Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Featured log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karanacs (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 7 April 2009 (+ 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April 2009

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:26, 7 April 2009 [1].

Murray Chotiner

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA criteria. I've been doing considerable work on the article, and I think it is a compelling story of an enigmatic man who is known as an adviser to Nixon, in first this would be the first Nixon aide to reach FA (unless you count Pat!) Also, the 100th anniversary of Chotiner's birth is coming up in October, so no time like the present. I even went to Chotiner's grave (about five miles from my home) and took pix. The article heavily relies on fee articles, but that's just one of those things. Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • TEcH. Review
  • The following ref name is used more than once to name a ref, when it should only be naming one specific ref
  • vin

--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that has been fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A couple of prose niggles:-
    • Lead: can you do something about three successive sentences in the second paragraph beginning "Chotiner..."?
    • Lead: the name Chotiner is annoyingly over-repeated in the final paragraph, too. A little rephrasing will fix this.

I imagine Voorhis will be coming up soon and I'll look forward to that. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made those changes and caught a couple of typos, hopefully the last. Yes, Voorhis is coming up, but as I have one of his books on order, and it is next in line at GAN, I figured I'd hold off for a bit. Hope you will strike your comments and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I better read the article first. Will report back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • General: A most interesting account of a shadowy figure who exists around the edges of most Nixon biographies and the Watergate books. Good to see some solid flesh and bones. The prose needs a bit of attention, though. The habit encountered—and now corrected—in the lead, of over-repetition of the name Chotiner, continues in the article (sometimes, other names are over-repeated, too). It's not just a case of substituting with pronouns, sometimes rephrasing is necessary. For example the inelegant "Chotiner initially practiced law with Jack Chotiner" could easily be replaced by saying that the Chotiner brothers practiced law together, especially as the name Chotiner appears twice more later in the same sentence. I suggest that the rest of the article is thoroughly checked out for the recurrence of this fault—this could have been done if the article had been to peer review. I always wonder about the wisdom of making FAC the first formal review of an article.
  • A problem that occurs in many biographical articles is defining what constitutes "early life". In this case the section takes us to 1946 when Chotiner was 37. This is not all early life. It might be "Early life and career", or you might split the section, but it shouldn't be left as it is. Likewise, not all the "Rise of Richard Nixon (1946-56)" section deals with the rise of Nixon - see Chotiner personal details at the end. Also, I'd say that as Nixon was elected vice president in 1952, he had "risen" by then. The date range in the title might suggest that he was not prominent before 1956.
  • The following are examples of sentences that I found troublesome:
    • "Albert Chotiner, a cigar maker by trade, managed a chain of movie theatres in California, and soon left the family, leaving Murray and his older brother, Jack Chotiner, as the sole support of their mother."
      • First, I think this is two sentences; the first "and" connects unrelated clauses
      • "He soon left the family". The last date reference we have is 1920. If Chotiner Sr left the family soon after 1920, it is hard to see how Murray, aged 11 or 12, can have been one of the "sole supports" of their mother. Do we have nothing more precise about when the father left?
      • Is it possible for two people to be "sole" supports?
    • "Chotiner coined the campaign slogan, "WE WILL NOT SURRENDER" for Knowland, implying that Democratic challenger Will Rogers, Jr. would do just that." First, why the caps? Second, it's not at all clear what Rogers was going to surrender. Rather than end the sentence with "would do just that", you should explain what "just that" is.
    • "Chotiner helped persuade Eisenhower's backers to advocate for Nixon, rather than Knowland, as General Eisenhower's running mate." As the paragraph is mainly about the vice presidential nomination, the last five words are pretty redundant. I would cut them, thereby avoiding another repetition.
    • "Chotiner had previously suggested that Nixon run a "permanent campaign" throughout his six-year senatorial term, avoiding the need for such a fund." Not clear what this means - why would the need for such a fund be avoided by this action?
    • In the "Death and legacy" section, first sentence, the words "in fact" are redundant. I wonder, too, whether the words "and legacy" are redundant, since he doesn't seem to have one - I'd hardly say "Chotiner's law" qualifies as a legacy, and I think you should clarify that it is an informal law, like Murphy's or Sod's, rather than a statute.
    • Top points for visiting and photographing Chotiner's grave – but while you were there you might have cleaned up the stonework so the rest of us can read the inscription.

I have picked up the odd typo. On the whole this is a strong article which I am inclined to support when the above points have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The issues will take probably until the weekend, as I am presently away and will not have the sources with me until Saturday. A few quick things. The capped slogan is as per the original. I think the cemetery would have a fit if I started bringing cleaning chemicals there, so I guess that's the best I can do. We had to have one free image, that will have to do. I'm trying to find out more about Chotiner's childhood, but will rephrase to avoid the point. It begs the question of why his mother didn't work, but the Morris book says his mother was "difficult", there may have been illness. Anyhow, I won't get to most of this until tomorrow and will finish on the weekend. I'm going to delete the whole Knowland for VP thing, because I now have a source that says that Knowland was offered the job and turned it down. I am going to restructure the 1946-1960 part of the article to make it align with Nixon's jobs. Congress, VP. It is the best way to do it, I think, and will of course modify the headings.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time: my remarks about the stonework were intended as graveyard humour.Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I addressed it in case anyone didn't get it. Progress report: I've addressed all but the "WE WILL NOT SURRENDER" (I want to quote the passage from the book and get reaction), the permanent campaign (that was put in by someone else and I'm going to consult references) and I've left it as "Death and legacy", it is a fairly conventional way of ending an article, and I don't have a better title offhand. "Death" seems kinda short.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reference to Richard Nixon's memoirs, which was the cite inserted by another editor to support the info about the campaigning through the six year term (I modified the information when it was inserted, to what I thought it meant), there is not enough info to see exactly what Chotiner was proposing, so i am deleting the passage about the permanent campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exact language, which I heavily borrowed from due to the same uncertaintly as to what he meant that you had, page 292 of Morris, is "In 1946 he (Chotiner) was able to work only part-time on the Nixon campaign because he was also helping to manage William Knowland's reelection to the Senate. For that run he had coined the slogan "WE WILL NOT SURRENDER," a motto in which he managed, characteristically, to convey that the Democratic opponent, Will Rogers Jr., contemplated doing just that." I can certainly switch it to lower case, and put a comment in that the original was all caps. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My main points, detailed above, have beeen largely addressed in a genial fashion, though I'd still like to know what Rogers was being accused, however cryptically, of surrendering. I could go on quibbling about unimportant things, but I'll save us the time. This is a comprehensive and well-researched article that illuminates some murky corners of presidential politics to the great shock of us innocent Brits - do the likes of Chotiner still operate? While you're in this genre, why not try Dick Tuck next? Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've thought about Tuck, but so much of what Tuck did is disputed it would be hard to write a factual article. While Chotiner is gone, I suspect he influenced negative campaigning for all time, though he did not begin it. Thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
I fixed this for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, you put newspaper article titles in quotation marks (not italics) and the newspaper itself in italics. While I won't oppose over this (since you're consistent within the page) it's distinctly different than most and you may get folks objecting later because of it.
You don't need to have them in bold .. I fixed it for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I'll clean up my other articles based on this, when I have some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 34 (Smith, Howard K..) is lacking a last access date.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the Monad article that isn't in the LA Times article, other than the fact that Heinlein turned to Scince Fiction, which is hardly contentious. I will take it out if you want, but it seems to me to be helpful to have. I'll leave it up to you. I'll dispose of the other issues later in the day, can't do it now. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made all your changes, Ealdgyth. I removed both refs. I had a backup ref for the 1938 race. I removed the info that people thought he, not Mitchell, was running the Nixon campaign, because I have no backup there. I'll read through my Nixon refs in a bit and see if I can find anything. It is a tidbit, but we can easily do without it. Who's next?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - The copyrighted image File:Chotiner.jpg is unjustified, for an individual with involment at such high levels in the US, it is implausible there is not a free image taken by the US federal government Fasach Nua (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought. I will look for one, but I'd point out to you that Chotiner was a Federal employee for less than two years, and was not an original member of the Nixon White House staff. Therefore, there may not be one, or it may not be available with ordinary effort, and it may not be possible to act on your oppose. Note that for much of his career, Chotiner was a campaign official, and the Federal government would not routinely take photographs of such officials. I will make a serious effort to find one, though. Meanwhile, can you point at some language in the policy on images which supports your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also point out that of Chotiner's three fellow White House counsels of the time, two have articles, Charles Colson and Clark Mollenhoff, and neither have free use pictures. While other crap exists, of course, it is evidence that people at Chotiner's level did not regularly have free use photos made. And of course Chuck Colson was far more prominent than Chotiner ...--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Mattisse has been kind enough to add on to the fair use rationale of that image, and I've fine tuned that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched the internet by any means I know how, and I find no free use picturs of Chotiner.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Fasach Nua to revisit his oppose, he has refused. The oppose is not consistent with WP:WIAFA; as I can't prove a negative, I will ask that the oppose be disregarded as unactionable. That being said, I'll look into offline possibilities. I'm not holding my breath though.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that today's TFA, Barthélemy Boganda has only a fair use image, plus a user-created image of his country's flag. I really don't think that Fasach Nua's oppose is very well made.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to revisit my oppose, and after careful consideration I did, [2], and found the original assessment to be valid and the oppose stood. I do not appreciate being misrepresented in this forum. As for one particular article using copyrighted material, it should be noted that FU is based on WP:NFCC which deals with contribution and education, and nothing so meaningless as a quota system for non-free content. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I said revisit, I really meant "change" or "withdraw" at least. I am sorry if my inexact terminology offended you, and as I posted diffs, I don't think there was any "misrepresentation". Still, you are asking me to prove a negative, and your oppose is not consistent with WP:WIAFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This well written article has become wonderfully rounded out since I read it last. The complex and subtle details of the sleazy political operations of this under-the-radar political operative draws the reader into the article. I am surprised so much information was able to be unearthed. The article carefully referenced from a number of well-rounded sources. Compelling to read. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support I had seen the article previously in doing some updates to other Nixon-related articles and the work that has been done to expand and source the article is impressive. This is an excellent model for expansion of other such articles. Alansohn (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not happy with the writing yet. Taking time off this damned poll to look at interesting stuff here; I'd like to find this in better state before it's promoted.
  • "a close associate and friend of Richard Nixon during much of President Nixon's political career." Tension between "Richard Nixon" and "President Richard Nixon". I'd shift the "Pr" to the first item, and make the second just his surname ...? Oh, but then we find that he was a friend before the presidency. Need to fix this. "Richard Nixon, who became the ?34th Pres. of the US ...".
  • "Chotiner was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; his father moved the family to California and then abandoned it. He attended UCLA, and then ...". His father abandoned California or his family? His father attended UCLA? Please go through and check for such ambiguities.
  • "he became a part of several political campaigns"—bit awkward ... "played an active role in"?
  • Why is "communism" with a capital C, and twice?
  • Is "operative" pejorative? I'd have thought it had a negative tinge. Is that OK?
  • You could probably remove "which" in the last sentence of the second para.
  • I think we shouldn't have to hit the link to "influence-peddling" to learn why Congress would be investigating it. Is it, was it, a crime?

Can you get someone new to run through the whole text? Tony (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes you have suggested, making it clear exactly why Congress was investigating Chotiner, and have asked Mattisse to give the article a once-over. I left one capitalized communism in, by the way, as it is a direct quote. If she can't do it, I'll see if I can find someone else. Thank you as always for your honest feedback. I don't ask that people love my articles, all I ask is that they tell me what they think, because as you have noted, it is hard to be objective about your own prose. I'm going to have to leave a note on your talk page when this is done, hope you don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse went through the article pretty thoroughly and did her usual fine job, and then I took a pass through it myself and cleared up a few stylistic things. I think that takes care of that, and I'll leave a note on Tony's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To be a nattering nabob of negativity, it's unfortunate that Fasach Nua's valid point about File:Chotiner.jpg is being dismissed. There is indeed a reasonable expectation that a federal employee in Chotiner's capacity would have been photographed by a federal employee - if not in his role as advisor/manager, then perhaps as an attorney. LIFE apparently found opportunity and reason to photograph him. NFCC#1 does not provide consideration of effort. "Ordinary effort" is not a threshold and, if an effort threshold is even implied, it would likely be "reasonable effort". Indeed, we can't expect nominators to prove a negative, but we can expect more than an mere internet search. For example, only a small fraction of the LoC's archives have been digitalized; a web search is not sufficient. Was the LoC consulted? Эlcobbola talk 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Well, it is and it isn't, actually. I don't think it is necessary per WP:WIAFA, for sure. That being said, I'd like to have a free use photo in there, it is more useful, you don't have to worry about it getting argued about, and if this article is promoted, I'd like to see it TFA for the 100th anniversary of his birth in October. So I've done some research into where to look. The place to go really isn't the LoC, but the National Archives Nixon room in College Park, and I'm going to try to get there soon, I've been travelling a lot so it hasn't been possible. I've spoken with Jason Shultz at NARA and while they won't do research for you, they have many pictures that are not accessible by Web. But if I find some, they will have to be reproduced, and that will take a bit of time. That basically is why I haven't discussed this before, it is still a bit indefinite and I can't make guarantees on timeframe.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, as WIAFA and NFCC are currently written, it isn't necessary (thus the reason I've only commented, not opposed). There aren't defined expectations for the level of thoroughness/diligence to be exercised in investigating the existence of free alternatives. That said, given that there is a not unreasonable expectation that a free image exists it is, again, unfortunate that only a rudimentary search was done before submitting to FAC (there's no deadline). Whether Fasach Nua's oppose can be considered actionable is, thankfully, a decision out of my hands. Thanks, though, for the nice article and the opportunity to use one of my favourite quotes. Agnew was quite the character. Эlcobbola talk 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Agnew is on my list of possible article improvement projects. However, odds are I'll never get there, since it is well down the list and new projects keep suggesting themselves. I should note that I live only 30 miles from College Park, so it is at least possible for me to go there, and I don't mind spending money on reproductions. Were I a college kid in Mississippi or Edmonton, it probably wouldn't be possible, since I could not have afforded to go or hire someone to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I forgot: NFCC#10A requires attribution of a copyright holder. If a non-free image is to stay, would using one of the aforementioned LIFE images be acceptable? Frankly, I think they're aesthetically superior and use would allow us to properly attribute a copyright holder. Эlcobbola talk 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Let me look at the LIFE images, but first see what NARA can do for me if I can get over there tomorrow. If I can't, it may be early May before I can again. Busy, busy.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, LIFE photographed him because Chotiner (who was not a federal employee then) was subpoenaed before a Senate committee in 1956, and it was a major story. It's all in the article. Doesn't mean a federal employee would. However, there is a good chance that the Nixon library may have some, we'll see. If they don't, I think I will have made a good faith effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent 2 hours searching through databases of old journals, newspapers, books, and legal documents for images of Chotiner (including the NYTimes database going back to 1851). I found absolutely nothing in terms of free use images, one image attributed to the associated press (emailed to Wehwalt), and another image of Chotiner sitting with Nixon that had no attribution at all. --auburnpilot talk 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above and beyond, AP! Anyhow, if I get out of court at a reasonable hour, I'm going over to College Park. Thing is, I understand parking is limited, they make you watch a power point presentation before beginning research, all that good stuff. We'll see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [3].

