He does not always, however, convincingly tie together solos as long as those he takes here. He has improved in that the sustained cohesion of his solos in 'Misterioso' [the tune] is particularly memorable." Hentoff's review is mixed, not wholly negative.
I did not use the word "pan" or "negative" anywhere in the article, apart from the photo caption, which did not have it either until I responded to this edit summary raised by another editor. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hentoff's review does not say that Griffin's "cry" and "timing" are the features which "diminish his solos." Rather, Griffin's failure to tie together his solos is related to their lengthiness, per Hentoff.
I wouldn't agree than him saying "as long as those" means the length of the solos is a point of criticism, but I hope this change will suffice as a safe assumption. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat presumptive to provide the reader with a piped link to Musical development inside the quote from Fox: "attempt at development". In any case, wikilinks are deprecated within quotes.
Fox in his review does not really "pan" Griffin either; it's more mixed. He says that Griffin is "something of a virtuoso in his own unbuttoned way" but that Griffin "never really integrates himself" into Monk's quartet. Fox says "the result is that most of these performances [the tunes on the album] tend to be outings for Johnny Griffin rather than examples of Monk the composer. Which is all right in one way, for Griffin has an infectious exuberance about him." Elsewhere Fox says that Griffin is "prolix" (long-winded) on the album, and thus has "overshadowed" Monk's playing. So Griffin is a virtuoso with infectious exuberance... this is not entirely negative.
I did not use the word "pan" or "negative" anywhere in the article, apart from the photo caption, which did not have it either until I responded to this edit summary raised by another editor. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough is explained about the partner recording Thelonious in Action being released "first", despite both albums being released in 1958. How much time passed between the release dates? What was the reception of Thelonious in Action? Or was it still too early to know what people thought of Thelonious in Action, when Misterioso was released? Certainly more can be found written about the comparison of these two albums.
As the above editor's comments might show, sources for the release year, let alone date, are scarce and some inconsistent. The sources that discuss Misterioso in-depth do not touch on these points. For that reason, I don't think it's very relevant to this article. There wasn't even a source that explicitly says whether Misterioso was well received or not by critics, only the handful of reviews I was able to mine from GoogleBooks. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the photo caption: "Johnny Griffin's playing on the album was panned by contemporary critics, but praised in later reviews." Contemporary critics gave Griffin a mixed review. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week since the seventh and last support was given by a reviewer. GrahamColm, would it be fair to say or at least appropriate to ask whether a consensus has been built? Dan56 (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Brandt Luke Zorn
Support but quick notes:
I think the first sentence of the Composition section merits a quick description of hard bop for a jazz novice.
None of the sources on this article's topic discuss hard bop, and a quick GoogleBooks search (and a look at the hard bop article) explain it as something in relation to bebop, which wouldn't really help readers any more than just leaving "hard bop" linked to its Wikipedia article for jazz novices to look there. Dan56 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine then.
"... critic Nat Hentoff said that the album is "not one of his best" and observed "too little space for Monk's soloing and somewhat too much" for Griffin, whose saxophone cry and timing are more impressive than his solos." There appears to be a misplaced quotation mark, double check.
This article is about what is probably the greatest ever Zimbabwean sports team—the women's hockey team at the 1980 Moscow Olympics, which despite being assembled less than a month before the Games won the gold medal without losing a match. Of course most of the best teams were not there because of the Western boycott, but the Zimbabwean victory was still a great shock. This is a really great, uplifting story that I thoroughly enjoyed researching. The team flew to Moscow on a plane without seats, usually used for carrying meat, and arrived without the right shoes to play on the artificial field. Pat McKillop, a Bulawayo housewife, scored six goals in five games to be the competition's joint top-scorer. Sally Mugabe promised each of the "Golden Girls" an ox each on their return home, but in the end they got polystyrene packages of meat instead. Whether or not this was a sardonic attempt at gallows humour is not recorded.
I feel this article meets the standards regarding prose, neutrality, sourcing, completeness and so forth and am therefore nominating it. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to your comments. —Cliftonian(talk)20:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cliftonian. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: A nice little article. Reads very nicely and looks to be comprehensive. An unusual story! Just a few minor comments from me. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”began to help fill the gaps the U.S.-led Olympic boycott”: Maybe it’s me, but the punctuation looks a bit off in “U.S.-led”; but it could well be the correct way to punctuate this.
”Zimbabwe's subsequent undefeated victory in the round-robin tournament with three wins and two draws was widely regarded as a huge upset”: I understand the meaning here, but “undefeated victory” sounds a little silly; I think just “Zimbabwe's subsequent victory in the round-robin tournament with three wins and two draws was [widely - do we need this?] regarded as a huge upset”
”it had been excluded from the 1968, 1972 and 1976 Games for political reasons.”: Could we say briefly what those political reasons were; mainly for anyone who doesn’t know the story and is too lazy to check.
OK, have added "following the mostly white government's declaration of independence from Britain in 1965". I think going into the specifics of the issue regarding sport would be too complicated to deal with here. The Rhodesian sports teams were, unlike South Africa's, multiracial; the point at hand at least from Britain's point of view was that Rhodesia was in their view illegitimate after UDI in 1965. There was rather ironically a period when the British considered it more acceptable for teams to tour South Africa than Rhodesia, even though the former had apartheid and the latter didn't. There's plenty more details in the article linked to in the article. —Cliftonian(talk)14:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”whose brother was international cricketer Duncan Fletcher.”: I think this is better as “the international cricketer”
”Two points would be awarded for a win and one for a draw; the team with the most points at the end would be the winner.”: I wonder if this would be better as “Two points were awarded…”?
”Zimbabwe were one of the teams in the first ever women's Olympic hockey match, playing against Poland on 25 July.”: Maybe this would be better as “Zimbabwe played in the first women’s Olympic hockey match, facing Poland on 25 July”?
”scored the first goal in women's Olympic hockey”: Given the previous sentence, I don’t think we need to say “in women’s Olympic hockey”; this is clearly implied.
I've put "sports historians have called it a "fairytale" and an "irresistible fairy story"". We can redraw to put the names of the people if you like but I feel this would be a little clunky myself. —Cliftonian(talk)14:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leaning to support – An enjoyable article, which it will be is a pleasure to support. Just four comments, though one of them is rather fundamental:
I wondered what on earth "field hockey" was till I read on. It seems, on further enquiry, to be a North Americanism to distinguish hockey from ice-hockey. To an English reader it seems a long-winded way of saying "hockey". We have been calling it "hockey" since at least 1527, and as, to judge from the Harare Herald clipping you link to, the Zimbabweans call it "hockey" rather than "field hockey" I think you ought to as well, in both the title and the text.
You are correct. I call it hockey myself (as did all the players, so far as I know), and I did use the simpler term "hockey" in many places in the article, but I think referring to "field hockey" in the first instance in the article is important to avoid ambiguity—not all readers will be Zimbabweans, Brits, et al.—and also because that was (and is) the official name of the Olympic event. I understand this objection and sympathise somewhat with your view but I think in the circumstances we should keep the title as it is. It is just one extra word and in the prose itself almost every usage has "hockey" rather than "field hockey". —Cliftonian(talk)18:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather split myself on this one but I cannot help but think changing this to bring it out of step with all the other relevant articles would be a losing battle from a start. —Cliftonian(talk)18:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford English Dictionary hyphenates "vice captain", and so would I.
"massive underdogs" – I don't think the condition of being an underdog is governed by size. If you need to qualify the noun (which I'm not sure you do) perhaps "serious" or another adjective might be nearer the mark.
Thanks for this. I have gone with "serious"; I think it is important to make clear that they did not expect to even come close to winning. —Cliftonian(talk)18:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"both of Zimbabwe's victories" – is the "of" wanted?
Thank you very much for the kind words and the review, Tim—as always very much appreciated. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and I hope my replies above are to your satisfaction. Have a great rest of the week —Cliftonian(talk)18:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit bothered by the redlinks in the lead, which stand out rather. I know they are potential links to as-yet unborn articles on those countries' field hockey teams; I'm prepared to bet that in the normal run of events they will remain unborn for the foreseeable future. The best solution would be for you to create stub articles for these hockey teams. The links would then turn blue alongside those for India and the USSR, and readers less cogniscent with WP practices would not have to wonder why these countries were represented in bright red.
Is there any reason why only Arlene Boxhall lacks a stub article and therefore alone is a redlink? Is a stub possible?
The stubs for all the players already existed and were so far as I can tell created en masseusing an internet source that only seems to list those who actually played as opposed to the whole squad. Boxhall never came off the bench so doesn't seem to have been counted. Anyway I've fixed this now; she now has an article too. —Cliftonian(talk)17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Watch for unnecessary emphasis via adverbs, e.g. "totally by surprise", "entirely unrelated to sport"
I've taken out "entirely" (an improvement), but I kept "totally" as I think taking it out makes the prose worse. I hope this is OK with you. —Cliftonian(talk)17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"With 50 minutes on the clock..." Non-hockey players such as myself won't understand the significance of "50 minutes on the clock", unless we are told somewhere the duration of a match, e.g. "With 50 minutes of the match's 70 minutes gone..." (if indeed 70 minutes is the duration)
"the joint-fifth most in the event" – I am not entirely convinced of the notability of this nugget of information!
I thought it was worth mentioning that Chase was still one of the top scorers in the event despite being injured, but perhaps you're right that just mentioning that she played and scored some goals is enough. —Cliftonian(talk)17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review, the kind words and the support, Brian. I hope my replies above are to your satisfaction. I'm glad you seem to have enjoyed reading this. Cheers again —Cliftonian(talk)17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images are okay: Two CC images donated by the RIA Novosti (I need to buy a beer for whoever negotiated that!) and one free image (crop by a Wikipedian of a PD US Mil work; source is still online and accessible; would be nice to have better quality but I can't see it happening). Captions needed periods (all are full sentences) but I've done that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - You've done a great job with this article! I have a few concerns listed below, but they shouldn't take long to address.
The meaning of "built around the former Rhodesia team" should be clarified.
I have no idea what this phrase means. Is "built around" a metaphor? If so, for what? And what former Rhodesia team? The article says that Rhodesia had been excluded from the Olympics for years, so my understanding is that there hadn't been any Rhodesia teams for ages. Neelix (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was always a Rhodesia team that played against the South African provinces within South Africa's domestic system. (Before 1980 this system was common to many of the sports popular in southern Africa, prominently cricket and rugby; a parallel can be seen in English first-class cricket where to this day the English and Welsh counties play against teams representing the whole of Scotland and Ireland). The 1980 Games were the first to feature hockey so Rhodesia's exclusion from 1968, '72 and '76 isn't relevant here. "Built around" means the team was based around the core of the Rhodesia team but wasn't quite the same. I have expanded to "built around the core of the former Rhodesia team"; is this better? —Cliftonian(talk)16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semicolons are overused in this article. In particular, they should be removed from the second paragraph in the "Invitation and team selection" section, the second paragraph of the "Tournament" section, and the first paragraph of the "Reactions and legacy" section.
I think "all of these teams had been eliminated" should read "all of the other teams had been eliminated".
No, because we say before "apart from the Soviets". In Commonwealth English at least, you wouldn't say "apart from X, all of the other Y". —Cliftonian(talk)19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sentence is technically grammatically correct, but is confusing because the phrase "eliminated in qualifying" could refer both to the teams that competed and the teams that did not; the former group was disqualified and then qualified, while the latter group was qualified and then disqualified. Another solution would be to phrase the sentence as follows: "apart from the Soviets, none of these teams had initially qualified for the Olympics, and they were only allowed to compete because of the spaces that had opened up as a result of the boycott." Neelix (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a wikilink for right-half and a link to wiktionary for through pass. Right half basically means right midfield and a through pass (more commonly through ball) is a pass forward, between opposing defenders, which a team-mate then runs on to. —Cliftonian(talk)19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The meanings of the abbreviations in the "Final standings" table should be elucidated.
I recommend removing the quotation "Nobody who shared the joy of the players and officials could deny them their moment of glory" considering the lengthier quotation from the same commentator that follows immediately afterwards.
My concern is that we're giving Harris's comments far more weight than those of other commentators such as Sullivan. That is true already by concluding the entire article with Harris's thoughts, but juxtaposing a single word of a quotation from Sullivan with two entire sentences of a quotation from Harris seems to me to be excessive, especially considering that the article indicates that the quotation by Sullivan is representative of the comments by other commentators as well. Neelix (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for considering my thoughts on the article. I have struck through the concerns that you have addressed. Neelix (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sarastro. I can't seem to find a way to format this reference without the full stop while keeping the link from the footnote working (the full stop is part of the citation template). Do you think we could possibly let this slide? I'm sorry about this. Thanks again for the source review. —Cliftonian(talk)14:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had a stab at fixing it using a slightly different format. Is that OK? If not, maybe just capitalise "in" to avoid any problems. Either way, sources good now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Picture review: All pictures are well-described, free of copyright and appropriate. I'd personally recommend that File:Sally Hayfron.jpg is reverted to the previous version which is probably less blocky, and ideally replaced with another image in the future, but obviously this does not in any way condition me against support. Per WP:ImageSize, all images should be left as default 220px and not forced, but this seems universally ignored anyway and I wouldn't make too much of this. Just one thing - I believe Wikiprotocol dictates that punctuation (or at any rate full-stops) should be removed from captions...
In any case, an excellent article, and from the perspective of the pictures, I have no trouble supporting promotion. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about… the first US gold commemorative coins, allowing us to meet one of the more interesting characters in the history of numismatics, coin collector, dealer, and ruthless promoter Farran Zerbe. Today, he's mostly remembered for good, with a major numismatics award named for him, but he was a very controversial figure in his time.Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
How are you ordering Other sources with no named author?
FN19: why not cite author?
FN24: title doesn't match that given in source list - which is correct?
States abbreviation done. Rest will follow. I assume you mean the Bowers web site. I've adjusted the "other sources" so their publisher is considered the author for abc purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On Fn19, I'm trying to cite Numismatist articles consistently and not all of them have authors. Fn24, and all others are done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: A few issues, mainly minor:
Lead
"one variety depicted former president Thomas Jefferson and the other recently assassinated president William McKinley." Lack of punctuation and a missing "the" creates ambiguity. I suggest: "one variety depicted former president Thomas Jefferson, the other the recently assassinated president William McKinley."
Third para: the casual reader might be confused by "Congress passed authorizing legislation for an exposition" and "McKinley was assassinated at the Pan-American Exposition", thinking these expositions to be one and the same. Is it necessary to mention the location of McKinley's assassination?
No, though the fact that he was assassinated is certainly worth mentioning (and advertising :) ) so I've left that. It explains why he's on the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preparation
"traveling exhibit" – exhibition? "Exhibit" suggests a single object rather than a collection
"...enquiring what fair officials would like to see on the reverse of the coins". I'm puzzled by this: what design, surely? Or possibly, "enquiring what fair officials would like to see illustrated on the reverse of the coins". But the present wording doesn't make sense to me.
"the excess of 258 over the authorized mintage set aside for testing by the annual Assay Commission." I would clarify this: "the excess of 258 over the authorized mintage of 250,000 being set aside for testing by the annual Assay Commission."
Watch again for any confusion that could arise from varied nomenclature: "fair", "exposition", "World's Fair" etc, all meaning the same thing. Also there could be issues over capitalisation, e.g. as between "the fair" and "the Exposition"
I've reserved "fair" for use as a noun. I do want to use it because it is the common term, used in the song, the film ...--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...and for co-ordinating sales with the vendors of near-worthless imitation fractional gold pieces, which were half price with the purchase of a dollar coin." I'm not clear with what was going on here: purchasers of the Exposition dollar could buy near-worthless imitations at half the normal price of these imitations? The deal, whatever it was, needs to be explained more clearly.
There was a vendor selling replicas of old privately-issued small gold pieces, which actually contained very little gold. I've tweaked a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"grading service population figures" – what does this phrase mean?
All images are fine, copyright wise. I'm going to clean up two to make them less distracting, and I have concerns about the huge amount of whitespace at the end of #Design. Also, why does the Jefferson medal not have a caption yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They were the first gold United States commemorative coins. - a footnote regarding the first non-gold commemorative coins?
I think it's addressed in the article by mentioning Zerbe's involvement in an earlier issue.
That means that there were already extant commemoratives, but does not indicate what the first was. Basically, a bit of trivia, to show why the qualifier "gold" is necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
worth in the high hundreds to low thousands of dollars, - worth in the high? Might need rephrasing
I don't see the issue, it should be understandable to the reader. Fairly common phrase, in my experience. Do you have an alternative?
I don't see "worth in the high" used in RSes through this search (rather, the first link is this article!), except following "net worth" (a noun, which can be in something). The less specific "hundreds" or several hundred may be acceptable, maybe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
he secured the return of the Louisiana territory from Spain via the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso the following year, and through other agreements. - this leads me to question when the territory was actually in the hands of the French again
God knows. I think that level of detail is beyond the scope of what I am trying to do here, basically teach a very brief history lesson to those who have forgotten or did not get it in school.
The paragraph starting "Anthony Swiatek ..." is rather short, and I'm tempted to split the sentences off and merge them with the surrounding paragraphs
Is "determined upon" the best wording? Agreed upon?
White space in #Design is still prominent. Worse comes to worse, the Panama coin can be dropped, or we can put the medals side by side
"a billion-dollar gold piece" - Wow. Reminds me of Canada's $1 million Canadian Gold Maple Leaf... what would the size of the thing have been? (not really something to act on)
Source doesn't say.
Paragraph beginning "Zerbe stated in 1905 ..." feels tacked on. I think that section could use a bit of restructuring, to be more chronological. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's tracking what Zerbe had to say about the issue, plus the fact, which is stated in the source, that he did not identify himself as involved in the sale.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – immaculate, as we have come to expect from this source on this subject. Just three small comments:
Background
"Napoleon came to power in 1799" – I don't suppose any reader will imagine he came to power in the US, but it still might be as well to say "came to power in France".
Design
"Nomismatic historian" – "numismatic" I assume, but I didn't like to change it – one never knows.
Distribution, aftermath, and collecting
"imitation fractional gold pieces" – I couldn't quite grasp the meaning of this; that is, I know what all the words mean, but as a phrase they left me puzzled. Is it that the pieces had a minute percentage of gold in them?