Acid2

Nominator(s): —Remember the dot (talk)

I have done my best to address the concerns brought up in the previous FACs, and feel that this article now meets the standards of stability, comprehensiveness, and understandability required of featured articles. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • TEcH.Review

Image concerns as follow:

  • Can a Commons user with OTRS access verify if ticket #2321205 is meant for all screenshots of the Acid2 test, or just for specific screen captures?
  • File:Usage share of web browsers that pass Acid2.png: please indicate the source(s) used for this graph on the image page itself.
    • Can you be more specific about what you want to see? The image description page already says "Author: Remember the dot, data from Net Applications". —Remember the dot (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, sorry, I read that as "Author: Remember the dot, from Net Applications" (missed the "data"). On that point, is Net Applications a reliable source for this data (pardon me for asking, I am a bit ignorant on this web statistics industry)? Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • All statistics should be taken with a grain of salt. While no statistics can be perfectly accurate, these ones are reasonably representative and clearly support the statement "Use of Acid2-conformant web browsers has consistently risen since October 2005." We have some less detailed statistics ([4] [5]) from XiTi, a European company, which also show that use of Acid2-conformant browsers is increasing. I made a spreadsheet of the XiTi data which I'm posting on the talk page for you if you're interested. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This would be more in line with WP:RS. Although images are not necessitated to be "reliable", we are talking about a Featured Article here, the best that Wikipedia has to offer. The graphs in such articles, likely, would have to be based on data from reliable sources as well, i.e. sources that the industry rely on, e.g. frequent quoting by the media, use as references in scholarly material, etc (per Ealdgyth's oft-quoted Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches). Hence, would it be better to create the chart from the XiTi data (if it is a reliable source), or is Net Application an equally reliable source? Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The data has got to come from Net Applications because XiTi does not give us enough information about specific browser versions, and we need that information to be able to make an accurate graph. The XiTi data gives us a very rough idea of increase in use of Acid2-conformant browsers, but cannot tell us, for example, how much of the Internet Explorer use in a given month comes from the Acid2-failing IE7 versus the Acid2-passing IE8. We have to assume that the contribution from IE8 is negligible in all months because IE8 was only recently released. So the value of the XiTi data is simply in verifying the general trend that Net Applications shows; we cannot make the graph from the XiTi data itself. Feel free to browse through Usage share of web browsers also; nearly every statistics source listed there shows the same general trend.
            • In short, the Net Applications data is the most detailed data available, and matches the trend reported in other sources. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I do not think that the WP:RS guidelines are to look for a customer with the right size to fit a shoe (rather than selling the right sized shoe to a customer). Reliable, in this project, is not the same as "truth", rather it means that one can reasonably trust the source for its provided data. In particular, it seems Net Applications is relied on simply because it is widely quoted in the articles here, rather than any industry backing (ref:Talk:Usage share of web browsers#NetApplications.com data I also note that Net Applications is a questioned source in the previous FAC for this article, so per the actions there, I am leaving this image up for others to decide. Jappalang (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes we can reasonably trust Net Applications' data. How do we know? For one thing, other sources, like the European company XiTi, verify the data. For another, Net Applications' data has been quoted in PC World, Computerworld, ZDNet, and several others. There is no doubt that the statement "Use of Acid2-conformant web browsers has consistently risen since October 2005" is verifiably correct. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [6].

Cyathus

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FAC criteria, and I'd really like to adorn it with the illustrious symbol of quality, the bronze star. The article passed GAC without much fanfare, and has been subsequently substantially improved with the help of a number of great suggestions at peer review. This is the first of what I hope will be many FAC submissions from me. With the help of these stacks of mycology books and journal articles piled around me, and a coffee machine, I am ready and willing to supplement the existing information, or massage the text to assuage the idiosyncrasies of any reviewer who wishes to read and comment. Thanks in advance. Sasata (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (P.S. I'm in the WikiCup)[reply]

Some prose issues in lede to start of with...

    • I'd bold 'bird's nest fungi' in lede as it is a (vernacular) synonym. As is "splash cups"
Bolded. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The 45 widely distributed species of Cyathus are also.. - bolded bit (I think) is redundant.
Fixed. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • wikt link for 'plicate' and 'striate'
Done, although plication was as close as I could get for plicate. Perhaps I'll add a direct definition for plicate in wiktionary later. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Generally considered inedible, Cyathus species are saprobic, feeding on decomposing organic matter, and as such are usually found growing on decaying wood or woody debris, on cow and horse dung, or directly on humus-rich soil. - has 4 commas - I'd split after 'saprobic' and slot in a semicolon I think.
Sentence jigged. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TEcH Review
  • Dabs need to be fixed (checked with the links checker tool)
  • External links are up to speed (checked with the links checker tool)
  • Ref formatting (checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script) is not up to speed
  • The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated and appear in the ref section as such, use a ref name instead
  • There is one ref that is blank and has no content, that needs to be fixed
  • Brodie p. 150.
  • {{cite journal |author=Allbutt AD, Ayer WA, Brodie HJ, Johri BN, Taube H. |title=Cyathin, a new antibiotic complex produced by ''Cyathus helenae'' |journal=Canadian Journal of Microbiology |volume=17 |issue=11 |pages=1401–7 |year=1971 |month=|pmid=5156938 |doi= |url=}}
  • The following ref names are given to more than one ref, it should only name 1 ref
Fix dabs and dup references (I hope). I think the problem for some of them was that I wasn't using the forward-slash-terminated named tags, but instead using </ref> to terminate them. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unchunked and shaved as requested. Hope it's ok now. Sasata (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • References in non-English languages (even the offine ones) need to note the language they are in.
  • Current ref 10 needs a page number. Also right now it's "Brodie Birds Nest Fungi" which is a different format than the rest of the references to this book.
  • I had done it this way for a reason; the article text makes reference to the fact that a monograph was written about the genus, and I wanted to give reference to the book, but a specific page number is not required. Should I just change the reference to "Brodie."? I didn't think this was the proper solution, because I use several of his other publications as sources. Advice on how to best handle this specific case would be appreciated. (Maybe "Brodie, 1975." ?) Sasata (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works for that then. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I passed this article for GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support After all my haranguing, the editor has masterfully improved the article in response to my queries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC) At my FAC you asked for comments on this one. Here they are: Oppose Weak Oppose Neutral I found the article to be deficient in explaining very basic information from the perspective of the unschooled reader of this topic. After reading the WP:LEAD, I found myself wondering the following:[reply]

What is the natural habitat for this genus? I.E., where does it naturally occur? Has it been transplanted elsewhere? E.G., does it occur here in North America? Shouldn't there be a map describing where it is commonly found? The places I expected to find the information, Cyathus#Habitat_and_distribution and Cyathus#Spore_dispersal, did not explain this.
  • I've expanded the sentence in the lead that dealt with distribution, and added a fair bit to the habitat and distribution section to more thoroughly cover this aspect. I didn't bother putting in a distribution map, because collectively the genus' distribution is worldwide. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the lifecycle for this genus? Does it live for 5 days, 5 months, 5 years? Is it an annual or perennial? Cyathus#Life_cycle told me nothing?
  • You are going to have to be patient with me. I am not understanding what a generation is for these things. Can they produce 10 new generations of fruiting bodies a year or one every ten years. Also, it seems like meiosis is single parent as if two different sperm (analogy) fuse or something. Did I understand this correctly or did I miss a pollination explanation?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was deliberately vague, but I've added the following sentence in the Habitat and Distribution section: "The appearance of fruiting bodies is largely dependent upon features of the immediate growing environment; specifically, optimum conditions of temperature, moisture, and nutrient availability are more important factors for fruiting rather than the broad geographical area in which the fungi are located, or the season."
  • I added the sentence "The dikaryotic mycelia from which the fruiting bodies are produced is long lasting, and will continue to produce successive generations of fruiting bodies as long as the environmental conditions are favorable." This is about as specific as I can get, I can't find any source that states exactly how long the mycelia of Cyathus can live, although it's relatively common knowledge (among mycologists, of course) that in comparable species (i.e. other Basidiomycetes), this may be several years or longer, until the wood fully decomposes. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I ask if you have clarified the lifespan I think what I meant to ask is what is a common life expectancy? Isn't life expectancy a basic element of a FA for these types of things? Then I also want an explanation of this things durability. If I knock it off the wood it is on will it re-root and grow in place or will it die. Can you kill it by chopping off the head or not? I don't think you responded to that unless I missed it in all the big words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's difficult to balance your desire to know everything about this fungus' lifestyle with violating the summary style criterion. Some of the questions you seek answers to are best answered in articles dealing more with basic fungal biology. For example, I could put in a section explaining how the fungus degrades dead plant material, eventually breaking this plant material into humus and other nutrients that can be used by other organisms, thus fitting in with the global carbon cycle. But the problem is that this process is not unique to Cyathus, but rather all saprobic fungi; that term is linked so the interested reader may read about this process in a more appropriate article. As for the lifespan question, I can't give a simple answer. I previously put in the statement: "The dikaryotic myelia from which the fruiting bodies are produced is long lasting, and will continue to produce successive generations of fruiting bodies as long as the environmental conditions are favorable." I think this covers your question adequately enough: if the mycelia is colonizing a big log, it'll probably have a lifespan measured in years, and will produce fruiting bodies throughout the year as long as the temp and moisture is right. If the mycelia has colonized a small woodchip, it may only produce one flush of fruiting bodies before it runs out of nutrients. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have no heads :) Most are less than a cm tall, so you'd miss them with your lawnmower. If you picked all the fruiting bodies off a piece of dead wood, the mycelia in the wood wouldn't care, it would produce more fruiting bodies when the time was right. If you took a fruiting body and chopped it in half, it would dry out and die. If you took that chopped piece, put it flush against another piece of moist, dead wood, under the right environmental conditions (eg. temp and moisture), it might start colonizing the new dead wood, and begin its life cycle anew. However, this applies for any mushroom, hence my reluctance to go into this level of detail here. Readers who want to know this stuff can click on links like hyphae, mycelia, vegetative reproduction to get answers to these questions. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If you picked all the fruiting bodies off a piece of dead wood, the mycelia in the wood wouldn't care, it would produce more fruiting bodies when the time was right." seem to be a fact worth knowing to me. It seems there might be lingo that you could use to put this before the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it for a while, but decided not to put anything more in the article about this. The life cycle section has already ballooned (mushroomed?) into one of the largest sections of the article, and much of it deals with basic biological information that is not specific to the genus Cyathus. Yes, I agree it's a fact worth knowing, but I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated in this article, as it applies to every mushroom species. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it endangered? I saw no comments on its proliferation? Even if such information is rendered at the species level, you should tell me if any species are endangered.
  • As far as I can tell, there are no other genus FA's (expect for dinosaur genera), so I don't have much to compare to. The only comparable article I could find was Galerina (a GA), so I copied that taxobox format. I will also add the info to the appropriate species article. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galerina is a three-year old GA. Standards have risen. I am going to WP:GAR it later tonight for two reasons. First, its WP:LEAD was more deficient than yours was when I gave my original opinion. Second, the most common reason I GAR articles is a belated complaint against your article as well. I do not support any articles for GA that do not have all or almost all paragraphs with at least one citation. Each paragraph is suppose to have a relatively distinct thought and should have at least one citation. Please make sure your article is structured so that each of your paragraphs has at least one citation. I don't think this should be too difficult because you only have a couple main body paragraphs without any citations. I guess I am saying don't use it as a model.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will look at Talk:Galerina/GA1 in the next few days. I apologize. Yes, I am not a mycologist. I am just a guy who took Biology (advance, honors or A.P. - I don't remember but I was good in the sciences over 25 years ago). When I decided not to be Pre-med, I think I stopped studying mid-course and have forgotten everything. Yes, I am "naive" on the subject. But the article is improving here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we have no model, let's just consider the average reader. One of the first things I want to know about a biological classification is whether it is rare and whether it is thriving. Something such as the following should be in the lead such as Genus X has # species. Of theses species X# are rare, Y# are endagnered and the rest are not known to be less than "safe" as of sources current on MMM YYYY.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've mentioned the one locally endangered species in the lead, readers can get more info in the article text or (eventually, once I put it in there) the species article. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A genus as a whole cannot really be "endangered" as such, and so it does not belong in the taxobox, which is as close to an infobox as you are going to get. I agree that information about the number of species and the rarity of various species may have a place in the article, but I would argue that it is probably not worthy of the lead, and certainly not worthy of a taxobox. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is its place in the food chain. I.E., are there any species or genuses that thrive on this genus? Does it typically feed off of a genus or species that it helps kill or helps live?
  • I'm not sure I can add much more to what I have already without bordering on OR. Essentially, it's known that various species feed on dead wood or dung, but I haven't found any studies that investigate this more fully. As for organisms that thrive on this genus, there's one report from 1938 describing how a bird's nest fungus was parasitized by another fungus, but that association seems to have been non-specific, and wasn't recorded (to my knowledge) again in the literature. Brodie in his monograph writes of evidence that snails might consume the fungus, but its only circumstantial (i.e. he didn't see it directly, there were chewed up fungi and snails nearby). I can put this info in if you really think it's vital. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K. so it commonly thrives on decomposing, dead or decaying matter. Does it secrete decomposition aids? Does it somehow aid the process. Is there a byproduct of the decomposition process that they gain nourishment from. I guess you can not technically call it a parasite because it does not thrive on living matter, but it seems to thrive on types of matter. I do not understand why. Is it unable to compete with living matter for nourishment and relegated to decomposing matter? Are you talking about living fibrous shells or dead. Be clear in the text because these nuts and such seem possibly to be one of the few living hosts if I am reading this right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 07:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was initially reluctant to go into this, as some of the questions you're asking about are applicable to thousands of fungal species, and I thought it was more appropriate for a different article. But I now realize this stuff should be mentioned here to make this article more complete. So I've expanded the life cycle section, and I think I've covered (if only briefly) the aspects you asked about, like secretion of enzymes that help it digest wood components, and mention of persistent dikarytotic mycelia from which fruiting bodies are formed.
  • I am still somewhat reluctant to strike this point. Here is my problem. O.K. we know it like to digest certain sugars that attract its colonies. That sort of gives us one direction of the food chain. However, on the other end you only tell us about whether humans eat it. It lives in bird nests I think you said. Do birds eat it. It is found on dead matter. Do foragers of living matter eat it as a primary nutrient or scavengers of dead matter eat it as a complement or substitute to their nurishment?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I had answered this before... Brodie noted that snails may eat the fungus, but evidence was circumstantial. The fungus does not live in bird's nests, it has the common name bird's nest fungus because of its appearance (stated in the lead). Birds do not eat it (well, they might, but no-one has noticed or written that in print). Its place in the food chain is that it's saprobic; I did add this (linked) word again in the life cycle section. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can not support this with my basic understanding of the topic in anything resembling its current state.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean when you say "especially older specimens that may have external features worn off". You never describe stuff wearing off. Does the ectoperidium go bald with age. What wears off?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have clarified by stating: "... especially older, weathered specimens of Cyathus that may have the hairy ectoperidium worn off." Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you clarified whether the "fibrous material like coconut, jute" is from elements no longer organically connected to the tree by having fallen or do they grow on cocunuts while on the tree?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The latter part of that sentence now reads "... like coconut, jute, or hemp fiber woven into matting, sacks or cloth." Please let me know if I can make it clearer than that. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no illustrations of Mycelia? I still do not understand what they are. Are they the green stuff beneath the fruiting body of the main image or are those hyphae?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those questions are application to all mushroom species, and you can see images of them in their respective articles (I just added a pic of mycelium to its article). Basically, the hyphae is a single filament, the mycelium is a larger mass of interwoven hyphae. (I'm not exactly sure what the green stuff is in the taxobox picture, but I'd guess some kind of bryophyte (moss)). Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After introducing the terms "infection, spread, and survival" use them later where relevant just like germinate. I don't see these later phases because I don't know what to look for.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the word "infection" because although technically correct (using the definition "An uncontrolled growth of harmful microorganisms in a host."), its also potentially ambiguous. I've now used the remaining introductory terms in the paragraph. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will an hour of light a day suffice or do they need 8 hours. Saying that they need light does nto tell me much. If you have any details it would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added more detail. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing it. Where?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Continuous light is not required for fruiting body development; after the mycelium has reached a certain stage of maturity, only a brief exposure to light is necessary, and fruiting bodies will form if even subsequently kept in the dark." Sasata (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why the spores do not get digested as they pass through the digestive tract.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a couple sentences about the fate of peridioles and spores. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of the Bioactive compounds section is not clear to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are unique biochemicals produced only by this genus, some with antibacterial, antioxidant, or potential medicinal properties; I didn't think this article could be considered complete without at least mentioning this info. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand these splash cups. Do they always open to the point of convexity as pictured in one illustration or are some of them fully open although concave?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mature fruiting bodies are fully open, and depicted as "A" in the first diagram, beside the immature, closed fruiting body. Sasata (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on with File:Cyathus poeppigii.jpg. Why is it convex?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe it just appears convex because the photo was taken from straight above and from that perspective it lacks some visual cues to show that it's actually concave. I can remove it if you like (or replace it with another picture of something more obviously concave). Sasata (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this have a {{mycomorphbox}} somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mycomorphboxes are better suited for species-level articles, and for mushrooms with a more "typical" shape. I could put one in, it would look like this (I don't think it's useful here): I put it in the article, per the WikiProject Fungi's guidelines. (But I'm not a fan). Sasata (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do these things survive prolonged sub-freezing temperatures?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fruiting bodies probably wouldn't make it, but the mycelia would just lay dormant until conditions were favorable for fruiting again (this is the case for all mushrooms). Sasata (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you source that and add it to the article.