Wehwalt continues to make numismatic articles interesting even to those like me who are not predisposed towards the subject. As well as covering the essentials fully, clearly and authoritatively, he throws in fascinating stuff about the 9-mile walk in the Agricultural Building (the mind boggles), and the origins of the song "Meet Me in St. Louis". The illustrations are as fine as in other coin articles from this contributor, which is saying a lot. Top flight stuff. – Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support
I don't see any issues, although I'd disagree with Tim's comment above about the need to specify where Napoleon came to power. Given that the whole paragraph is about French acquisition of the territory, it's pretty clear that Nappy is French.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments and support. I've made the changes Tim suggested, but I'm going with Sturm on the Napoleon matter. I think people know who it is and I agree it is clear from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me (though don't blame me when you find François Hollande sitting in the governor's chair in Louisiana – yet another French foreign adventure to distract the public from disaster at home). Tim riley (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basil D'Oliveira was a fairly famous cricketer, but this isn't just another cricket article. He was far more widely known for the events described in this article, where his 1968 inclusion in an England team to tour his native South Africa effectively ended South Africa's participation in international cricket until 1991. These events are still fairly well-known, even outside cricket circles, in the UK today. This article is currently a GA and we have worked on extensively on it for a while. It had an excellent PR, and any further comments would be welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cliftonian. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note on images: PD images from this period in the UK are hard to come by. We have included a Fair Use image of D'Oliveira from 1968, which we think is justified. There is a recent FA precedent at the Profumo affair, when it was argued here that an image of the main "character" was justified. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – As one of the peer reviewers I had my few quibbles thoroughly dealt with there (though I still think "ramifications" in the lead would be better as a plainer "consequences", but I do not press the point). The nominators have marshalled the facts with surgical precision, and have been exemplary in their neutral reporting of this toe-curling episode in English sporting and political history. The prose is compellingly readable, the sourcing broad and the referencing comprehensive. I am no expert on WP's rules for images, but I support the use of the non-free picture of D'Oliveira, as the article would look frankly silly without a photograph of him. I cannot imagine a better article about this gruesome saga. – Tim riley (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As the GA reviewer, I felt that it was FAC ready even at that point, and that's something I virtually never say. Long yes, but a compelling read that doesn't feel bogged down. Wizardman23:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review (sorry I didn't do this during PR):
If I don't mention an image, it's fine.
File:Basil D'Oliveira vs Australia, 1968.jpg - If this is a Getty image, per WP:NFCC #2 (as expanded on by WP:NFC#UUI) this should not be used. WP:NFC#UUI point seven includes "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." as an example of an unacceptable use of non-free content. Do we have any other images of D'Oliveira that we can use, or are there any that are not press agency/photo agency image?
Rather annoyingly all the pictures of him I seem to be able to find online are press images. If we cannot use one of these I imagine we would have to rely on somebody donating one. —Cliftonian(talk)09:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in thinking pictures more than 50 years old are okay as they are PD in SA, albeit not in the US? My understanding is that they need to be PD in the US for Commons—does this also apply if the image is only uploaded to the English Wikipedia? If so we should be able to find and use something from early in his career. —Cliftonian(talk)10:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images on Commons have to be free in the source country and in the US, whereas images on English Wikipedia have to be free in the US at the very least. Owing to the URAA (the bane of my existence), which extended copyright on foreign works in 1996, many images that are PD in their country of origin are not able to be used on Wikipedia or Commons. There is discussion on Commons about rejecting the URAA considerations (very lengthy), but nothing of the sort on the English Wikipedia yet (i.e. URAA is still respected here, and must still be followed). Short answer: not okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not convinced tat the photograph really is a Getty Image, I can't find anything that says he isn't. I'll do a bit of digging to see what else I can find, but I'm not hopeful and I suspect we might have to lose the lead image. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image update': The main biography contains lots of photographs... all of which are credited to press agencies. Sigh. No cards that have his image that I've been able to find. The only thing I've come up with is a photo from an old cricket magazine that has no photo credit whatsoever. It is just an image of D'Oliveira himself. Would that be OK? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The South African Copyright Act says (on p. 21, section 15, article 3): "The copyright in an artistic work shall not be infringed by its reproduction or inclusion in a cinematograph film or a television broadcast or transmission in a diffusion service, if such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place." Since this is a street sign telling people "these public premises" are for whites only, it seems to me that it would come under this definition. In any case I find it hard to believe that this text would come under copyright. —Cliftonian(talk)09:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current understanding on Commons is "Since section 15(3) does not mention photographs, there is no freedom of panorama exemption in South Africa that would permit photographs of artistic works to be taken without infringing the copyright in the works." Wonky, I agree (what is a film but a series of photographs?), but that's how it's being treated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I doubt this would be under the TOO in SA. The UK has a considerably lower TOO than the US. Now this may be under the TOO in the US, which would allow a local (Wikipedia only) upload, as our local files need only respect US copyright law. Again, though, I'm not sure if this would be enough to pass the TOO in the US. Moonriddengirl or Nikkimaria would probably know that best. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At Commons the template PD-South-Africa-exempt seems to be only for "official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature or an official translation of such a text" (or images thereof); assuming these quotes are in the actual legislation, that might work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep; page 19, section 12, article 8(a): "No copyright shall subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts, or in speeches of a political nature or in speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings, or in news of the day that are mere items of press information". —Cliftonian(talk)15:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unclear. Do we have a link to the law which regulates the "For use by white persons only" status of certain places (i.e. the actual apartheid-era segregation laws) so that we can see if the text is the same or similar to the text used in the sign we're discussing now? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Alright, the diction is essentially the same ("amenities" rather than "facilities", "public premises" instead of "public place", etc. etc.), so I think it would be safe to argue that there is not enough creativity to pass the TOO under US law. SA is a different story, but I think we can give this the benefit of the doubt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Arthur Gilligan.jpg - Copyright-wise this is fine, but since this was over 40 years old when the D'Oliveira affair happened, it would be nice to have a more recent image... do we?
There are no public domain pictures of these two that are more recent, or that would cover the period. We are pretty much stuck with these pictures, unfortunately. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I did my stuff at PR. Subject to resolution of the image issues above (and to a sources review which I will do) I am satisfied that this important article fully deserves promotion to FA, and I look forward to seeing it there. I saw D'Oliveira play several times in the 1970s, when he was a bit past his best but still a classy act. I also remember Allen, at his perch in the MCC Committee Room at Lord's, loudly complaining about the price of a cup of coffee. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the kind words and the support, Brian, as well as the nice anecdote about Gubby that I think really speaks for a lot of these chaps. —Cliftonian(talk)14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: All sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. I notice that in the ref formatting the page ranges for the Oborne citations frequently overlap, e.g. refs 4 and 5, refs 38 and 39, and many similar. There may or may not be good reasons for this, but I thought I'd mention it. Otherwise, no issues on the sourcing. Brianboulton (talk)
I've merged a few references which will stand it, but I think the remaining ones need to be left. I'll have another look later to see if there are any others. Thanks for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I looked at the article when it was at PR and didn't have any complaints about it then, and I certainly don't now. Another fine piece of cricket work here. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Imogen Holst composed, conducted, danced, played the piano, taught, wrote lots of books, started orchestras and choirs, ran festivals... and so on. She never really cut it as a composer, and her music is not much heard, but her huge contribution to Britain's musical life over many decades is widely acknowledged. I have referred to her as "Imogen" throughout the article, acknowledging her father's prior claim to be "Holst" and following the Cosima Wagner precedent. Thanks to various peer reviewers for some excellent suggestions and improvement; further suggestions very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I was among those who peer reviewed the article, and my suggestions were thoroughly dealt with there. I am wholly in favour of the nominator's decision to use his subject's given name throughout: I saw an early draft in which the usual WP convention of surnaming her was attempted, and at many points it left one uncertain whether it was the father or the daughter who was being referred to. Balance, sourcing and referencing are all first class and the prose is a pleasure to read. As for completeness, Wikipedia leaves the competition at the starting post, giving this important figure in British music 6,300 words, unlike the the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which sprints through her life in a skimpy 1,130 words, and the supposedly authoritative Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, which spares her just 430 words. Another peer reviewer commented "Considering how much she did for others, it's great to see an article that does proper justice to Imogen", and I so agree! – Tim riley (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as another of the peer reviewers. I agree with every word Tim writes, and his comparisons show just how well this article contributes to Wikipedia's standing. --Stfg (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Another peer reviewer. Like Tim, I think "Imogen" works better than "Holst", and I have nothing but praise for this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the reasoning for using "Imogen", but I'm not sure I like the implications it has for gender-neutrality. Shouldn't the article subject take precedence over a relative when it comes to formal, neutral naming? Why "Imogen" and not "Gustav"? I should stress that I'm not objecting to FA status, just floating the idea. PeterIsotalo17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of have two minds about it - I agree that it seems minimizing to refer to her by her first name when standard practice is to use a person's last name. That said, perhaps the reason I feel less comfortable with the idea is that I'm not particularly familiar with the subject area. Perhaps referring to Imogen is as Holst is as jarring to experts as it would be to me to refer to Paula Hitler as "Hitler" throughout her biography. Based on a quick skim of Leopold Mozart, it seems he is usually referred to by his first name, in deference to his more famous son. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't known of Paula Hitler, but I agree she is a good example of someone whom it wouldn't really work to call by surname. Leopold Mozart is another excellent case in point, though that article calls both Mozarts by their first names. It would work to refer to Holst senior as "Gustav", but somehow I think it would feel strange and subtly wrong – I suppose because one is so used to thinking of the composer of The Planets as "Holst" tout court. There is also the (admittedly pedantic) point that legally, if not in practice, he was "Gustavus" until he changed his name formally in 1918. I think sticking to surnaming him and first-naming Imogen is clearest and the best option, on balance. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concerns expressed here. However, in the use of surnames I don't think an article's subject always should take precedence over a relative, especially when the relative in question is the more famous and is the one usually identified by that surname. More so, when the latter is a significant presence in the article. At the peer review, where I invited discussion on this point, every reviewer accepted that "Imogen" was the best alternative and, significantly, the least confusing to readers (an exact WP precedent is in Cosima Wagner, where the same issue and the same solution was applied). Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – a delight to read. I used to live in Thaxted and frequently walked past the house where I remembered her father. It was this building that led me to his music, and have since become a fan. I knew very little of Imogen, but thanks to this, I shall now root out some of her compositions. Cassiantotalk21:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. I'm glad you enjoyed the article, and I hope you get some joy from the music – not to everyone's taste, I suspect, but somehow more appealing when you know something about the person that wrote it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SchroCat
Overall an extremely good article which merits featured status. I've mulled over the comments above about the use of "Imogen", as opposed to Holst, and I think that if I was reading an article which continually referred to "Holst", I think I would start getting slightly confused with the better-known father, rather than daughter. I'm also swayed by the Hitler and Mozart parallels, which show that we do use a similar naming method in other areas where such a problem exists.