How about elevation. Do these survive above the tree line.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't generalize for the whole genus, but I did add in some specific examples to address the latest two points: "Examples of the ability of Cyathus to thrive in somewhat inhospitable environments are shown by C. striatus and C. stercoreus, which can survive the drought and cold of winter in temperate North America,[19] and the species C. helenae, which has been found growing on dead alpine plants at an altitude of 7,000 feet (2,100 m).[20]"
If these can survive at a high altitude, I need another question answered. Are these not like green plants that need CO2 to produce Oxygen. Can you describe air composition needs and uses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They obviously don't have any Chlorophyll. I am just trying to get an understanding of their activity.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is another question dealing with mushroom biology, and I don't think needs to be discussed here. I don't think there have been any studies dealing with "air composition" in relation to Cyathus. It's a very valid question when dealing with lichens, as many are pollution sensitive and will only thrive in clean air, but it doesn't apply to this genus. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from J Milburn

I reviewed the article at peer review a couple of weeks ago, and all issues raised there have been dealt with. These are some issues I have spotted on this reading.

  • If Cyathus striatus is the type species, shouldn't it be a picture of that in the taxobox? Alternatively, a picture/collage of several species may be more informative.
  • "decomposing organic matter (they are saprobic)." Why the italics? Also, isn't this a little redundant? Would you say "Lions feed on meat (they are carnivores)"?
  • (Ignore if I asked you last time...) "paper by J. Schmitz," First name, if known?
  • "and Harold J. Brodie in 1975.[10]" Perhaps it would be better to reference someone other than Brodie regarding the publication/significance of his book?
  • "entwined with bits of the underlying" 'bits' seems a little informal.
  • "G.W. Martin in 1924,[24] and later elaborated by Buller, who used Cyathus striatus as the model species to experimentally investigate the phenomenon.[25] Buller's major conclusions about spore dispersal were later summarized by his graduate student Brodie" Full names? We have Buller's on his article. No need to link Brodie, as he's mentioned above.
  • "C. helenae, C. africanus and C. earlei.[29][30][31][32]" As a footnote lover, I'm surprised I'm saying this, but are they all needed? As each one of them is only used to reference that one statement, perhaps they could be made into one footnote, listing all three with bullet points? That would probably be better than removing any of them.
  • Perhaps an article could be written at Cyathin? Is there enough in the sources?
  • Not sure about the section title "agricultural". How about "agriculture"? The other two subsections are nouns, seems strange that this one is an adjective.
  • "cybrodol (derived from humulene),[37] nidulol, and bullerone." Have we articles on any of those chemicals? What are they? Are they exclusively linked to this genus?
  • No articles on these compounds; yes they are specific to this genus. I could start these articles too, but I don't think they'd be much more than stubs. Sasata (talk)
  • I've clarified in the intro sentence for that section that these compounds are Cyathus specific. I couldn't find any application for these metabolites, other than a 1981 paper describing their total synthesis, but they don't seem to be mentioned again in the literature. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the brothers Tulasne" How about "the Tulasne brothers"? The former sounds a little archaic.
  • Noting TonyTheTiger's comments above, I feel the food chain issue could be expanded on. The fact it's only mentioned briefly in the lead isn't great- it may even deserve its own section within the article.

Hope that helps. Feel free to chop up/strike out my comments as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. Sasata (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (part 2) File:Cyathus striatus Buller.jpg - We need a death date for W. G. Smith to establish life of the author plus 70 years. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worthington G. Smith (1837-1917), info from Ainsworth CG. (1976). A History of Mycology. Cambridge University Press. p. 347. I'll add his death year to the file info. Sasata (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [7].

Phagocyte

Nominator(s): Eulemur2008 (talk · contribs) and Graham Colm Talk 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because, have you ever wondered why pus is green, or what is the fate of all those unfriendly bacteria that we encounter every second of every day, or even how we rid our bodies of used-up cells? We have been working on this article for six months. Last autumn, I, Eulemur, adopted a poor, neglected stub as part of my contribution to Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008—an educational assignment, and I Graham offered Eulemur my help as a mentor. Working together on Eulemur's substantial research—which in his own right brought the article to GA—we have contributed an article that we consider is worthy of an FA star. We have been helped by in-depth peer reviews from Colin, Brian Boulton, Natural Cut and other members of the AP project, (but we do not presume their support). This collaboration has been overseen—distantly—by Eulemur's biology teacher Mr Butler. We thank all the other editors who have helped with this, but stress that any remaining errors are probably all our own work. Graham Colm Talk 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Graham asked me to review this article five weeks ago. I warned him I was slow. I finally reached the bottom of the references at midnight last night. Before, I couldn't have told you what a phagocyte was, but I've now got respect for these little guys who kill, eat and die to protect me. This is such a tough subject to achieve an FA-level of comprehensiveness combined with accessibility for the general reader. Eulemur and Graham have succeeded IMO. Well done. Colin°Talk 15:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Colin, your intelligent, critical analysis—from a lay-persons perspective—was indispensable. Due to your patience, help and advice, this once opaque and very technical article can now, we hope, be appreciated by a wider readership. Graham Colm Talk 16:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help and support Colin. --Eulemur2008 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata

  • There shouldn't be any stuff in the lead that's not in the main article (etymology is not in article).
  • Are there 6 billion (lead) or 5 billion (article) phags/L in blood? Just noticed the latter refers specifically to neutrophils. The lead number should also be mentioned in the article text. Sasata (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS fixes in references: Title of journals should be given in full; all page ranges should use endashes; species names in the journal article titles must be in italics.
  • I had a quick read and overall was impressed by the accessibility; haven taken graduate level courses in immunology I realize how arcane some of this stuff can be. I promise to give it a thorough read-through later with more extensive comments. Sasata (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sasata, thank you for these comments. I have replaced the hyphens with endashes where needed. There was a long discussion about abbreviated journal titles here, but a consensus was not reached and the MoS, as far as I have searched, has nothing to say on this. I have used diberri's tool for many of the citations, as many medicine and biology FAs have done, which returns an accepted format for them. I will fix the "neutrophils" and "etymology" problem today. Thanks again. Graham Colm Talk 10:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we all are :-) Thanks. Graham Colm Talk 16:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and support. Graham Colm Talk 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current refs 10, 11, 14 (Janeway, Chapter...) needs a publisher. If this is an online extract of a published book, should give all "book" details also. I see it's a book in the bibliography, suggest making it more explicit that it's got its bibliographical details at the bottom.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth, I'll do as you suggest. Graham Colm Talk 16:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I was responsible for the abbreviated Janeway refs. I shortened the full citations to just the author and chapter name with a URL convenience link and moved the full citation to the bibliography section. Do the article authors have a paper copy? I note that the original citation had the ISBN of the 7th ed, but the online version is the 5th ed. If you have the paper, then we could replace this with a standard "Janeway, p 50–70" style ref. Then append a note that the text is available free online here (if necessary, pointing out that the edition is different). I dislike the new suffix of "This book is listed in Bibiliography section below." and would probably prefer a return to three full citations if the explanation needs to be that long. Would "see Bibliography" be enough? Colin°Talk 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a paper copy of this one (I have for all the others) I think "see bibliography" would be suitable if Ealdgyth is happy with this. Graham Colm Talk 17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That'd work out fine, "see bibliography" works. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Colin and Graham. Sorry about the ISBN mix-up on the Janeway ref; when I clicked on a link for information on the book it went to the current 7th edition instead of the 5th. Thanks for your suggestions Ealdgyth. --Eulemur2008 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Graham Colm Talk 20:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I have added the link. Graham Colm Talk 07:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have my very much support - Only one nitpick to give you -
    • Phagocytes, in particular dendritic cells and macrophages, stimulate lymphocytes to produce antibodies by an important process called antigen presentation. - Source?