I've made a few very small edits here and there (on ellipses, pp.s and dashes); feel free to revert if you disagree or I've introduced errors. A very few very minor points for your consideration: accept or ignore as you see fit:
Birth
"Holst was born on 14 April 1907, at 31 Grena": is the comma needed here?
"This and other performances on the podium led the Daily Telegraph to speculate that Imogen might eventually become the first woman to "establish a secure tenure of the conductor's platform"." I think we can afford at least one comma in here?
There are a couple of places you could put one—it could even take two, if you turn part of the sentence into a sub clause—but I'll leave it to Brian to make a call on it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I almost corrected the title on this one, as we'd previously read about the EFDS (whose abbreviation had been explained) and not the EFDSS. It's only a couple of lines in that we're told EFDSS is another abbreviation and not an error
"The two were close until 1929, and exchanged poetry. Tomalin married in 1931.": perhaps these two short sentences could run together, sandwiching a semi-colon as they do? (Yes, I too am aware of the irony of encouraging you to use more s-c.s, but you have been rather sparing with your use this time!)
"of Essex (1968), Exeter (1969), and Leeds (1983)." Just wondering why the serial comma, which you eschew elsewhere?
I tend not to use serial commas when the items are essentially part of a continuum, e.g. I would write "ham, egg and chips" not "ham, egg, and chips". In the case above, the universities are discrete bodies, and it seems that to remove the serial comma might give a sense that Exeter and Leeds were related in some way. This is not a stance that I will defend strongly if you really think the comma ought to go. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music
"she uses dissonance to add power to the text": 'power' could be seen as slightly peacocky: would it be worth attributing this?
"The EFDSS was formed in December 1931": our own article has '32 (as does Grove) and that was also the impression I got from the section on Imogen, where we have "joining the staff of the EFDS early in 1932."
The exact note that I've cited reads: "The English Folk Dance Society (EFDS) became the English Folk Dance and Song Society (EFDSS) in December 1931, when it merged with the English Folk Song Society". The EDFS Grove article gives the amalgamation year as 1932. I have dug a little deeper, and discovered that the decision to amalgamate was indeed taken in 1931, but came into legal effect in March 1932. I don't think it's particularly important, but I've made the necessary alteration to the footnote and add a further citation – it's as well to be accurate in small things. Brianboulton (talk)
Which is correct, "Part 1" or "Part I"? Suspect it's the latter. Either way, these should be the same part and the same page range, so might as well be combined. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support another peer reviewer here, had my say there. I feel this fine work comfortably meets the criteria and am delighted to support. Well done Brian, another triumph! —Cliftonian(talk)20:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Peru national football team, a presently mediocre sports team with an illustrious history. Several past (although relatively recent) FAC reviews ended in no consensus to promote not due to oppose votes, but rather due to lack of support votes (despite the plentiful commentary). This sports article is the best national football team model and deserves to be considered part of Wikipedia's featured content. Thanks.--MarshalN20 | Talk01:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further notes
Image review conducted by Nikkimaria in archive 3. No new images have been added since then.
Major improvement suggestions last addressed in archive 2. No new major changes have been made since then.
Actually, after analyzing the article and its derived works, I have done a series of major improvements to the article this year (2014), including citation improvements, image re-arrangements, and content improvements. If the FA reviewers could please double-check the citations, it would be most appreciated. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk22:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: MarshalN20. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not particularly knowledgeable about football, especially in South America, but I feel this nomination has waited long enough, so I am providing a few general comments which I hope will kickstart a more detailed review.
Opening words: "The Peru national football team represents Peru in international football competition". Isn't this rather a statement of the obvious?
In my view there is two much use of acronyms in he first paragraph. We have FPF, which you explain properly, then FIFA and CONMEBOL, which require readers to link to other articles. I think you might get away with FIFA, but I suggest "South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL)"
"Its traditional rival is Chile, but there is also a prominent rivalry with Ecuador". Awkward repetition, and "prominent" is probably not the best choice of adjective here. I would simplify to something like: "There are longstanding rivalries with Cile and with Ecuador"
"...because government sport authorities intervened in FPF affairs under allegations of corruption." Needs to be expressed more clearly, e.g. "while allegations of PFP corruption were investigated by the Peruvian governemnt's sporting authorities.
In the History section, what is meant by "food ways"? In general there is too much reliance in this section on direct quotations for fairly unremarkable expressions, for which a brief paraphrase would be more appropriate. For example, "British advisors, engineers, and other technicians (including sailors)" could easily be "British civilian workers and visiting sailors".
"ending last in both the 1990 and 1994 World Cup qualifiers" – "finishing last"?
A "hiatus" does not "experience" a recovery, full or slight. A hiatus (a break in continuity) may be followed by a recovery.
"...despite achieving third place at the 2011 Copa América and attaining its highest FIFA position in July 2013, Peru did not qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup". The word "despite" suggests that Perus 3rd place in the Copa America, and its FIFA ranking, were contributory factors in its World Cup qualification. They were not - the World Cup qualifying competition is a separate affair. The sentence could read: "Peru achieved third place at the 2011 Copa América, and reached its highest-ever FIFA position (19th) in July 2013. However, it failed to qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup."
I only have time for a few brief further observations:
Players": what you describe as the "current squad" was evidently put together for a single friendly match. Why was this match particularly notable, to separate these players out from the others? A squad chosen for one match does not normally become the "national squad".
You don't need dates of birth and ages - the ages will soon be out of date anyway.
"Recent callups" table: "in the last 12 months" needs some actual date referencing, since "the last twelve months" is a constantly shifting time span
What is the logic for the ordering of the players' names in this section?
That's all I have time for. My last observation is that the prose would benefit from a full copyedit by an editor who has considerable experience of writing in good quality English. I don't think previous copyeditors have done a particularly good job – the prose is decidedly flaky for a fifth-time nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, thank you very much for the review.
I agree that there are several redundant phrases and concepts in the article, but these are requirements from the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams. That link should answer your last few questions about the "current squad" and "the last 12 months". Also, the Scotland national football team article (the current only FA national football team) should further help out.
Some additional responses:
The logic of the players' ordering (in the "Recent callups") is based on the last match they played with the national team.
The article has been copy-edited various times (formally and informally), but its prose can certainly be improved by reviewers. If you have some additional time available, further prose improvement suggestions are by all means welcome.
You'll have to search far and wide for someone who knows littler about footbal than myself, so feel free to laff at any naïvetés I may list here. I have been to Peru, though---but not Lima (my wife's Japanese, and the atmosphere was a little unfriendly for Japanese people when we were there in 2001). Feel free to disagree with any comment of mine, some of which are merely my preferences and wouldn't impact FAC eligibility.
"football became "a popular sport promoted by bosses for the cohesion of their workers and to a daily practice on empty lots in popular urban barrios" ": quotations should have inline attribution---but is there some reason this can't be reworded? Must it be a quote?
I wonder about some of the other quotes as well...not that I can pinpoint anything wrong with it, but there are a lot of them, and few or any of them seem like really "quotable" quotes.
" to the repression taken against "social, sporting and political organization among the urban and rural poor" during the 1940s and 1950s": is there something good to link to here?
"from the left shoulder to the right hip, in the front, and vice-versa, in the back": I might drop the first and third commas
"was one of Peru's four "FIFA Star II" (the highest certification granted to artificial pitches) stadiums": the parenthesis seems awkward to me reading aloud. How about something like "was one of Peru's four stadiums to be awarded "FIFA Star II", the highest certification granted to artificial pitches"?
"now covered by thousands": how about an "as of"?
"desert-like coastal region"; "was markedly English, played by members of the expatriate community and the Anglophile elite on grass pitches in clubs that were physically separated from the daily reality of Lima"; "a form of popular culture with autonomous characteristics of organization and practice"; "fervor, enthusiasm, and passion"; etc: attribution, or paraphrase?
"¡Arriba Perú!": would a translation (even in an endnote) be out of line?
"Supporters of Peru are infamously known for the Estadio Nacional disaster, considered as one of the most terrible in football history,[68] which occurred on May 24, 1964, during a 1964 Summer Olympics qualifying match between the youth (under-20) squads of Peru and Argentina.": I might split this into two sentences
"Peru's only hat-trick scorer": is "hat trick" worth a link?
"a pure goal scorer who would take on entire defenses", etc: attribution, or paraphrase?
" including friendlies": "friendlies" worth a link? (I don't know what it means)
The repression against social organizations took place during the government of Manuel Odria. The Spanish WP has an article on it ([20]).
Most readers don't know the meaning of "hat-trick".
I don't know how to properly translate the sports chant.
All other points should be addressed.
I hope your visit to Peru was enjoyable. The only noteworthy thing about Lima, aside from the museums, is the food. The city is not much different from other major urban centers in the Western Hemisphere, except perhaps the driving experience is the worst of all.
I really enjoyed the few days I spent in Cusco, especially (obviously) Machu Picchu (and the 30¢ slices of lemon meringue pie I found)! A further nitpick: I didn't mean you should add "as of" to "now"—I meant that "now" will very quickly become "not now", so it would be best to have an "as of 2013" or whatever, or to avoid mentioning a time at all (the date of the renovation should be sufficient). Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I'm glad you had a good time in Cusco.