Otherwise, really good job, guys.Mitchazenia :  Chat  3 years and counting... 10:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and kind words. The purpose of the sentence you have quoted is to guide the reader gently into the next section on antigen presentation which is fully sourced. We can of course duplicate the appropriate reference if you wish. Graham Colm Talk 10:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get nagged to do that, so I just make sure that all end-of-paragraph sentences are sourced. If you could fix it, Thanks.Mitchazenia :  Chat  3 years and counting... 10:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem. Graham Colm Talk 10:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One image concern as follows:

I have verified the rest of the images to be in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jappalang, I have swapped the image as advised. It is a poorer portrait but his being in the laboratory compensates to some extent for this—I love all those tubes and bottles. Thank you for taking the time to find this. You could have simply objected to the previous one and left it at that—but you didn't, and this is much appreciated. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it was no problem; the searching was fun at times. Jappalang (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments A very good article I must say. In general, pixel sizes should not be specified for images so I removed them. My screen is very wide and I always seem to have whitespace issues so I tried to fix them. If they cause issues on your screen feel free to revert them. I'm also not a fan of sentence fragments in the photo captions. I know its not a requirement, but adding short bits of info in the captions will help improve the look of your article. A lot of people just look at the pictures and skip the words, so the captions should be as engaging as possible. One example: "Neutrophils move from the blood to the site of infection" could be changed to "Sensing proteolytic enzymes, neutrophils move from the blood, and envelop bacteria through phagocytosis." which is much more informative. Think of them as mini-summaries of the article which give the casual reader a quick and easy way to absorb the information. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ErgoSum and thank you for your comments on the article. Yes I know these pages appear differently depending on the readers' screens, but I think the {{clear}} templates that you have added will cause more whitespace problems than you tried to solve. So I will remove them—I hope you don't mind. Your comments on fuller image legends are interesting, but of course are not an FA requirement. Actually, the example you kindly offered is not accurate. This is why we prefer the simpler legends—fuller, accurate descriptions would require numerous wikilinks in the legends which we have tried to avoid. I understand why you suggest this because I (Graham) do it myself when scanning popular science magazines, in that I look at the pictures first. Thanks for reading and reviewing this article your contribution to this FAc is very much appreciated. Best wishes. Graham Colm Talk 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine, the clear templates weren't a big deal, just a personal preference. Regardless of the accuracy of my caption suggestion, I still think it would be a good idea. Wikilinks are not required for captions, and actually terms shouldn't be linked after the first mention anyway. I realize cosmetic issues (such as captions and whitespace) are not FA requirements, but I try to help in whatever way I can. This is not really my area of expertise (I deal mainly with the transportation categories), so I'm sorry I can't give you any meaningful constructive criticism. For this reason I'm also going to refrain from casting a vote. But a good job nonetheless, and very informative! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is there something wrong with the wikitable code? On my browser (Firefox 2.0), the table title is offset to the left of the array, producing a case of ugly misalignment and whitespace. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks OK on my screen Jappalang, but I haven't purged my cache yet. Was it okay at your end in earlier versions? Have recent edits caused this problem? We don't want a code problem at this crucial stage of the FAC. :-( Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could just be a browser issue. It seems fine for "Non-professional Phagocytes" in this version, but "Professional Phagocytes" is displaced. The problem becomes worse for "Non-professional Phagocytes" in the current version when the table is brought to the centre, instead of being placed at the right. Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it looks OK in Firefox ( version 3.08, my routine browser) and in Explorer and Safari, which I always treble-check with. So I am at a loss here. Sorry, perhaps some youngster can help me out? Graham Colm Talk 23:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine for me too in Firefox and IE. I even checked with Netscape and it looked ok there too. --Yohmom (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I use Internet Explorer and I am unable to find anything wrong with the tables. Thanks for your concerns Jappalang. --Eulemur2008 (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are all correct. I just tested on Opera and Internet Explorer, and the page looks fine. Looks like a bug with old Firefox (2.0.0.20). Sorry for the needless alarm. Jappalang (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support interesting and informative; I can't see anything significant that needs fixing jimfbleak (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and support. Graham Colm Talk 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • It's very centered on humans. It doesn't give an indication of how much of it is true for e.g. mouse, chicken, zebrafish, sea urchin, fly. Narayanese (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evolution section needs work. A problem is that it doesn't state if the slime mold (which it somewhat confusingly call amoeba) phagocytic cells are phagocytes or not, and whether they are related to white blood cells. Another that it never says when phagocytes appeared, and what they were. Narayanese (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments. Yes, I agree that the article focuses on mammalian phagocytes and gives many examples from humans, but I do not think this is a problem. I think most readers will find our phagocytes the most interesting. The article does not completely ignore the phagocytes of other species and says, for example; Phagocytes occur throughout the animal kingdom, from marine sponges to insects and lower and higher vertebrates. — Animals' cells constantly die and are replaced by cell division and the third sentence of the Lead, Phagocytes are important throughout the animal kingdom, and are highly developed in vertebrates.
The section on evolutionary origins has been the subject of much discussion on the article's Talk Page. It was probably the most difficult to write because not that much is known, we do not have the advantage of fossil evidence. Dictyostelium discoideum is definitely a phagocytosing amoeba and, more interestingly, has become over recent years a useful experimental model in the study of phagocytes in that they share many mechanisms, and underlying genes, with macrophages. I have expanded the section this morning in light of your comments, but I can not fully answer your questions on when they first appeared, or what they were; I do not think anyone can yet.
Thanks again, for these useful comments. Graham Colm Talk 11:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you sorted out the slime mold ambiguities. I still recommend adding species ranges to the discussions about the cell types, "higher animals" is hopelessly imprecise. A discussion on apaptive immunity by alternatively spliced receptors on phagocytes in invertebrates would also benefit the article. Narayanese (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Charles Hess source seems self-published, should be replacable. Narayanese (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Hess can be replaced with easily with Delves. Would you be happy with jawed vertebrates instead of "higher animals"? With regard to alternatively spliced receptors in invertebrates, could you elaborate? Graham Colm Talk 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jawed vertebrates is nicely specific. By alt splicing I was thinking of Dscam... maybe too narrow for the article. But something along the lines of "Recent findings suggest that somatic mechanisms of receptor diversification analogous to those of the acquired system of jawed vertebrates may be a more widespread feature of animal immunity than previously supposed. Examples of these include a gene conversion–like process that diversifies variable leucine-rich repeat (LRR)–containing receptor (VLR) proteins in jawless vertebrates (9, 10), somatic mutation of fibrinogen-related protein (FREP) receptors in a mollusc (11), and extensive alternative splicing of the Down syndrome cell adhesion molecule (DSCAM), a molecule that principally guides neuronal patterning, to generate immune reactive isoforms in insects (12, 13)." (from PMID 17095692) but with a mention that these mechanism aid phagocytosis perhaps? Narayanese (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am with you, but I need to turn this into Colin-proof and jargon-less prose. Thanks for your advice and review which has helped to improve the article. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After some searching around, I saw some of it is not phagocytosis-related, so it might after all be better to skip the whole thing... don't know.
Having spent half an hour trying to write a line or two on this I have to agree. Graham.
I was a bit surprised to read that mesenchymal stem cells (says 'mesenchymal cells' which could be broader (not sure about the term), but the links goes to the stem cells) are phagocytes, possibly the link is not right and should be to Mesenchyme. Narayanese (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, but both are poor stubs IMHO. It's a good job that FACs do not have to take on the responsibility for the linked articles :-) PS. any chance of a "support" and making an old man's and a very hard working school student's day? Graham Colm Talk 23:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably get around to it soon, just feel like I need to read the article more. Narayanese (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support- this article is well written and quite comprehensive. The content of the parts I'm familiar with is accurate and lay-person friendly (I know nothing about amoeba). I haven't extensively looked into the all references but what I've seen looks very reasonable, and I have no doubt Graham read each and every paper he referenced,... twice. I've listed my suggestions for improvement on the talk page, but they certainly shouldn't stand in the way here.--DO11.10 (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, support and very helpful suggestions. Graham Colm Talk 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I knew nothing on phagocytes and now I know much more. Really comprenhensive and easy to read article.--Garrondo (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and support. Graham Colm Talk 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [9].

Paulinus of York

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I swear it's the last short bishop for a while? Seriously, he's the last link in the Gregorian mission featured topic. He's not very interesting, no whippings by St Peter or bastard children lurking about. Most you can say is that there is some controversy among historians as to when he actually went to Northumbria. As usual, research by myself, copyediting by Malleus. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments Thorough and well written as usual, but a few quibbles, mainly in the lead

  • in medieval England. – is this necessary? The date is given, and even if you don’t know where York is, England is mentioned twice more in this paragraph.
struck it. However, I will point out in my defence that you wouldn't believe how many folks don't think of 644 as medieval nor know that York is in England. ... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paulinus arrived in England by 604 with the second missionary group. Little is known of Paulinus' activities after his arrival in England. – Well, the article actually says quite a bit more about him, perhaps something like Little is known of Paulinus' activities in the following two decades, which also avoids repetition of arrived/arrival and England
works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • built some churches. Prefer a number of churches as later, but not a big deal
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''built some churches. One of those Paulinus... – presumably not a church, perhaps One of the women...?
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was probably an Italian by birth.[2] They had arrived in Kent by 604, Who they? Intervening sentence has dislocated from subject, need to repeat mission
Switched to "The second group of missionaries arrived... " which also rids me of a stray "had". Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christian and to continue to worship. – practising Christian might be less clunky
Let's try "... Christian and worship as she chose." Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third sentence of Death, I tweaked slightly while fixing a typo, please check it's OK
Still good. Thanks for finding the typo. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting shortly jimfbleak (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your solutions to the last two queries much better than my suggestions;, as to the first, didn't someone say "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography"? (: Good luck, jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • Minor question Do we know what happened to his relics? They seem to vanish from the narrative in the 1080s; do they still exist somewhere, were they destroyed in the Conquest or the Reformation, or do they just vanish from history? Since for a saint, their bones in some ways are their legacy, it's perhaps more important for him than for most. – iridescent 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess they went poof in the Dissolution. Most relics in England did then. Nothing I have says what happened to them, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that there are any relics from prior to the Dissolution left in England. There are some that might be with Rufus' bones, but I'm not sure they ever figured out whose they might be (they aren't sure those bones are Rufus' either, for that matter.) What didn't get lost in the Dissolution generally got lost under Cromwell. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I know a bishop fact that you don't! – iridescent 22:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's unsourced (snickers) You know me.. if it's not sourced, it doesn't exist... (Cuthbert's on my "eventually" list along with Becket.. but only after I finish all the others...)Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: no issue with the statue (its sculptor should be dead centuries ago, and if not, the UK has freedom of panorama). The map should not be a GIF, so I converted it to a PNG and used that. Maps are recommended to be SVGs per Wikipedia:Image use policy, but the PNG should suffice at a minimum level. Anyone interested in making an SVG for the map here, please go ahead. In short, no opposable actions for the two pictures. Jappalang (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support Interesting article, though I found the writing a little dense at times.

  • "Edwin promised to convert to Christianity if he won a victory over Wessex, and allowed his new daughter, Eanflæd to be baptised. Unclear, is it "...convert to Christianity and allow his new daughter...if he won a victory over Wessex", or "...if he won a victory over Wessex. He allowed his new daughter..."
It was both (convert and allow the daughter to be baptised) ... I've rephrased to "Edwin promised to convert to Christianity and allow his new daughter Eanflæd to be baptised if he won a victory over Wessex." which hopefully clears that up. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwin died in his defeat - What makes this a well written phrase, hmm. Not sure how to reword it better though.
Let's try "Edwin was defeated by the Welsh and died at the Battle of Hatfield Chase, on a date traditionally given as 12 October 633." That better? I agree the previous was not good. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to these in a few, I JUST got in from finishing up fencing outside and I stink to high heaven. Shower calls! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a busy man. Responce in 20 minutes or I oppose. Har. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well constructed and referenced, and a pleasure to read. Tiniest gleanings:

  • Is "due to" as used here passim a US usage where in the UK a noun clause would be needed and "owing to" or "because of" would be correct?
Yes, it is. (after I parsed the grammar-speak.) Changed to "because of". Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for the possessive - my English teachers would have had me write "Paulinus's"
Mine would have shot me if I didn't do Paulinus'. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paulinus was anxious to convert the Northumbrians" - is anxiety the right idea here or was he keen, determined, or some such?
Changed to "wished" I'm not entirely certain that "anxious" wasn't a leftover from the old 1911 britannica, which was the origin of this article, way back when. I've rewritten it almost completely, but sometimes a word or two will linger. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwin promised to convert to Christianity if he won a victory over Wessex, and allowed his new daughter..." - this is ambiguous. "...and he allowed..." would make the meaning unambiguous.
fixed per Ceoil above. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If Kirby's arguments on the date of Paulinus' consecration is accepted..." - "are accepted" I think.
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His successor at Rochester was Ithamar, the first Englishman consecrated to a Gregorian missionary see. After Paulinus' death he was revered as a saint..." - another ambiguity: perhaps make it clear that the revered person was Paulinus rather than Ithamar.
Fixed. Replaced "he" with "Paulinus". Hate the repetition, but it's necessary. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this is all very, very minor. Let me just add how much I, knowing nothing of the subject, enjoyed the article and found it easy to absorb. Tim riley (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to these in a few, I JUST got in from finishing up fencing outside and I stink to high heaven. Shower calls! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [10].

Samuel Johnson's early life

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because Raul listed the Samuel Johnson page as the Featured Article of the Day back in January and Johnson needs a FA article for his 300th birthday coming up 9 September 2009. This page was originally part of the main Johnson page but was split to make room for information on themes, works, criticism, etc, that some FAC reviewers wanted (as it met the size range before FAC). That FAC was supported by over 30 people in the end.