I removed the "as of now" part. I agree that it is best to avoid mentioning time.
Curly Turkey: Dear friend, the article underwent a thorough copy-edit carried out by Cliftonian (see below for more information). At this time, would you oppose or support the nomination?--MarshalN20Talk15:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me a while to come back. There are a couple of refs listed that you haven't cited anywhere: Glanville, Brian (2010). The Story of the World Cup; and Lennox, Doug (2009). Now You Know Soccer. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I have reviewed this article at great length over the past fortnight (see below) and have provided a thorough copy-edit. After a lot of progress I feel the article now meets the FA criteria and am happy to support its promotion. Well done MarshalN20; I hope this gets the support it needs this time. —Cliftonian(talk)14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would restructure the first two sentences thus: "The Peru national football team represents Peru in international football. Managed by the Peruvian Football Federation (FPF), it is one of the 10 members of FIFA's South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL)." (prose issues, and it competes against teams from all around the world when it qualifies for the World Cup finals.)
"The Peruvian team's performance has been inconsistent, although it enjoyed successful periods in the 1930s and 1970s." Use of "although" is inappropriate, as the following statement that certain periods were considered successful itself implies that other periods were less so. I would suggest removing "although", putting a semicolon here and clarifying that it enjoyed its most successful periods in the 1930s and 1970s.
Perhaps mention Lima is the capital of Peru (a lot of people wouldn't know)
Clarify that what they have qualified for four times are technically the World Cup final tournaments, not the World Cup tournaments themselves
Since they've only been to the Olympics once perhaps simpler just to say when it was: "and participated in the Olympic football tournament in 1936."
"The classic uniform colors" Perhaps "Peru's classic uniform colors"
"which is why the Peruvian team is commonly known as" perhaps "which gives rise to the Peruvian team's common Spanish nickname"
"Early in its history" Clarify we mean early in the team's history and not that of Peru the country
Teodoro Fernández, Juan Valdivieso, and Alejandro Villanueva—are these players?
It may be an understatement to state that I loved all the improvement recommendations. I look forward to the rest of the review. Thank you.--MarshalN20Talk18:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited some of the new additions, I hope you don't mind
"Early in its history, Peru's national team participated in the inaugural FIFA World Cup tournament"—Why not just "Peru took part in the inaugural FIFA World Cup in 1930"?
"brought it to world recognition" perhaps "brought it worldwide recognition"
"Peru's 1982 World Cup participation was its last to date, and it has not since won a major tournament or qualified for the World Cup" How about "Peru last reached the World Cup finals in 1982; it has since failed to qualify, and has not won any major tournament."
"In late 2008, the team was temporarily suspended from international participation by FIFA while allegations of FPF corruption were investigated by the Peruvian government's sporting authorities." How about "FIFA temporarily suspended the team from international competition in late 2008 while Peruvian government investigated allegations of corruption within the FPF."
"Peru appointed Uruguayan Sergio Markarián as its head coach in 2010 and, after achieving third place at the 2011 Copa América, was unable to qualify for the 2014 FIFA World Cup." Perhaps mention the team is presently without a coach and that Sergio Markarián, from Uruguay, was the last incumbent? We don't need to mention that Peru didn't get to the 2014 World Cup again as we have already said they didn't get into a World Cup since 1982, so leave that out. I would keep that they came third in the 2011 Copa América; perhaps mention this is the best they've done since 1983 (so perhaps things are on the up! ;))
Infobox looks generally okay to me; I'd just put an inline citation on Palacios' 128 caps and on Pizarro being captain
History
I'd perhaps change the first use of football to "Assocation football"→"Association football was introduced to Peru ..." I don't know, I just think it makes it sound nice, I'll leave this one to your personal discretion
"in the nineteenth century" I think we prefer "in the 19th century" in MOS? I may be wrong
you don't need to wikilink England (everybody knows what England is)
Again, perhaps make clear that Lima is the capital city. Suggested reword: "As early as 1859, members of the British community in the capital Lima founded the Lima Cricket Club, a sports club dedicated to cricket, rugby, and football." (you don't need "the practice of", all it adds is extra words)
"of the War of the Pacific (1879–1883)"→I'd make this "of the War of the Pacific against Chile (1879–1883)."
"After the war, Peru's coastal society embraced modern cultural practices for leisure, the arts, and cuisine. In Lima, football became a popular daily activity in urban barrios. City workers were also encouraged to practice the sport by bosses who wanted to improve their laborer's solidarity and productivity." Perhaps "After the war, coastal society in Peru embraced modern innovations such as football, which became a popular daily activity in Lima barrios. Urban bosses encouraged their workers to take up the sport, hoping that it would breed solidarity and improved productivity."
"with local workers" why not just "with locals"
"Due to these factors, including the sport's rapid development among the urban poor of Lima's La Victoria district (thanks to the foundation of Alianza Lima in 1901), Peru formed the strongest footballing culture in the Andean region." Perhaps "These factors, coupled with the sport's rapid development among the urban poor of Lima's La Victoria district (where the Alianza Lima club was formed in 1901), led to Peru developing the strongest footballing culture in the Andean region.
"Peruvian Football League tournament" you don't need tournament
Perhaps rephrase this sentence as: "The Peruvian Football League was formed in 1912 and held each year until it broke up in 1921 amid disputes between the member clubs."
"Consequently, the Peruvian Football Federation (FPF)[C] was created in the following year and, in 1926, assumed the management of the Peruvian Football League." Try "The Peruvian Football Federation (FPF) was created the following year and, in 1926, it reorganised the annual league competition."
"The FPF joined the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) in 1925, but due to financial problems it only formed a national football team in 1927,[19] which debuted in that year's South American Championship.[12]" Try "The FPF joined the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) in 1925, and formed a national team in 1927—the delay was due to financial issues. The team debuted in the 1927 South American Championship, which the FPF hosted at the Estadio Nacional in Lima."
Perhaps mention here that Peru's first win was a 3–2 victory over Bolivia in their second international game?
"During the 1930s, Peruvian football lived its first golden era." You should really say instead that this has been called a golden era. "The 1930s have been called Peruvian football's first golden era." Or something like that.
Say what Rodillo Negro means in English ("black roller")
wikilink Alejandro Villanueva, Juan Valdivieso, and Teodoro Fernández, and mention that these are players. Perhaps say what positions they respectively played. What exactly made them "a soccer triumvirate unsurpassed in the world at that time"?
"After a fair performance"—"a fair performance" seems terribly vague and, er, they played two games and lost them both. Perhaps just say they took part in the inaugural World Cup in Uruguay in 1930 (I think it's worth mentioning it was in Uruguay, another South American country).
Why were poor organisations in Peru repressed during the 1940s and 1950s?
"generally reached the middle standings" perhaps "generally performed creditably"
"In this period, Peru generally reached the middle standings at South American Championships and barely missed the Sweden 1958 World Cup, after being defeated by Brazil (which went on to win the competition)" Perhaps "Peru generally performed creditably at the South American Championships during this period, and narrowly missed qualification for the 1958 World Cup finals in Sweden, losing over two legs to eventual champions Brazil."
"A series of victories in the late 1960s, culminating in the qualification for the Mexico 1970 World Cup, brought Peru to another golden era." Try "A series of successes during the late 1960s, culminating for the Mexico 1970 World Cup, ushered in a second golden period for Peruvian football."
"Peru reached the quarterfinals, where it was knocked out by eventual winners Brazil, and earned the first FIFA Fair Play Trophy."→"Peru reached the quarter-finals in 1970, losing to the tournament winners Brazil, and earned the first FIFA Fair Play Trophy."
"while in Spain 1982" should be "and in Spain 1982"
"the first stage" should be "the first group stage" (to concisely make clear there were two group stages that year)
"Peru's early elimination" should be "Peru's early elimination in 1982" (more clear)
"Following its failed qualification" should be "Following its failure to qualify for the 1986 World Cup in Mexico"
"as "The Colts" (Spanish: Los Potrillos)" should be "as Los Potrillos ("The Colts")" (I think it is clear from context this is Spanish)
"leaving among the dead several national team players (including rising sensation Luis Escobar and goalkeeper José González Ganoza) and coach Marcos Calderón." put a full stop before this and make this into a new sentence. "All aboard were killed except the pilot. Among the dead were the national team coach Marcos Calderón and several Peruvian international players, including Luis Escobar, widely tipped as a future star forward, and goalkeeper José González Ganoza."
"South Korea/Japan 2002 and Germany 2006 tournaments" make clear these are World Cup tournaments
briefly explain that Peru was invited to the Gold Cup in 2000 as a guest team
Why was a corrupt official blamed for the players' perceived poor performance?
"considered his re-election illegal" perhaps "declared his re-election illegal"
In the final sentence in this section move the "however" from the start of the sentence to the end
Make clear in the image caption that the players are named from left to right (I presume they are). Also maybe move the image down to the 1970s paragraph and put it on the right (if it overlaps slightly into the section on the team's kit this is no great bother as it nicely displays the team's kit too)
How about "Colours" or "kit"? These are terms more commonly used in football than "uniform". I'd go for "colours" myself.
When we say Peru's national colors are red and white, we mean the country in a non-sporting sense, right? If so, I'd make this clearer. Put something like "The Peru football team plays in red and white, the country's national colors."
Why not mention the first kit had black socks?
"on the front", not "in the front"; same "on the back"
They haven't used the exact same design since 1936, have they? Perhaps make clear that the basic sash design dates back to 1936, but that it has been slightly altered periodically during that time.
I think this section would benefit from a slight reorganisation; I think it might work better if you discuss each design directly when it is introduced, as opposed to the present format where you introduce the four designs, then go back and discuss each of them.