The sections moved were written by myself with the original guidance and copyediting of Malleus Fatuorum‎. I would list him as a co-nom, but he knows that regardless of his actual participation in this directly, that he will get credit for the many months of work that he put into the page as a whole and these sections. Since his and mine original work (and over a dozen copyeditors), I added two new sections ("Parents" and "Early works") along with a few sentences to expand on a few issues that seemed that they could use a little more. I also added 4 more images since then to fill in any gaps. I also had an additional 6 more copyeditors look through the page for any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – issues resolved.--Pattont/c 13:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns from Patton123
  • After attending Pembroke College, Oxford for a year, before Johnson was forced to leave due to lack of funds.—(Lede, second paragraph) I think this would parse better as "Johnson attended Pembroke College, Oxford for a year but was forced to leave due to lack of funds".
  • Although Johnson began his career as a minor Grub Street hack writer, he would eventually make lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, novelist, literary critic, biographer, editor and lexicographer.—(Lede, third paragraph) Take out the "although" at the start and put in "though" after the first comma.
  • At the age of 29 Michael Johnson had planned to marry a local woman named Mary Neild, but she had broken off the engagement.—(Parents, second paragraph) order so it reads "Michael Johnson had planned to marry a local woman at the age of 29..."
  • During the previous June, Johnson, while working as a tutor for Thomas Whitby's children, applied for the position of headmaster at Solihull School.—(Edial Hall, first paragraph) move "Johnson" to after "Thomas Whitby's children,"

Technical review:

  • The article has two disambiguation links: editor and infectious (Do they really need to be linked at all?).
  • Images all good.
  • Referencing is awesome, though I think it would be better to use {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} rather than {{reflist|2}} . That adjusts the reference columns based on resolution, with only one column for 800x600 screens, and 3+ for 1440x900+.

That's all. It's a brilliant article, great work! I really liked the quote boxes :-)--Pattont/c 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try to avoid wikilinking unless it is to proper names. I don't remember when those came in but I removed them. I changed some of the wording. I think the first problem was from a merged sentence. I removed some more wikilinks that seemed excessive. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Collapsing and supporting.--Pattont/c 19:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Tech. Review
Dabs and external links (checker tools)
  • ..are up to speed
Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)
  • The following ref is duplicated (wikicode pasted below), and appears as such in the ref section. Use a ref name instead
Fixed. It appears that there was a formatting error. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...is found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fowler&fowler

I'm an sorry to be this blunt this early in an FAC review, but the prose has far too many issues of grammar, usage, clarity and logic to be worthy of an FA. Here are some examples from the first lead paragraph. I want to stress though that every paragraph in the article has similar problems.

  • (Sentence 3) "His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career."
    • (Grammar) The parallel structure in the sentence is very faulty. (Exercise)
    • (Usage) Which of the meanings of "dominate" applies here? (a. To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power. b. To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over c. To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in d. To overlook from a height)
    • (Clarity) What does it mean to say, "his early years were dominated by his various experiences with his family members?" How is that much different from "his early years were dominated by his various experiences of his early years?"
    • (Logic) How can "early years" be dominated by an "eventual attempt at college?"
  • (Sentence 4) "After attending Pembroke College, Oxford for a year, Johnson was forced to leave due to lack of funds."
    • (Clarity) Lack of whose funds? In any case, lack of funds is not the cause. Do you mean "non-payment of fees?"
  • (Sentence 3) "He tried to work as a teacher, but he was unable to find a long lasting position."
    • Was he unable to find such a position or was he unable to make a position last long (since he apparently "tried to work")? In the former case, you want to say "he was unable to find a long-term position;" in the latter, you want to say "he was unable to last long in any teaching job."

The article needs a very careful copy-edit. My own sense is that such a copy-edit cannot be undertaken in the time frame available for an FAC. The article should be withdrawn, worked on, and re-submitted. We owe at least that much to Johnson. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per this page, the bulk of the article has been copyedited by over two dozen people. As per the comments above, there is no real grammatical issues. If this user continues in his way, I will take him immediately to WP:ANI for a point violation. As such, I will not acknowledge this user's presence within this FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the lead, the first section, and last section (the "new" sections) have been copy edited by over seven people. Notice how he is unable to come up with a true grammatical issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Fowler has been disruptive in the past, you seem to have taken exception to a difference of stylistic opinion. I came across this while browsing Wikipedia but I wanted to point out you have a grammatical issue in the sentence where you say there is no real grammatical issues. Sorry, couldn't resist. Mobile Writes (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply

I think that all of the points raised by Fowler&fowler have been addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post2 by Fowler&fowler—Question for Sandy Georgia or Awadewit

What is a point violation? What have I violated in my statement above that is worthy of AN/I time? I am happy to point out prose issues in pretty much every sentence of the article. I have tried to be polite in my post above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't point out any prose issues. You used incorrect terms. You even questioned what "dominate" means when a native English speaker understands what a dominate part of a life is, and you even claimed that you would find tons of problems within the best FA right now, which this was a part of and whose prose (the vast majority) was passed by over 2 dozen people before it was placed on its own page to make room for others. Those who passed it included some of our top copyeditors. This all comes after -you- threatened to find "errors". You coming to this FAC almost immediately, combined with the threat, and combined with your false oppose is enough to warrant that you are here only for disruption and should be banned from FAC. WP:POINT if you want to know what a point violation is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Post3 by Fowler&fowler—Further comments on syntax and diction in remainder of "Parents" section

I am working with this version of the FAC page. I have already commented on Sentences 1 through 4 in this section (on the FAC talk page). Here are most of the remaining sentences in that section.

  • (Sentence 5):"William was the first Johnson to move to Lichfield, and died shortly after the move."
    • One refers to "the move" (i.e. the act of relocation) if some details of the relocation have been provided. So, for example, we can say, "On June 19, William Johnson moved from the village of Cranleigh in Strattfordshire to the nearby town of Lichfield; he, however, expired shortly after the move." When no such details are provided, one says, "... and died shortly after moving there."
    • What do we mean by the "first Johnson?" Had no person with last name "Johnson" moved to Lichfield? If the latter is intended, then is there a citation for this? Or do we really mean, William was the first person in his family (or extended family) to move from rural Strattfordshire to Lichfield? In other words (especially in an encyclopedia), we should be saying: "William was the first person in his (extended) family to move to Lichfield and died short after moving there."
  • (Sentence 5)"Michael Johnson, after leaving his apprenticeship at 24, followed in his father's footsteps and became a book seller on Sadler Street, Lichfield."
    • Wasn't being an apprentice to a bookseller already a case of following in his father's footsteps?
  • (Sentence 7):"At the age of 29, Michael Johnson was engaged to be married to a local woman, Mary Neild, but she cancelled the engagement."
    • "was" is incorrect when you are describing a time period such as the "age of 29." It should be "At the age of 29 Michael Johnson became engaged to be married to a Lichfield woman, Mary Neild, who, however, later canceled the engagement."
  • (Sentence 8): "Twenty years later, in 1706, he married Sarah Ford. She came from a middle-class milling and farming family ..."
    • "Middle-class" is not an expression that either was used at that time or is generally applied to that time. Its first occurrence is 1745 and it is generally not applied to the UK before the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars (1815).
    • "... and was twelve years his junior, daughter of Cornelius Ford." has faulty syntax. Simpler to say, "Twenty years later, in 1706, he married Sarah Ford, who was twelve years his junior and daughter of a local miller and farmer, Cornelius Ford."
  • (Sentence 9): "Although both families had money, Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty."
    • "Both families" here is vague (since the two people mentioned are the two women he became engaged to);
    • Similarly, "had money" is vague as well (i.e. in an encyclopedia). Better to say, "Although neither of his parents' families was considered poor by the standards of the day, Samuel Johnson often claimed (that) he grew up in poverty."
  • (Sentence 10): "It is uncertain what happened between the marriage of his parents and Samuel's birth three years later to provoke a decline in the family's fortunes, but Michael Johnson quickly became overwhelmed with debt from which he was never able to recover."
    • The (grammatical) subject of the sentence changes from Samuel J. in the first half to Michael J. in the second.
No, the grammatical subject of the sentence is the mysterious happening. Graham Colm Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been addressed below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "marriage of his parents" Although most people will understand what is meant, it is more correct to say, "wedding of his parents"
No, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, Marriage: The action, or an act of marrying; the ceremony by which two people are made husband and wife Marriage is the best word in this context. Graham Colm Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have the March 2009 draft edition of the OED right here. "Marriage" for "wedding" is archaic, Scottish or South Asian usage; not standard English usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Archaic? Get a better dictionary. Gay marriage is used quite frequently. Marriage is a legal definition. Wedding is not. This is just more evidence that you should be a primary English speaker before criticizing English usage. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "provoke" usually means something more deliberate (i.e. to excite or stir up, to incite, to spur on); it can be used to mean "give rise to" or "prompt," but that use is usually restricted to physical phenomena. (An example is, "A streptococcus was indicated as the trigger that provokes acute rheumatic fever.") Best to say, "..., Samuel's birth to cause a reversal of family fortune ..."
No, again from the OED, Provoke; to give rise to Graham Colm Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am quoting from the OED (the complete one, that is.) The usage "give rise to" is restricted to natural phenomena as I have already observed.

Comment good writing is writing that is understood, better writing has colour, feeling and nuance. I am often accused of being a notorious nit-picker, but really the comments from Fowler&Fowler would be used by H. W. Fowler, were he still alive, as examples of constipated prose that fails to keep up with modern English usage. Graham Colm Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Fowler actually would use your first sentence to illustrate failure of logic, and urge you to change your second independent clause to "better writing also has ...." Clearly better writing needs to be understood as well. That is only the most obvious problem in that sentence. Besides there are nine sentences that I objected to above. You haven't said anything about them. If you honestly think that user:Ottava Rima's broken prose has color, feeling, and nuance, why don't you give me a few minutes and I'll give you some more examples from another section of the article. (It will be in F&f post4.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note after reading Fowler's third set of comments, I can't see one concern that isn't already contradicted because the passage is either part of standard speech or common sense. Thus, I will be ignoring the concerns as they lack merit. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to give an example - "'Middle-class' is not an expression that either was used at that time or is generally applied to that time." This is quite untrue. The above user has probably never read a book by either a Marxist or New Historical bent critic, let alone the thousands of others who aren't in either field. Lane makes it very clear that they were middle-class and even states "middle-class". These, and other such comments, show a lack of understanding how biographies work, how criticism works, and show a disregard for what he is actually reviewing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, I haven't read these critics, but I have read some Marx and some history. Note that we are saying "She came from a middle-class milling and farming family ..." and referring the period before 1706. Here are a few references:
1)Davidoff, Leonore; Hall, Catherine (1991), Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780-1850, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 576, ISBN 0226137333 Quote from book: "What was the English Middle Class? The provincial middle class took shape during the turbulent decades of late-eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries."
2)Briggs, Asa (2009), "Britain, 1815–1914", Encyclopaedia Britannica Quote:"The term middle classes began to be used more frequently in social and political debate. So too were working class and classes."
3) OED First use of expression, "Middle class" 1745 J. BRADSHAW Scheme to prevent running Irish Wools to France "The lower and middle Class of their People appear'd at that time, well dress'd in ..."
4)Daniel Defoe, writing after the time we are referring to, distinguished six classes: "1. The great, who live profusely, 2. The rich, who live plentifully, 3. The middle sort, who live well., 4. The working trades, who labour hard, but feel no want, 5. The country people, farmers etc., who fare indifferently, 6. The poor, who fare hard." In which class would Defoe put a bookseller or miller/farmer? Doesn't seem to be the "middle sort."
5)Finally Marx and Engels, themselves, usually reserve the term "middle-class" for the industrial age. However, they sometimes do use "manufacturing middle classes" to describe the mercantile guilds of early capitalism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an example that Fowler doesn't understand grammar - "The (grammatical) subject of the sentence changes from Samuel J. in the first half to Michael J. in the second." Actually, the subject of the sentence is "It" and part of "what happened" or just "happened". This is something -very- obvious and the fact that he believed that Johnson was the subject of the first clause shows that he does not understand what a "subject" actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, I made a mistake, but pointing it out doesn't make your sentence any less ambiguous. The two sentences are: "... Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty. It is uncertain what happened between the marriage of his parents and Samuel's birth three years later to provoke a decline in the family's fortunes, but Michael Johnson quickly became overwhelmed with debt from which he was never able to recover." What do we mean by "his?" If we are using "his" to refer to Samuel Johnson already mentioned in the previous sentence, then why are we saying "Samuel's birth" next and not "his birth?" In other words, it is much less ambiguous if we say, "... Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty. It is uncertain what happened between the wedding of his parents and his own birth three years later to cause a reversal of family fortune, but his father quickly became overwhelmed with irreversible debt." Note too that you've responded to only one or two points; there are several others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Middle class simply means "skilled working class" - merchants, skilled laborers, lawyers, etc. It comes from a source. The basic definition is standard English knowledge. The source only verifies its legitimacy of use. The first should have kept you from claiming that it was inappropriate, and the second verifying that. I don't need to respond to -any- of your points because they are all equally absurd. "your sentence any less ambiguous" It really does. "It" is right at the beginning. There is no hidden subject. The first sentence states that there was an event, the second sentence states a response to that event. This is obvious from context. Are you even a native English speaker? I highly suspect that you are not, especially with your interest in Indian articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does interest in the history of early-modern- and colonial India have anything to do with not being a native English speaker? There are many people in the former group: Christopher Bayly, Eric Stokes, Judith Brown, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Barbara Metcalf, Muzaffar Alam, ..., are just a few. Some are native English speakers and some are likely not, but all write superb English prose. Besides South Asia itself has many native (or near-native) English speakers, a direct result of over 200 years of British rule. The novels of Salman Rushdie and Arundhati Roy are but two examples of the burgeoning corpus of Indian English literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've used incorrect terminology for grammar, switched things around, made staunch claims about what is proper when there is no strict rule, and your strong interest in Indian articles and terminology suggests that you speak Hindi or some related language. Now, we all know that grammar in England is different than Grammar in the United States. It is even more so between Indian grammar and the rest because of the influence of native languages. It would explain why you are so adamant about things that are incorrect or not important. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler Post4 (Examples of poor prose from Early Works section)
  • Sentence 11: "More importantly, the work helped to mould Johnson into a biographical career; it was included in his later Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets series."
    • Wrong word: "mould Johnson" One can't mould (or mold AmE) a person into a career. The work launches the person into a career. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:
I believe you mean "career" with one "r", and no "or" about it. This is a British page and deals only with British spelling and usage. Mould is proper because it is the act of setting within a physical mould. Launch isn't even close to appropriate, especially if you have read the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... but a search for "mould * into a career" (* is the generic blank) among authors of books turns up quite empty.  :( This is not the case for the expression "launched * into a career". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google books has nothing to do with standard diction nor is it acceptable means to find out what standard diction is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can mould/mold an avocation into a vocation (or career), but you can't mould a person into a career. If you don't like Google Books, which search only among the published authors in the English language, why don't we search in Google Scholar or even the plain old Google web? ... but a search among all scholars for the expression "mould * into a career" too turns up quite emptly.  :( ... but a search among all 1 billion English speaking denizens of the planet only three use the expression "mould * into a career". Of these three, two are talking about moulding a hobby or research into a career (as I have already alluded to above); the third, who does talk about moulding a person into a career, is none other than Mr. Ottava Rima, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument doesn't even have logic. People can be moulded into anything. You have no ability to prove that wrong, so you substitute that by putting up a bunch of empty words. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ambiguous usage: The expression, "biographical career," means many things in the English language (here is an example from the Cambridge Companion to Goethe, where "biographical career" means personal life), however, it is only rarely used to mean, "career as a biographer." In an encyclopedia, it is best to avoid ambiguity. It is at once clearer and correct to say, "The work helped launch Johnson's career as a biographer; ..." —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:
Then you haven't had enough experience with English language usage. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... but the Google search for the "biographical career" of some eminent biographers turns up quite empty. :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, google search is not an acceptable tool for finding "standard diction" or diction patterns.
  • Sentence 12: "It was successful in its partial analysis of Savage's poetry and in portraying insights into Savage's personality, but for all of its literary achievements it did not bring immediate fame or income to Johnson or to Cave; it did though provide Johnson with a welcome small income at an opportune time in his life."
    • What does "portraying insights into Savage's personality" mean? Was he portraying insights? Do you mean "providing insights?" —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:
Nope. The work is a portrayal and if you bother to do research you would see how it portrays insights. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..., but no author in the English language seems to be using the expression "portraying insights into".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google books doesn't contain anything even close to claim "no author" anything. The fact that you relied on it for a third time is only indicative of the general problems with your responses as a whole. Now, I will call you a liar. Why? Because of this. A result of the phrase "portraying insights". Next time, don't try to selectively search and hide from the real results. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, weren't we talking about the expression "portraying insights into?" I can certainly say, "The author has been portraying insights associated with the School of Cacophony as those of a demoralized fringe." This is more or less what the sole (i.e. one, unitary, or single) link in your "this" is saying ...  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the phrase is "portraying insights". If you knew anything about grammar, you know that -into- is part of a different phrase. However, your constant abuse of grammar rules and of the English language suggests that you don't care. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say at first, it did not bring "immediate ... income," but then add "it did provide Johnson with a welcome small income ..." If he received a small income, then he received an income. Period. There is a logical flaw in this sentence. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:
Key word "immediate". Also, you ignored that it is "fame and income" and that the small income came "at an opportune time in his life". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..., but no author in the English language seems to be using the expression "welcome small income".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you searched on a phrase that you didn't complain about. Odd how you do that. The fact that you would even suggest that someone else would have to use the phrase is absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for pointing out that you made one more boo boo in that sentence. Please accept my apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No "boo boo"s exist. Its just you dodging from being wrong by throwing out more empty language to distract from your own flaws. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 13: *"Johnson early works and early life have been neglected topics within Johnson scholarship."
    • "early works and early life" is in the wrong order. I've never seen this expression before and neither has Google. Replace with 'early life and writings." Don't need to repeat "early" either. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:
No. Works takes priority over life. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..., but none of the other 1 billion English-speaking denizens of the planet have used the expression "early works and early life".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one said "It was the best of times" along with "It was the worst of times" before Dickens, and yet he managed to say it. Come up with a real argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repetition of Johnson. Why do we need "Johnson scholarship?" Replace entire sentence with, "Johnson's early life and writings have been neglected by scholars." It is understood that we are talking about topics. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:
No. Scholars and Johnson scholars are two different things. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typo: Replace first "Johnson" with "Johnson's."