"claiming that" seems odd wording; all Turpin said was that he thought it was the nicest kit, not that it unambiguously was. I'd replace this with "saying that".
"eight separate companies"→"separate" is not needed, "eight companies" means the same thing
Is arkivperu.com a reliable source? Looks like a blog to me. Likewise Jaime Pulgar-Vidal Otálora (blogspot).
Okay, these both seem reasonable to me, but keep in mind these sources might get questioned by others—if you find something more concrete I would recommend adding them. —Cliftonian(talk)17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Goldblatt does not explain why sports organizations were repressed.
I haven't found another source that mentions sports organizations in Peru during this period. Based on personal knowledge, I would guess the repression is related to the Manuel A. Odría administration. However, Odría was also a populist, and prior Peruvian administrators (such as that of Manuel Prado) were not supportive of organizations that united the poor or industrial workers (which is partially why APRA became an important political force). The convoluted nature of Peruvian politics may also explain why Goldblatt decided to avoid elaborating on the subject.--MarshalN20Talk17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I understand. I'm sorry I am so ignorant of matters Peruvian! Perhaps just add a few words to make clear it was the government that was repressing the organisations? ("He attributed this sudden decline to Peruvian authorities' repression of "social, sporting and political organizations among the urban and rural poor" during the 1940s and 1950s." or something like that should do). —Cliftonian(talk)17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rodillo Negro did not participate in the 1930 World Cup. I attempted to make the sentence a "before and after" contrast, but (in retrospect) it does not seem to have been expressed properly.
Why don't you just move the fragment about playing in the 1930 World Cup to the beginning of the paragraph, before you mention the Rodillo Negro? —Cliftonian(talk)16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you go back through the previous comments again as some of them don't seem to have been addressed. For example, what exactly made Villanueva, Valdivieso, and Fernández "a soccer triumvirate unsurpassed in the world at that time"? Does the source say? Only a word or two of explanation is required to make this part clear for the reader. I'll continue the review later. —Cliftonian(talk)16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so patient and polite with me, as I say above I am rather ignorant of both Peru the country and its football team (which is a large factor in what makes reviewing this interesting)—all I knew before was the wonderful red sash kit! I will go back and copy-edit a little in the history section before continuing the review, I hope you don't mind. Well done so far, this is shaping up nicely. —Cliftonian(talk)17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes to the colors section look great, well done! I have just copy-edited the prose a little bit. Right, on with the review.
Stadium
"The Estadio Nacional is a 45,000-spectator stadium located in Lima that acts as the traditional home of the Peruvian team and the national stadium of Peru." This sentence seems kind of backwards to me. I would put :The traditional home of the Peruvian team is the country's national stadium, the Estadio Nacional in Lima, which houses 45,000 spectators." Or something like that.
Was the first national stadium also called the Estadio Nacional? Why not say this is the third Estadio Nacional, the result of a renovation process under Alan Garcia that was completed in 2011, and that the original was a wooden structure ... etc
"Peru's centenary of independence" should be "the centenary of Peru's independence"
You don't need to wikilink Spain, everybody knows what Spain is
"regime" is a somewhat loaded word in English, try "government" or even just putting "Under General Manuel Odría, the stadium ..."; this still makes sense and is more concise
"reconstructed, expanded, and officially re-inaugurated" expanded seems superfluous here; how could it be expanded if it was reconstructed at the same time? try "rebuilt with a larger capacity, and officially re-inaugurated"
I'd move the sentence about this being the present stadium up (see comment above)
"A unique feature" all features are unique; I'd replace this word
"named in honor of the main advocate of the stadium's first renovation" who was he? A politician? a civil servant? a sports coach?
"overtime" should be "over time" ("overtime" as one word is a noun equivalent to "injury time" in US English)
"The arena was also the only national stadium in CONMEBOL to have artificial turf, installed to improve its aesthetic appeal for the 2005 FIFA U-17 World Championship, and was one of Peru's four "FIFA Star II" stadia, the highest certification granted to artificial pitches." You should rearrange this to make clear that stadium had artificial turf from 2005, but doesn't now (I know you say this in the next paragraph but this is quite jarring)
"located in" You don't need "located"; just saying "in" means the same thing
Supporters
"Amid the 2014 World Cup qualifiers" try "During the 2014 World Cup qualifiers" ("amid" would mean during that period, but not actually during those games)
"During the 19th century, football in Peru was not only exclusive to Lima's Anglophile elite and former expatriates, but it was also secluded from the rest of the city." Try "During the 19th century, football in Peru was largely exclusive to Lima's Anglophile elite and expatriates, and secluded from the rest of the city."
"as the practice of the sport" why not just "as the sport"
"of a wider popular culture" you don't need "a"
"In the 21st century, football is the most popular sport in Peru" Perhaps "Football is today the most popular sport in Peru." I would recommend putting this at the start of this section
"Peruvian fans commonly encourage the national squad with the popular sports chant ¡Arriba Perú!" How about "Peru fans often encourage the national team with cries of ¡Arriba Perú! ("Come on Peru!")."
"it became "a symbol of national culture" for Peru" try "it became a symbol of [Peruvian] national culture."
"Peru Campeón, a polca criolla" translate these Spanish terms
"qualification to the Mexico 1970 World Cup" should be "qualification for"
"considered as one of the most terrible in football history" perhaps "which is often cited as one of the worst tragedies in football history"
"the youth (under-20) squads of Peru and Argentina" maybe "Peru's under-20 team and its counterpart from Argentina"
"goal from Peru, which would have tied the score, alleging "rough play" from the Peruvians" maybe "Peruvian goal, a would-be equalizer, alleging rough Peruvian play."
"jumped into the field" maybe "invaded the pitch"
"on the pitch" is not necessary; "thrown from the stands" is enough
"Police responded by throwing tear gas into the crowd, causing a stampede that was worsened by the stadium's locked gates. The death toll amounted to 315 spectators and more than 500 were injured in the chaos." Try "Police threw tear gas into the crowd, which caused a stampede; trying to escape, fans were crushed against the stadium's locked gates. A total of 315 people were killed in the chaos, with more than 500 others injured."
Rivalries
"Peru maintains prominent football rivalries with Chile and Ecuador. They have a favorable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile.[72][73] The first time Peru faced both its rivals in an official tournament was during the 1939 South American Championship held in Lima; Peru won both matches.[74] In the FIFA World Cup, Peru's first confrontation against both rivals happened during the Argentina 1978 World Cup qualifiers, in which Peru directly eliminated Ecuador and Chile after defeating them in Lima and securing away draws.[72][73]" Perhaps:
"The Peru football team maintains prominent rivalries with its counterparts from neighbouring Chile and Ecuador.[72][73] The Peruvians have a favorable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile. Both of these rivalries date back to the 1939 South American Championship in Lima, when Peru first faced Ecuador and Chile in an official tournament; Peru won both games.[74] Peru's first FIFA World Cup matches against its two rivals were played during qualifying for the Argentina 1978 World Cup; Peru defeated both Ecuador and Chile over two legs, directly eliminating them both.[72][73]"
"considers it to be" perhaps "ranks it"
"Chile has" perhaps "the Chilean team has"
"Both nations further dispute the origin of the football move known as the bicycle kick, with Peruvians naming it chalaca and Chileans calling it chilena." Perhaps "both nations furthermore claim to have invented the bicycle kick; Peruvians call it the chalaca, and it is the chilena in Chile."
"prevent both sides from facing each other" perhaps "prevent a match between the two sides"
Everything is fantastic. To my mind comes that quote attributed to Michelangelo: "Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it." I brought the stone, and you're the artist making a masterpiece out of it. [:)]--MarshalN20Talk14:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you for the extremely flattering words! I'm glad you feel that way. I noticed that one of the images lower down infringed on copyright (falsely labelled as self-published, but actually from Popperfoto), so I took it out. I don't think it's a great loss anyway. Okay, on to "Competitive records".
FIFA World Cup
"Peru has participated in 14 World Cup qualifiers and 4 World Cup finals." Try "The Peruvian team competed at the first World Cup in 1930 as invitees, and has entered each tournament at the qualifying stage since 1958. Having qualified three times (in 1970, 1978 and 1982), it has taken part in the World Cup finals four times."
"In the qualifiers, the squad has a record of 35 wins, 30 draws, and 59 losses, with 130 goals in favor and 174 against." Perhaps "Peru's all-time record in World Cup qualifying matches as of 2014 stands at 35 wins, 30 draws and 59 losses; the team has scored 130 goals and conceded 174."
"In the finals, the team holds a record of 4 wins, 3 draws, and 8 losses, with 19 goals in favor and 31 against." Maybe "In the finals, the team has won four matches, drawn three and lost eight, with 19 goals in favor and 31 against."
expand to "During the 1930 competition, a Peruvian became the first player sent off in a World Cup—his identity is disputed between sources."
"first tournament goal" why not "first World Cup goal"
"Teófilo Cubillas is the team's top World Cup scorer with 10 goals in 13 games" this is including qualifiers, right?
On reflection, I don't think the large tables and templates in the "competitive records" section really belong in this article about the Peru football team in general. They are rather intrusive and detract somewhat from the prose, in my opinion. I think these would be better off in the individual articles linked to or in an article on the Peru football team's statistics. —Cliftonian(talk)20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon the delay in updating the article. I'm currently stuck with a few dull tasks at work. [:/]
The achievement tables are a standard across all national football team articles. I personally agree with you that they are bulky and detract from the prose. However, this would be a long-term matter to discuss with the editors at WP:FOOTY and change the format.