I don't have more time right now, but I have taken a quick look through the section. Each and every sentence is either chock-full of errors or plain old clumsy. That is unacceptable in a Featured Article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS The evidence mounts that no author of books written in the English language seems to be using Mr. Rima's mellifluence-free expressions. Could Mr. Rima be guilty of practicing "original cacophony?" Do we want OC on the Wikipedia main page? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! Not using English in a way that follows rules but might not be duplicated in google books! Heaven forbid! The fact that you were upset at "early works" being joined with an "and" to "early life" is troubling in the very list. You can't provide one book to verify that such is improper. The fact that you said "no one" says the phrase without searching through the over 800 results to see if it comes up only verifies that you are putting forth a sham argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no no Mr Rima! There are indeed no authors of books written in the English language who use your exact expression, "early works and early life," (see top of the link); the 800 links you allude to are to authors who use the expressions "early life" and "early works" separately somewhere in their book. What's the big deal in that? I suggest that you not carry on this discussion in order to just have the last word. You make yourself look less and less credible. However, since I don't believe that you will actually stop, let me state that this is my final reply to your increasingly random musings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See, here's exactly why your complaint and any complaint here on Wikipedia by you are pure nonsense. You don't understand that "and" connects two groups of words. "Early works" is a proper set of words. "Early life" is a proper set of words. Any set of words following this pattern is grammatically correct, just like I can say jungle gyms and kookaburras without it appearing anywhere else. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I am showing my ignorance here, but what does "Michael was the first bookseller of "reputation"..." from the Parents section mean? Is is that he was the first bookseller or repute, the first reputable bookseller, or is it something fancy that I am too ignorant to know?  :) Otherwise the article looks good - I'll have another look at it more closely later Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The line it is based on Lane's (the source) phrase "the first Johnson of note in the little town" (p. 11), "a respected book-seller" (p. 10) and later "Michael Johnson may not have been the first bookseller ever to trade in Lichfield, but he was the first to achieve respect and reputation" (p. 13). The quote is used to denote Lane's word but also the general sense that it is subjective and not objective. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I can't help but feel there's a better way to handle this sentence, but it is so trivial in what seems otherwise to be a high-quality article Fritzpoll (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - issue resolved. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Martin was used in part on the main Johnson page, but he offers no new details. He also admits his debt to Bate. The only difference between the two is in Martin's interpretation of a few people who Johnson knew or on some of Johnson's writing. Neither apply to this page but he is a good source for all of the other pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note - read the bottom of the review: "Martin's response to his subject's actual work is neither lively nor personal: few people will be tempted to have a go at Johnson's admittedly forbidding writings after reading these blandly potted accounts of them. The adroit marshalling of evidence doesn't always make for vivid narrative, and the need to cram in everything that Boswell didn't know eats into the space left over for colour and anecdote." Bate's work has been praised for a very long time, has received multiple awards, and he is a much more famous critic than Martin. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having cleared that up, and having reviewed the article, it appears to meet all the criteria, so I support the nomination. - Biruitorul Talk 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending clarification. EDIT: Struck. Steve T • C I'm sure it's just a case of providing an extra cite somewhere along the line, but do any of the sources used in the fourth paragraph of the Childhood section directly link Johnson's early ailments—and his "difficult" birth—with the severity of his TS? The paragraph uses non-Johnson-related medical sources to give contextual information about the disorder and state that such childhood events can influence its severity, alongside completely separate Johnson-specific sources that detail his "difficult and dangerous" birth and his childhood illnesses. Neither the Johnson sources or the non-Johnson medical sources seem to categorically make the link, yet how the section is presented does infer such, and this could be seen as synthesising facts from both sets of sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly supported by one alone. Steve T • C 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three biographies that went into the section state Tourette Syndrome, apply medical analysis, and draw conclusions. If necessary, I can provide scans of these pages, as the issue came up during the Samuel Johnson FAC. The Pearce source is by a well known research of Tourette Syndrome and also wrote a paper on Johnson's case. More information on what is said on that can be found at Samuel Johnson's health#Tourette syndrome]] to verify what is stated there (it contains more details and direct quotes to show that it isn't synthesis). But yes, Johnson's case has come up in at least three major biographies (that I have, and a fourth according to an article in the NY Times of a new one but one I refuse to buy because it is uncritical), a handful of newspaper articles, and a few medical journal articles. Many of the sources used were either directly talking about Johnson or used by those directly talking about Johnson. I hope that explains the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t doubt the sources state exactly what the section says they do. The problem comes with the presentation. The paragraph begins with Johnson's initial exhibiting of the tics that characterised his TS. It then provides context with information about how TS develops in childhood. This is OK to a point, as TS "follows a fairly reliable course in terms of the age of onset and the history of the severity of symptoms". However, the paragraph then goes on to state that "environmental, infectious, or psychosocial factors and [complications in labour]... can influence the severity of the disorder." This is cited to sources that do not appear to discuss Johnson specifically; they're speaking about TS in general terms, and there is therefore no guarantee that the sources are relevant to how Johnson's TS developed—none of the Johnson-specific sources are used at this point. Because the rest of the section does detail Johnson's troubled childhood (illnesses, environment, difficult birth), it implies a link that I'm not sure has been made by the Johnson sources. If any of them do make the link, then we should too, instead of leaving it a vague implication. Steve T • C 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the off topic sources are used by other sources used, then off topic sources are perfectly acceptable for context. Let me make it more clear - biographer says "Johnson had tics which probably did this" followed by a footnote. The footnote refers to page __ of book ___ which shows that. Quoting from that study the pertinent section is not synthesis. Synthesis is creating a -new- argument and only a -new- argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And please provide where the links aren't made, because they are rather clear on who says what. I need to figure out which lines you are having problems with. The link above to the Pearce quote alone verifies that Pearce contains the basis for all of the information regardless of what the other sources say, so I don't really see how anything could be deemed synthesis. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I know I'm sometimes less than clear. You should have seen my original reply before I trimmed it down: thrice as long and containing several unnecessary digressions. I'll boil it down:
  • I don't have a problem with any individual fact used in the section; it's all well-cited.
  • Pearce details Johnson's childhood ailments.
  • Two non-Johnson sources say how childhood ailments can (not "do") influence the severity of TS.
  • Neither those or Pearce say Johnson's childhood ailments influenced the severity of his TS.
  • The section implies such an influence.
If you're saying that Pearce also explicitly links Johnson's childhood ailments with the severity of his TS, then that's great and I'll happily strike my oppose if it's made clearer in the section. Steve T • C 08:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the post hoc diagnoses of individuals who existed, in this case centuries, before the diagnoses was invented are extremely questionable and for the most part unethical by anyone in the profession. Well marshalled references specifically justifying the diagnosis in this case are needed by credible sources, that is, sources in the field competent to make a post hoc diagnosis. Otherwise, editors could be assigning diagnostic labels to historical figures right and left. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, this is not the basis of my particular oppose; Johnson's posthumous diagnosis of having TS seems to be well-established both in this article and the parent article. Steve T • C 08:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this is true, then certain aspects of his behavior, and relationships between his behavior and other known contributing factors to TS can be reasonably hypothesized, as one could to with anyone with the diagnosis, I think. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, but we shouldn't be the ones hypothesising; others are free to, and we're free to cite them. But that's as far as it should go. In the article, there is an implication that the severity of Johnson's TS was influenced by his childhood ailments. This should come from at least one reliable source, such as Pearce. At present it doesn't; Pearce is used to cite the ailments, while other sources that don't mention Johnson are used to cite that such ailments can (not unequivocally do) influence the severity. Neither makes the link between the two, so nor should we. Steve T • C 14:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just rechecked and most of the sources such as Pearce cover both. Regardless, here are the biographies so you can see the raw information. I'm tired and I don't feel like dealing with this issue. Therefore, I wont. You have the raw information. If you think its a problem, then, well, I will state that the sources are clear on the matter and that there is no synthesis. The closing FA director/assistant director can decide which side they agree with. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, posting those is above and beyond (though we should perhaps blank that page when we're done). I promise to read those in the next few hours. Steve T • C 19:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I find the hypothesizing and speculating posted on the page link above less than convincing. Especially causing unease is this statement: "This gap in the explanation of Johnson's behaviour has been readily filled by psychoanalytic account." But I will stay out of it and let others decide. A literature article is not science anyway. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Wiltshire is published by Cambridge, Demaria published by Oxford, and Martin by Harvard. The medical texts that they refer to plus Pearce and some others are published in well known medical journals. The "tics and gesticulations" form a large portion of Boswell's biography along with large chunks of the Thraliana (Hester Thrale's account of Johnson) and some of the other biographies (and in many letters and small accounts of various times). There is also a painting showing one set of gesticulations. Russell Brain, 1st Baron Brain started off much of the medical diagnosis of Johnson and applied psychological causes and the rest. This was followed by Walter Jackson Bate, an early biographytrained in psychoanalysis and a major scholar in the field, who originally associated the tics with some psychological stress before they really figured out how TS operates (the major medical works follow his biography, which is where Wiltshire, Demaria, and Martin fill in). I can count at least 25 sources discussing his Tics and at least 20 discussing them as TS. Even the NY Times discussed it ("Ungainly, scrofulous and afflicted with Tourette’s syndrome, Johnson provided the same easy target for schoolboys that he later would for caricaturists."). Convincing or not, it has been discussed by major scholars in biographical, literary, and medical fields and has no differing view-point except to the degrees of how Johnson may have been seen by others (with little difference there, just more or less application). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Good publishing houses can publish speculative science. When the information published defies the current state of knowledge on the subject, it does not matter who published it. The New York Times is not a reliable source for medical information. An article written by a professor of English is not a reliable source on whether Johnson had TS. From your sources: If Johnson's own statement that his 'unease' began in his twentieth year is accepted as including, though not necessarily comprehending, these symptoms, then this would make the onset of the disorder extraordinarily, perhaps uniquely, late. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Mattisse, please provide a source that states that Johnson does not have TS or that it would not affect him in these ways. These sources are -summarizing- medical research and studies on Johnson. If you think they are fringe (and well known fringe must still be stated), take it to the Fringe noticeboard. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said I was not going to make an issue of it, and I am not going to contest anything. I am merely pointing out some generalities, that a publishing house does not guarantee the relevance of information to an article etc. etc. Those things I pointed out are true and should not be used in arguments to refute. Also, as you know, the author is required to produce sources for contested information, not the opposite. The editor who questions is not required to prove a negative. And, as far as I know, these sources are summarizing studies and opinions, not "medical research" into Johnson's physical status. Medical research is published in reputable medical journals, and per WP:MEDRS should be recent, preferably not from the last century.—Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←Ottava, you seem to have been under the impression that I'm questioning the posthumous diagnosis of TS, how Johnson's TS manifested in childhood, or both. I'm really not. The only sentence I had issue with was, "Studies suggest that non-genetic, environmental, infectious, or psychosocial factors and perinatal events, such as obstetric complications—while not causing Tourette's—can influence the severity of the disorder." This is fine in isolation, but—coupled with the surrounding statements from completely separate sources that Johnson suffered from various childhood illnesses—implied a cause and effect that was not supported by the citations as presented. If I haven't been clear on that, I apologise. There was no need to spend two hours transcribing various sources, though the effort to resolve the issue is appreciated. All that the article really required was a citation that unequivocally placed a cause and effect between Johnson's childhood physical illnesses and the initial manifesting of his TS; this would bridge the gap between the two and rid the section of the appearance of synthesis. Thankfully, that is provided by Martin, Samuel Johnson: A Biography 2008. p. 94 - referring to Johnson's bout of scrofula, "As a result of physical illness he began to show signs of the 'tics and gesticulations' that stayed with him for the rest of his life." If this is included and the surrounding text altered to more accurately accommodate what it says, that should be enough to address my concern. On a related note, I agree with comments made elsewhere that some of the fine detail about TS is not strictly necessary. In particular, the two sentences featuring OCD seem a little out of place. Perhaps the paragraph could read:

During this time, Johnson started to exhibit the tics that influenced how people viewed him in his later years;[1] these formed the basis for his posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS).[2][3][4] TS develops in childhood;[2] it follows a fairly reliable course in terms of the age of onset and the history of the severity of symptoms. Tics may appear up to the age of eighteen, but the most typical age of onset is from five to seven.[5] Johnson's tics and gesticulations first manifested as a result of his childhood scrofula;[6][2][1] studies suggest that environmental and infectious factors—while not causing Tourette's—can affect the severity of the disorder.[7][8] Pearce describes that Johnson's mother had a "very difficult and dangerous labour",[3] and that Johnson had many illnesses throughout his life, "suffered from bouts of melancholy, crushing guilt, habitual insomnia, and he endured a morbid fear of loneliness and of dying", and was "disturbed by scruples of infidelity" from the age of 10.[3]

But this is a suggestion only; the important words are "as a result" or something equally definitive. I stand by registering the oppose because the source was needed here at this article; a reader should not be expected to look through other Wikipedia articles on Johnson to find it. Another suggestion I'd make is to move Pearce's description of Johnson's "difficult and dangerous labour" to the first paragraph of the section; it seems to fit better there. All the best, Steve T • C 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck oppose per this change. Good luck. Steve T • C 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a well-researched and engaging article. It is well-written and poetic even in places. This is the standard of Wikipedia humanities FAs that I love to see. If only I could make my virus articles such a joy to read. Graham Colm Talk 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should have a special category for "lackadaisical and indifferent masquerading as passionate support" (LIMPS). Imagine that luminous age when all you will need is: "LIMPS Modernist"! Imagine too the economy, that soul of wit, which, when summed over millions of Wikipedians, might yet save our planet from its excesses. Not to mention that brave new world teeming with FAs, all written in the wondrous experimental prose of "Samuel Johnson's early life" (especially the "Parents" and "Early Works" sections); so what if a few curmudgeons like F&f are calling it broken English. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Struck per Ceoil's request. My apologies to Modernist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flowler, you so out of order here; I know you are fustrated, but this is unfair. I suggest you strike or better remove you comment and apologise to Modernist, who is just caught in crossfire. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly seen my share of sickly articles on FAC review, articles whose authors have the expectation that the FAC reviewers are "de facto peer reviewers" and will help fix the article on the spot. However, I've never seen a sickly article whose author blatantly insults reviewers. True, I made fun of Modernist above, but what really is the point of a one-line support vote? How does it help anyone? I mean, why even bother?
I do trust the opinion of some editors who have recently posted on the FAC talk page. Should any one of these, Malleus Fatuorum (listed as an almost-coauthor), Karanacs, and Tony1, be prepared to state that the prose in the two sections ("Parents" and "Early works") does meet the standards required of an FA, s/he will greatly assuage my concerns, and I will then cease challenging the unsupported supports in this FAC review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments It's good, and interesting to boot. There are some nitpicks here and there, but overall I feel the prose meets 1a. A few things:
    • "However, the ritual was ineffective and an operation was performed that left him with permanent scarring across his face and body." Are you implying that they expected the ritual to get rid of the affliction? What was the operation? We need more info here.
    • "Sarah later gave birth to a second boy, Nathaniel, which put financial strain on the family." Can we rephrase this so it doesn't sound like the act of giving birth put the strain? I struggled to think of anything—maybe it's okay.
    • "Pearce describes that Johnson's mother had ..." Seems off-kilter. You wouldn't say "I described that the music was terrible." You would say "I described the music as terrible."
    • "To meet the expenses, Michael Johnson allowed his son to take a hundred books from his bookshop" I'm unclear how this meets expenses. Did Samuel sell the books for cash?
    • "but neglected a number of mandatory lectures" Hmm.. "a number of" is needlessly vague. I'd greatly prefer even "many" or "several".
--Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. They believed that the ritual would work. It was a common superstition. The operation itself? Unknown. Johnson never revealed much about it. Its unfortunate, though. I believe it was just lancing and cutting pieces of flesh off his face. Source? None that I can find. 2. Well, the act of giving birth did put financial strain. But yeah, having another mouth to feed is the real item here. Changed to split the sentences. 3. Rewrote a little. 4. Johnson didn't have to pay for books that he needed for college. I changed "take" to "borrow" to remove any chance that selling of the books was involved. 5. Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice when that was slipped in. I'm surprised someone asked because it stated "after 6 months" immediately before. I assume Ottre added it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:05, 4 April 2009 [11].

Tree Sparrow

Nominator(s): jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a long time in gestation, but I think it's ready now jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's IAR please?
WP:IAR or Ignore all rules. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, makes sense now (: jimfbleak (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review
  • Disambiguation links are up to standards as checked with the links checker tool.
  • There is one external link that is dead, I'm not sure whether this is the one Ealdgyth was referring to.
  • None dead for me, but removed IBC since misdirected jimfbleak (talk)
  • The following WP:REFNAME is used more than once to name a ref; a ref name should only name 1 specific ref.
  • Comments. Jim, as always, this is a well-researched article; WP:BIRDS does a nice job with their articles. However, I'm wondering about the referencing. In most of the references, the author's last name comes first, but this isn't at all standardized: I found eight refs where the situation was reversed. I'd make some changes myself, but I thought perhaps there was a reason behind the unorthodox referencing. Here are the ones I found on a cursory inspection:
Kelly A. Lee; Lynn B. Martin II; Martin C. Wikelski
Peter Shurulinkov and Vassil Golemansky
Peter Puchala
Sandro Bertolino; Elena Ghiberti; Aurelio Perrone
Peter Berthold
Ján Obuch; Anton Kristin
M. Shao; T. Hounsome; N. Liu
David Costantini; Stefania Casagrande; Giuseppe Di Lieto; Alberto Fanfani; Giacomo Dell’Omo
Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim. I appreciate the fixes. I'll be going through the article in the next couple of days. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent contradiction. Compare In Australia, it is found in some rural and semi-rural districts, but not cities with what the first sentence two paragraphs up: In Australia, the Tree Sparrow is present in Melbourne. 3.8 million people is definitely a city by anyone's definition. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, misrepresented source, now reads - In Australia, the Tree Sparrow is largely an urban bird, and it is the House Sparrow which utilises more natural habitats. jimfbleak (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some confusion here: Although initially successful, the "great sparrow campaign" had overlooked the numbers of locusts and other insect pests consumed by the birds, and crop yields fell, exacerbating a famine which led to the deaths of 30 million people between 1959 and 1961. The Tree Sparrow can have other beneficial effects on agriculture. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that the death of 30 million people is a dubious benefit! Now reads - The Tree Sparrow's consumption of insects has led to its use in agriculture to control fruit tree pests and the common asparagus beetle... jimfbleak (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My concerns and observations have been fully addressed. If the potential problems listed below can be fixed, there's no reason the inaptly named Passer montanus shouldn't be a Featured Article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the careful review and support jimfbleak (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - When I was a boy, my garden was full of these delightful little birds, but sadly no longer. Which brings me to just one small nit-pick, the Tree Sparrow's extensive range and large population mean that it is not endangered globally, I don't like "mean that" very much. How about "ensure" that? Well done. Graham Colm Talk 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Graham, change made - we had the first one for 20 years this winter! jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - (moral only due to WP:COI via WP:BIRD membership) have looked over this article several times and think a few sentences can be simplified/shortened. This one This sparrow is distinctive even within its genus in that, unlike its relatives, it has no plumage differences between the sexes; is a candidate with several its and probably can do without the need to inform that reader that species within a genus are related. Shyamal (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shyamal, good suggestion. I've fixed that one, I'll see if any other surplus words can be removed jimfbleak (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support - (probably moral only due to WP:COI via WP:BIRD membership) I have read this before and suggested some tweaks, but I think it is at the stage (for me) where any further changes are so minor and equivocal in their imporvement as not to be worth mentioning (and I forgot what they were as I have been delayed by a dodgy internet connection). I think it is over the line in terms of prose, comprehensiveness. referencing etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicks
  • The family (Passeridae in this case) usually warrants a mention in the lead, espacially as there are two families of birds with many members known as 'sparrows'.
added. although I'm not fully convinced since it's just a redirect to sparrow
  • In Distribution and habitat, second paragraph It was introduced successfully to Sardinia, eastern Indonesia, the Philippines and many Pacific islands, but introductions to New Zealand and Bermuda did not take root. - which Pacific islands? The Pacific is vast, but I have no recollection of Tree Sparrows occurring in Polynesia and I know they don't in Melanesia; so Micronesia and Hawaiii then?
changed to Micronesia, I overgeneralised jimfbleak (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in that section Ship-carried birds colonised Borneo and Brunei. Brunei is a country in Borneo, so it reads like colonised Britain and Wales or something.
It's what the source said, but you're obviously right, fixed jimfbleak (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In status the range is described as includes at least 48,000 km² in Africa alone yet the map shows they have barely a toehold in Morocco. is that correct?
It's what iucn say, but I agree that it's suspect, and why Africa for a Eurasian species? I've chopped that bit jimfbleak (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall this is good, I'll give it another read soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Just out of curiousity, you say that "In North America, a population of about 15,000 birds has become established around St. Louis and neighbouring parts of Illinois and southeastern Iowa. These sparrows are descended from 12 birds imported from Germany and released in late April 1870 as part of a project to enhance the native North American avifauna. As elsewhere, the US Tree Sparrows have to compete with the House Sparrow in urban centres and they are therefore mainly found in parks, farms and rural woods.[8][21] The American population is sometimes referred to as the "German Sparrow", to distinguish it from both the native American Tree Sparrow species and the much more widespread "English" House Sparrow."
  • I am not clear what you are saying about the Tree sparrow in North America. Are you saying, by implication ("15,000" isn't that many, if they started multiplying in 1870) that they are clustered around St. Louis and neighbouring parts, and sparse elsewhere? Or are they found in fair numbers "in parks, farms, and rural woods", which actually covers most of the United States and Canada? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the House Sparrow, they have never really broken out of the original area. rephrased for clarity as Within its limited US range, the Tree Sparrow has to compete ... jimfbleak (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follow:

Answering since that image was flipped by me and feel that Tree Sparrows show much greater bilateral symmetry (unlike Wrybills) than human faces and think that the MOS deals more with human portrait flips. Shyamal (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Shyamal, just looks odd facing out jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, per MOS:IMAGES, the caption should point out to the reader that such images have been altered. Jappalang (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done that with a link to the original jimfbleak (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed as with previous jimfbleak (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added to image page; I didn't put in in originally since I noticed some other maps seemed to omit the balnk map details jimfbleak (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tree of sparrows.jpg: hmmm, do we have to do what Fir00002 requests for the use of his image? He asks that we should place his name in attribution in prominence next to the image...
Is that something we do at all on Wikipedia? I've never noticed credits in the caption before. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some articles have them for certain images. For example, check out Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, particularly File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg (to be fair, this is a copyrighted photo). Jappalang (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen discussions on commons resulting in the deletion of images if such conditions are being imposed against the concept of "freedom". Shyamal (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When this has come up before, it's been considered that attribution on the image page meets this request jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Spurvehoeg.jpg: I am not certain if Leif Boldings has uploaded this to Wikipedia. I have sent him an email to clarify the situation. In the meantime, how about File:Sparrowhawk-Male.JPG, which clearly shows a sparrow killed by a hawk (the branches in the foreground are a bit distracting, but the moment of the kill, the sparrow clearly distinguishable, seems to make up for everything)?
excellent, image changed jimfbleak (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the images are verifiably in public domain or released under appropriate licenses. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the image review, your concerns are fixed now I hope. MoS for images really needs rationalising. If you don't reverse images, you're told they should be facing in, if you do reverse, you shouldn't have done it just to have them facing in... (: Ah well, such is life... jimfbleak (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. As for the MOS, I read it as stating that the "facing text" and "alternation" are desirable characteristics; they should be strived for unless some restrictions (e.g. Infobox placement, no casual "flipping" of image, possible misrepresentation of subject, etc) prevent such an arrangement. Such are the problems with aesthetics, I suppose... Jappalang (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:05, 4 April 2009 [12].