Hmmm. Is there a way to make it so these tables are hidden by default? This might be a good way around this—the information would be retained for those who want it (who can easily open the table), but would not be as intrusive and distracting. I think we can do this by going to the individual template pages and changing the class to "wikitable collapsible collapsed". I would recommend taking the templates with the squads for each tournament out. —Cliftonian(talk)08:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Polca criolla" is the same in Spanish and English. Another common name in English is "Peruvian polka", which is the correct translation of the other common Spanish name "polca peruana". Based on GoogleBooks results, I get the impression that "polca criolla" is more common in the academic realm (perhaps because it has a more exotic tone to it). Regardless, I think either is fine. Which do you prefer?
I think we could best put it as "Peru Campeón, a polca criolla (Peruvian polka)". I hope this is okay with you? Don't worry at all about delays, I understand completely. I hope all this is helpful and that you are well —Cliftonian(talk)08:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I hope to soon create the "polca criolla" article, but I'm debating on whether to focus on that first or expand the Musica criolla article.
I am now on the records section. The boxes are now collapsed. The team templates need to be in the article. I can move them to the bottom of the page. Would you prefer them to be at the bottom of the article?
I'm sorry it took me a couple days to get back to this. I think perhaps having them at the bottom would be best as they are a little in the way as it is, even though they are collapsed. I will copy-edit the rest of the article over the next few days and then have a final look over. I hope this is okay and that you are well. See also my note below. Thanks, —Cliftonian(talk)17:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished copyediting the article now, and am now concluding this part of the review. I hope all the changes I have made are to your satisfaction. I have just one more query regarding the prose and captions: "The renovated Estadio Nacional offers high-quality lighting for HD newscasts"—what does this mean? I don't understand. Apart from this I am happy enough to support so far as prose is concerned. You also need to go through and work on the reference formatting (for example, you have "CONMEBOL.com" and "FIFA.com" listed as publishers, when it should just be "CONMEBOL" and "FIFA"—the publisher is the organisation, not the name of the website). Also keep in mind what I said about sourcing; you have quite a few blogs in here and these are sure to throw up question marks. I am sorry but I still don't feel comfortable supporting this for FA status while these issues remain surrounding the references. I hope you're well and having a nice weekend. Cheers, —Cliftonian(talk)11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes are fantastic. It may just be nostalgia, but I would have liked to keep the kit evolution pictures in the "Colours" section.
The "high-quality lighting..." part refers to the improved lights of the stadium, which (according to the source) make High-Definition (television) newscasts possible.
All the ".com" issues should now be resolved. Certain websites, such as "Peru.com", have the ".com" as part of their official name.
All of the blogs are reliable per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
The only website I can agree that is borderline acceptable is "ArkivPeru", but I think it can be removed if you think the article would be better without using it.
I removed ArkivPeru from a couple of citations, replacing one with a source from El Comercio. I left it for the citation of Peru's kit history (no other source has such a detailed account of it).--MarshalN20Talk16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is okay, well done. The issue I mentioned above regarding the publisher formatting still remains, though—in a lot of instances you give the web address or the work as the publisher rather than the publisher itself.
El Comercio, for example, is a newspaper, right? It should go under "work", not publisher. The publisher is "Empresa Editora El Comercio". (this is also the publisher for Peru.com, Peru21.pe, Depor.pe and Laprensa.pe; these are all works).
Give RSSSF in full: it is the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation.
Everything is good. Clarin is the work, and "Grupo Clarin" is the publisher. Thank you for teaching me to distinguish between both.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that adding the common acronym to the first full citation, such as "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF)", would then permit me to solely use the acronym in subsequent citations? I just did this, but can also quickly change everything to the full name.
@John:. This article hasn't been "changed from UK to US English". I wrote most of the pre-FA review draft. English is not my first language, and I learned to write/speak it from a variety of individuals, including French Vietnamese, Midwestern Americans, and British Peruvians. Basing a "procedural oppose" on the language of a subpar version of the article, from nearly a decade ago ([22]), is astonishing.
Moreover, my first edit on the article was in 2007 ([23]), by which time there were no mention of "colours" or "neighbours" (which are the only UK English words I could catch from the 2004 version). I hope this answers your query. Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk23:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It should be kept in the original dialect per WP:RETAIN. If you didn't change it (and I accept you didn't), it should be easy enough to change it back. --John (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have minded at all to write the article in UK English, as I did (with the help of UK English writing editors) in Falkland Islands, but at this point the request is excessive.
In fact, I consider the following part of WP:RETAIN to apply to this case: "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety. The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page." Two words ("colours" and "neighbours") do not establish a consistent variety.
Nonetheless, if you would like to change the language from US to UK English, please feel free to go ahead and do it (and tag it accordingly on the talk page). However, please don't oppose this article's nomination based on a 2004 edition, which was little more than a stub with only two identifiable UK English words.
I'm somewhat bemused by the idea that this should not go to FA status on the basis of an ENGVAR issue from a decade ago. The only important thing for me is that one variety, either UK or US English, is used consistently throughout. I would personally prefer UK-style English just because that's what I'm more used to. One though that has just occurred to me is that using British English would be a quite nice way to subtly give a nod to the British founders of Peruvian football. What do you think? Whatever we decide, I am happy to go through and make sure the whole article conforms to one variety. —Cliftonian(talk)17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any preference over either variety. However, I am unable to conduct such a massive change at this time. If perhaps John or you could please do then change, then that would be great. Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk19:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will convert the article to BrE in a couple days (I'll be unable to until then because of real life commitments). I hope this settles this issue. —Cliftonian(talk)19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you have tried to fix this. I cannot support though because the prose is still not at the requisite level. "Furthermore" and "however" are danger flags of bad writing to me, and I see we still have "centered" among the UK spellings. I think a good copy-edit could take this to the standard but it is not there yet. --John (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about this. I will endeavour to rectify this when I copyedit this article in a few days. I hope you're well and having a pleasant week. Thanks, —Cliftonian(talk)20:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Friend, the article underwent a thorough copy-edit carried out by Cliftonian (see above for more information). Everything you mentioned was addressed (UK English and good copy-edit). Only two "however" are in the article, and these are appropriately used in the history section. Given these major changes, would you keep the oppose or change to support the nomination? Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk15:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: I see an img review was done in the last FAC, but doesn't hurt to double-check. 10 images in all, first one is a logo that passes copyleft status due to its simplicity. Rest of the images check out ok except for the ones noted. First, File:Perurumania1930.JPG is tagged as PD for Chile, but it shows a Peru-Romania match. I'm sure it is PD, but is that the right tag? If Los Sports, the source, is Chilean, perhaps make that clear. If it is based in Peru, then change to the Peru PD tag you use elsewhere. Also, I'd like to see File:Inside Estadio Nacional (Lima, Peru).jpg's description fleshed out due to how vague it is, though it is not a requirement. Wizardman04:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Wizardman. Yes, it seems Los Sports was a Chilean magazine published during the 1930s (there's a substantial article on it in the Spanish Wikipedia). The Peru-Romania match was surprisingly violent, so that may be the reason it got coverage in Chile. Although I imagine the World Cup was also the only notable sporting event that took place in South America at that time.
I went ahead and linked Los Sports on the image, since I didn't realize we had an article on it (one sentence, but it exists). Everything else looks good now img-wise. Wizardman00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nergaal
There are a bunch of issues I noticed and I will try to list them as I go through:
Intro
"he 1930s and 1970s" there should be another the after and
" and is without a manager..." there is something weird about this whole sentence
second para and on: I don't really like how the intro is organized; please try to talk about each set a competitions in an order: start with WC record - by taking 2 or 3 sentences; then talk about the copa america; then other stuff such as the olympics
have 3rd para talk about say famous people and managers
then perhaps talk about rivalries, jersey, etc
last intro para talk about recent developments and current trends in performances
History
I don't really like how this section is and I think you should have 3 subsections: 1) early beginnings and first world cups (1930s); after Rodillo Negro up to 1982; 3) modern/recent era
when was the first friendly and first official international game played?
"Starting with Ciclista Lima in 1926, Peruvian clubs toured Latin America." needs a citation
"Peru took part in the inaugural FIFA World Cup in Uruguay in 1930" move to next para
" the national team's underperformance" during what period?
" reached its highest-ever position in the FIFA world rankings" I think you need to specify here since when are the rankings recorded/calculated
"It failed to qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup finals, nonetheless" please state the place. You should clearly state the performances for whenever you say it failed to qualify (i.e. was it #9 or #4?)
After history
"the country's national colours" are they national colors, or just flag's colors?
" it was most recently renovated i" plural?
the stadium section is a bit longer than it needs to be; who cares about vip boxes and other aluminium crap?
when was the last time a game was played at a different stadium?
supporters section could probably benefit from an image (of supporters painted/dressed in whatever color(s))
rivalries
please give some statistics of W/D/L games
Records
"During the 1930 competition, a Peruvian became the first player sent off in a World Cup—his identity is disputed between sources" should probably be moved in the history part
"eru came top of their group in the first round, eliminating Chile and Bolivia, and in the semifinals drew with Brazil over two legs, winning 3–1 in Brazil but losing 2–0 at home. Peru were declared winners by drawing of lots. In the two-legged final between Colombia and Peru, both teams won their respective home games (1–0 in Bogota and 2–0 in Lima), forcing a play-off in Caracaswhich Peru won 1–0" should be summarized in the history section
perhaps mention here that only the big three won the cup more than twice
the bottom two para in the olympic section are TMI
Players
please decrease the font size to something like 90% and auto-hide the recent callumps stuff
add a (hidden) table for the notable players section with caps and goals
Thank you for the review Nergaal. I addressed the most important that I could easily fix at the moment. Some comments:
The Ciclista Lima etc. citation (#22) covers two sentences.
I'm very limited when it comes to tables & other such Wiki-gadgets. Plus, I remember the WP:FOOTIE members did not want for the player tables to be altered from the current consensus (all football articles have the same format for the player tables).
I'd prefer for the history section to have no subsections.
Ian plans to close this FAC on either Friday or Saturday. Hopefully it will pass so that this FAC review matter is not again repeated for a fifth time. We can discuss the other suggestions you're making afterwards. Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk04:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, most of your suggestions are merely personal preferences over non-major matters (including points that challenge the established consensus at WP:FOOTY). I have addressed those points that indeed required immediate attention (such as: [24]), but the rest can be discussed at a later date. As much as I appreciate your review, simply not abiding by everything you list does not entitle a logical oppose to this nomination. Best wishes.--MarshalN20Talk21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, when Marshal and I discussed on my talk page, I said I'd close it Friday/Saturday if nothing much had changed, and since then John's concerns have been resolved and we've had an additional review, hence it's remained open. Now, it may be that some of Nergaal's suggestions are indeed not actionable because they don't follow football article conventions, and I know you've mentioned a couple of things and included a diff of changes above, Marshal, but it'd be easier for the FAC delegates to judge things if you responded to each of Nergaal's points to say it's been actioned or it hasn't been actioned because... Per FAC instructions, just don't use {{done}} templates or the like.
Also, have I missed a source review above, i.e. one checking the references for reliability and consistent formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. I'll address the points in a list (which should match, point-by-point, what has been presented by Nergaal:
Intro
Addressed.
Addressed.
Disagree; Because: subject to personal preference; current introduction is the result of various past copy-edits (the last being conducted by Cliftonian), and I like it as well.
Your suggestion is a single one, which you then proceeded to elaborate. I don't see how it can be interpreted in any another manner, but I respect your perspective if you disagree. Regards.--MarshalN20Talk15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
Disagree. I prefer that the section remain without subsections because it makes the table of contents and the section too bulky.
First international game was already mentioned, please read second paragraph. Friendlies are rarely important (i.e., the "first friendly" is unimportant).
The introduction & body did not have the same information. Introduction mentioned flag, but body talked about national colours. I addressed the problem with the following edit: [25]. Regards.--MarshalN20Talk15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean.
Addressed. Section is 4 paragraphs, the standard summary length.
Disagree; too much information. Also, information is not available without conducting WP:OR.
How can you talk about a rivalry without saying who is winning that rivalry? It is like saying USA and USSR had a big rivalry during the cold war and not saying one of them eventually failed. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, the second sentence of the sections states: "The Peruvians have a favourable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile." This sentence indicates who is winning the rivalries. Regards.--MarshalN20Talk15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Records
Disagree; this is a World Cup record.
Disagree; information is specifically related to Peru's Copa America record (second victory).
Good, but not necessary.
Addressed. Mixed the two paragraphs into a single one, removing extra information not directly related to the Olympic tournament.
Players
Recommendation is against WP:FOOTY conventions. All football articles have the same table.
Disagree. The player records section is at the end of the article.
Just based on the above it does look to me that the nominator has made a reasonable attempt to deal with these comments, and I'd welcome Nergaal's response. In the meantime, a source review is still needed, and I've listed a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sorted, I still believe the nominator has made reasonable efforts to address the concerns of the one opposing review, so it's time (finally) to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
Comment from Giants2008
Comment – "the last incumbent was Uruguayan Sergio Markarian, who managed the team from 2010 from 2013." Last "from" should be "to" instead.Giants2008 (Talk) 03:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Back, with another candidate on an obscure, lost, Indonesian film by Rd. Ariffien (i.e. after Asmara Moerni). Unlike my previous nominations, this one is not based on a novel, stage play, or original screenplay, but rather a legend which reportedly took place in the Ciamis area. Using some sources I got at Sinematek Indonesia, I've managed to put together what appears to be the most comprehensive discussion of this film yet published.
Support – the article is superb and I am happy to vouch my support for its promotion to FAC. I have given this another read through and can see no real problems. A few minor quibbles:
"beloved to his people and his wife Naganingroem." Why am I wanting to say "beloved by his people and his wife Naganingroem."?
"The premiere of Tjioeng Wanara was shown to a packed theatre. Reception of the film, however, was mixed. An anonymous review in the Soerabaijasch Handelsblad was positive, considering the film to be successful in its adaptation of the legend, while another, in the same newspaper, recommended it." – I would swap "considering" to "considered".
Support I find the article much more convincing than the plot! I wondered about considering/-ed, but I'm OK with the current version. Text fails to use the word "fulvous", but since it's a monochrome film I guess that's OK too. Nice article Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"which was screened through 1948" Do you mean something like "until 1948"? through 1948 would mean from Jan-Dec 1948, without any mention of whether it was screened any other year. Perhaps, given what you say in the body, "which was still being screened as late as 1948" would work?
"using the name of Balai Pustaka, the official publishing house of the Dutch East Indies government known for its printed versions of traditional tales, in advertisements." You mention Balai Pustaka in the previous section- you may want to consider moving this description to earlier. If you prefer it your way (and I can see why you might) please do not change it on my account.
I think I prefer it further down, owing to the sentence construction on the first mention and the fact that BP's status as a state-run publisher was more important in relation to the advertising than anything else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Titles which are the names of individuals or films (Tjioeng Wanara, AB Djoenadi, etc. are not translated). Neither are titles in which the translation would be the same as the Dutch/Indonesian ("Sampoerna: 'Tjioeng Wanara'": Sampoerna being the name of the movie theatre, Tjioeng Wanara being this film, playing in said theatre). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An article about the only official constellation depicting an insect...Musca the fly...this was enjoyable to work on with lots of interesting stars and connections. I feel it is the equal of several other constellations I have buffed to FAC. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About LP 154-141: "It is considered a good candidate to look for Jupiter-like planets." Why?
this is a little tricky as to how much information to put in the constellation article as a teaser in some ways, and elaborating in the daughter article. Essentially as a nearby and relatively hot and heavy white dwarf - the latter two points mean that it has formed more recently and the overall system was a more massive and hence short-lived one, and hence was of cosmologically more recent origin (I presume this is because the system then should have higher metallicity and hence more likely to have planets, but I can't find that stated in the source article...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being located in the plane of the Milky Way, I'm surprised at the dearth of deep-sky objects. Are there really no more interesting ones in this entire constellation?
don't recall seeing anthing else and it is a small constellation, will make another pass over literature...found tow more planetary nebs - will add a bit added so not so listyCas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that the X-ray binary 2S 1254-690 isn't mentioned at all; it's certainly notable and interesting.
"...circumpolar at latitudes south of the 50th parallel in the Southern Hemisphere": true, but wouldn't it also be circumpolar up to the 25th parallel?
tricky that - the original reference was about the south polar constellations of which Musca is one. I found another ref which was a bit better. Technically something really low above the horizon is only visible if I am on the ocean or in a really flat location, so maybe 35S is more realistic than 25S for practical circumpolarity...?Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's only going to be low on the horizon for part of the Earth's rotation, and then only at night for around half of the year. Also, you can view the horizon from a hill or mountain top, even in rough terrain. But I can understand your point about practicality, since it is a faint constellation. Maybe if you had a good source concerning star altitude and limitations on naked eye visibility? Otherwise, 'practicality' may be relying too much on personal judgment. Praemonitus (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Damn - after a frustrating search I can't find anything that qualifies the statement to make it correct, or find a correct one. Hence the fact that the constellation is not prominent enough to be considered a landmark (i.e. you don't really use it to find anything) means that I have dropped the sentence on the basis that the fact is not notable enough to have been discussed or written anywhere...(i.e. sources talk of groups of constellations in the area being circumpolar rather than musca)Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'proper motion','milliarcseconds', 'overcontact binary' should be wiki-linked.
"The white dwarf accumulates material from its companion star on its accretion disc until it erupts..."; that description is ambiguous and, I think, not quite correct. Matter flows from the companion to the accretion disk orbiting the white dwarf, and then down to the surface. It's the latter accumulation that undergoes runaway fusion.
Looks like another quality article. I have just a few questions:
In "History", you write "They assigned four stars to the constellation in their Malay and Madagascan vocabulary..." I'm not sure what this means. Did they use Malay names for the stars, or do you mean they wrote a book of Malay and Madagascan languages in which the stars were discussed, or something else altogether?
It means they happened to slot the information into a book that was otherwise this dictionary, the names and description had nothing to do with Malay and Madagascan otherwise. Would it help to add wording to clarify...?Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 18:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up removing the dictionary bit as (ultimately) it is of little relevance exactly where it appeared...and it was easier to leave it thus than as reporting that it happened to be in a Malay and Madagascan vocabulary even though it had nothing to do with either language...Cas Liber (talk·contribs)
Funny - hadn't noticed that before but all constellation infoboxes have that layout. Might be worth discussing and have a bot go through (once we figure out what a better word is as I usually think of a list as a linear thing not a map...and just checking it is not editable from the article...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Apis.jpg: source doesn't give enough information to confirm the validity of the given licensing tag (particularly as given date is date of upload rather than creation); also need US PD tag and resolution of the big red tag error. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the tag on commons but have have removed it pending further information coming to light - just spent a while trying to look online to see which 18th century atlas it came from and can't. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Minor things:
In some places we have light-years and in others light years. Choose one.
"...it is cooling and expanding along the Red Giant Branch, having left the main sequence". Although two main sequence star types are wikilinked, the article actually has no wikilink in it for "main sequence" as a concept. Also is there a link available for Red Giant Branch? And if "main sequence" is not capitalised, how come Red Giant Branch is?
"although further examination of the disk profile indicate it might be a more massive object such as a brown dwarf or more than one planet." That should read "indicates" or "may indicate", depending on whether the research has already been done - check the source and tweak.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}