Manchester Mummy

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A short but I believe nevertheless comprehensive account of the events following the death of Hannah Beswick, a woman whose pathological fear of premature burial led to her mummified body being put on public display in 19th-century Manchester. Please be kind to dear Hannah. Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I've always been intrigued by short articles at FAC, so here are a few quick comments. Feel free to ignore at your discretion.
  • Following her death in 1758 her body was embalmed and kept above ground, to be periodically checked for signs of life. - That comma could easily be removed.
  • The method of embalming was not recorded, but it probably involved replacing the blood with a mixture of turpentine and vermilion. - "Probably" → "likely"?
  • However, Beswick's will, dated 25 July 1757, less than a year before her death, states only that White was to receive £100 (£10,900 as of 2009),[8] and that £400 (£43,600 as of 2009)[8] was to be allocated for funeral expenses. - The commas are abundant in this sentence; perhaps some of them could be substituted with dashes?
  • Is there any more biographical information on Beswick herself?

I look forward to supporting. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply
    • The comma could certainly be removed, but I think it ought to stay, as there are two separate ideas here; that her body was embalmed and kept above ground, and the reason why.
    • I prefer "probably" to "likely", but the meaning is the same in either case.
    • You're right about the blizzard of commas, so I've slightly rejigged that sentence.
    • There appears to be no more biographical information on Beswick, or at least none that I've been able to find. Her fame rests on her mummification and subsequent display.
Thanks for your comments. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata

  • I think it should be mentioned in the lead that she was wealthy
  • Should not a period follow after the honorific Dr, or alternatively be spelled out?
  • "Some years before her own death, one of Beswick's brothers, John,..." Brother to John Beswick senior, or to Hannah? (Unclear because both are discussed in the previous sentence)
  • "Alternatively it has been suggested that White was considerably in debt to Beswick, a debt that would have to be repaid after the funeral, which was avoided by her embalming." How would he repay a debt to a dead person?
  • Is it known what relationship Mary Graeme and Esther Robinson had to Hannah Beswick?
  • "One of the few contemporary accounts is provided by Philip Wentworth..." Accounts of what?
  • "...it was decided that, despite Beswick's fear of being buried alive, she was "irrevocably and unmistakably dead". Despite is used to imply a contradiction between two propositions, but I fail to see the contradiction here.
  • Is the name of the Secretary of State who issued the burial known?
  • Why did the Bishop of Manchester have to give permission for the burial?
  • Why did the Bonnie Prince's arrival make Hannah apprehensive? Did he have a reputation for plundering money from the well-to-do?
  • What year did the weaver find the loot? What was the total $ he received from Oliphant's?
  • What year was Birchin Bower demolished?
  • MOS nitpicking: should ref 4 say pp. instead of p. (pages plural)
  • refs 18 and 21 missing ending period
  • no page # or year for ref 19
  • Bondeson 2001 does not have all-capitals title, unlike the others
  • Reply
    • I've added "wealthy" to Hannah's description in the lead.
    • The MoS allows for either Dr or Dr.[13]
    • Clarified that the John being discussed was Hannah's brother, not her father's brother.
    • He would have been required to repay the debt to the dead person's estate, but that was just listed as one of the various accounts of the events following Beswick's death. There's no evidence that there was any debt to be repaid anyway.
    • The source doesn't elaborate on what relationship Mary Graeme and Esther Robinson had to Hannah Beswick, and very likely neither did the will. The important point is that White wasn't one of the executors.
    • Resin now wikilinked.
    • I've changed "accounts" to "accounts of her" for clarification.
    • I've rewritten the "despite ..." sentence.
    • I would be pretty confident that the Secretary of State referred to is Gathorne Gathorne-Hardy, 1st Earl of Cranbrook, but the source doesn't name him, so neither have I.
    • Again, the sources don't say why the permission of the Bishop of Manchester was needed. I could speculate about consecrated ground and so on, but ... I'd imagine that a surviving next of kin would normally be asked to give permission for a burial, but she'd died 110 years earlier ...
    • I don't suppose that Hannah was apprehensive about Bonnie Prince Charlie himself, but about the invading Scottish army he was leading.
    • The sources don't say what year the weaver found the loot, if indeed he did find it in the way described. That's why I hedged it with "it is claimed". It's at least as likely that he was money-laundering I suppose, and just used Hannah's story as a convenient cover. I'm merely reporting what the sources claim.
    • The date of Birchin Bower's demolition isn't mentioned in any of the sources, but it was certainly before the 1980s, when the Ferranti factory was built.
    • p changed to pp.
    • All refs now end with a period.
    • Year and page number added to ref #19.
    • Title of Bondeson's book capitalised to match the other book titles.
Thanks for your comments. One of the significant difficulties with this article has been in sifting through "the innacuracies and contradictions" of the events following Beswick's death, propagated on all sorts of cooky web sites. Hard facts have been pretty hard to come by, and I really do believe that this article summarises pretty much all that can be verified about those events. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe you, I tried looking for more info on some historical academic databases I have access to but came up short. Nice article. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical Review
  • The following ref (code pasted below) is duplicated and appears more than once in the ref section, use a WP:REFNAME instead.

Support - I read this fascinating, short article the other day, but I forgot to comment. This could have been merely anecdotal, but it is an engaging, concise, well-written and researched article. Graham Colm Talk 18:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: corrected some incorrect stuff on the two public domain images, both are okay now. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -this article is fascinating and well written. 195.188.23.230 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support great article! 123abcdoreme3 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:05, 4 April 2009 [14].

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first article on a contemporary book - of course, that book is about the early nineteenth century and written in the style of that time (I just couldn't bring myself to leave Jane Austen et. al. entirely). A note on the lengthy plot summary - the novel is 800 pages long and the length of the plot summary is in line with others (see here for a lengthy comparison with other FA plot summaries). Thanks to my peer reviewers for their detailed and helpful suggestions and to Ealdgyth for advising me on the use of sources here. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I am one of the aforethanked peer reviewers, and as I said during that process, this is a great article. Thorough research and engaging prose. It's been an interesting experience to see Awadewit — with all of her extensive training in JSTOR and primary sources from centuries ago — wrangle with newspaper reviews and online commentary. I think, especially given the relative dearth of resources available for this article, that the SFSite and CW references are fine. Scartol • Tok 12:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I, too, had the honor of peer reviewing this exceptional article. I haven't read the book yet, but after reading this article, I intend to do so very soon. Awadewit has done a good job with the limited and often weak sources available. It's difficult to write a high-quality article with only "contemporary" sources, but she has risen to the challenge. I think this article is a good model of how to create a featured article with limited resources. --Christine (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure I understand the citation "Clarke, "Praise for Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell"." Is that part of the foreword of the novel? If so, maybe the novel title should be in the citation to reduce confusion. I would also encourage the use of the novel title in the other Clarke citations, as it's likely at some point in the distant future that Clarke might write something else about this novel that might then get cited in the article. In other words, it would help future-proof the citations. Although this isn't so much of an issue for your usual articles, I think it's an important consideration for a modern work whose article may still evolve as more is written about the work. Kaldari (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont know if free is licencing is possible, I think it is borderline. It could upload it to commons, and see if it is deleted it or not? WP unfortunetly doesnt have a forum for this question, commons are where the experts are Fasach Nua (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently it is subject to copyright. I have now put the Commons image up for deletion. The image in the article is still the fair use version, so the Wikipedia article is stable. Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with suggestions 1) "Christopher Hampton, who adapted the Academy Award-winning screenplay for Dangerous Liaisons" reads oddly to me (I expect the object of "adapt" to be affected, not effected). Would something along the lines of "whose adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses had won an Academy Award" be better? (now dealt with). 2) I miss Norrell's removal of magician status from the gentleman magicians at the beginning of the plot summary. N p holmes (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) I've changed the sentence regarding Hampton. Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) There are two reasons I chose not include that part of the plot: 1) We would have to explain that Segundus was exempted from that contract, thus necessitating a digression on a rather minor plot points. 2) Most of these magicians (with the exception of Honeyfoot and Segundus) do not return later in the novel, so I felt that explaining their circumstances was not vital. While the event does show Norrell's desire to keep magic for himself, I tried to show this later when I explained that he took on Strange as a pupil but refused to teach him all he, Norrell, knew. What are your thoughts on this? Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the plot summary doesn't mention anything that would necessitate mentioning that Segundus was exempted. It feels thematically important somehow (the opposite of the democratisation of magic at the end); but maybe themes don't matter in a plot summary, and I see that Clarke has given you difficulties enough there with her "gentleman with thistledown hair". N p holmes (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Segundus is a major character in the novel because he doesn't sign the contract, though. Thus, in mentioning the contract, we would have to mention Segundus's decision. I agree that it would be nice to mention this point to emphasize the "elite" vs. "democratic" strains in the novel, but the plot summary section is generally more about the events of the novel than the themes. I was hoping that the "Themes" section would be a supplement to the "Plot" section, rather than a repetition of it. My greatest worry regarding the plot summary is that someone who has not read the book will not be able to follow it. Awadewit (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending Support - I think this is a fine and engaging article, especially given the difficulties in tracking down sources. I do have a few questions and comments, mostly just small things. Regarding plot questions, especially, I realise we don't want the summary section to become too weighed down with detail, so if some of these suggestions seem unnecessary, feel free to say so. :) My apologies if these points were already discussed at the peer review - I haven't had a chance to read through it yet.
  • Plot vol. I. "...Mr Norrell, who moves to London to revive practical English magic." This is indeed his stated goal, but I'm not sure it brings across his controlling nature adequately. He's not really interested in sharing his knowledge, and he works to suppress knowledge and discourage would-be magicians. Can we add some mention of this aspect of his personality?
Do you think adding a sentence about his library and his desire to keep all books of magic to himself would be good? Perhaps this could be added somewhere at the beginning of the "Vol. 1" section? Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work fine. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads: The group is stunned to learn of a "practising magician", Mr Gilbert Norrell, who owns a large collection of "books of magic"; he has spent years purchasing these books in order to keep them out of the hands of others. Awadewit (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I combined the clauses into a single sentence (feel free to revert if you feel it doesn't work), but I'm satisfied on this point. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...rarely speaking and verging on incoherence when she does." I think this possibly needs a touch of clarification. As worded it sounds as though she's speaking gobbledegook or is incapable of completing her sentences.
I had a very hard time writing his part. What happens, of course, is that she tells one story when she means to tell another, which appears as non-sequiturs as to the other characters. Could you suggest a rewording? Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Emma (now Lady Pole) lapses into lassitude. She rarely speaks, and her attempts to communicate her situation are confounded by magic."? I can try to word this more specifically, but it conveys the fact that she's under a spell that prevents her from communicating. Maybe that's all we need here? It's not the easiest thing to sum up accurately, I'm finding. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me - I've altered the article. It is quite difficult to explain concisely, isn't? Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know it. I came up with at least half a dozen short and not-so-short explanations, and they all sounded terrible. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot vol. III. "Eternal Night" - I think there should be a brief explanation as what precisely this entails.
I've described it as an "an eerie darkness that engulfs him and follows him wherever he goes". Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In England, there is a magical renaissance." Why?
Do you think I should say "In England, there is a magical renaissance, as John Uskglass returns, unbeknownst to the characters in the novel."? Hm. The thing is that this renaissance confuses Strange and Norrell - do you think we should explicitly explain it in the plot summary? Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to be overly explicit, but we should make some explanation, even if it's brief. What about something along the lines of "In England, the return of John Uskglass sparks a magical Renaissance; Strange and Norrell fail to grasp its significance, despite their knowledge of magic."
"Strange and Norrell remain bound together..." Why? How and when did this happen?
I've rewritten the ending: Strange asks Norrell to help him undo Arabella's enchantment by summoning John Uskglass. Although they initially believe that they have succeeded, they later come to believe that their contact with John Uskglass was accidental; as a result of their magics, Strange and Norrell remain bound together—they cannot leave the "Eternal Night" or each other. They do succeed in sending Arabella to Padua, where Flora is waiting for her. After the spells of the gentleman with thistle-down hair are broken, Stephen becomes the king of the Faerie domain, Lost-Hope. Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to clarify how Norrell wound up in the darkness in the first place. Otherwise, I think we're done. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genre. "To create this effect, the novel includes many references..." Is there a way to avoid the repetition of the phrase "such as" in this sentence?
  • Historical otherness. "...like Lady Pole, Stephen is silenced." Might it be worth pointing out that both characters are silenced in the same way literally as well as metaphorically?
Overall, a solid article. Excellent work. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a couple of the completed items above; still working over a couple of the others. There are a couple of passages I'd like to reread to refresh my memory, and I seem to have left the book in my desk at work. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Marvellous to see such a thorough article on a recent novel. Awadewit has grappled valiantly and fastidiously (she will not go beyond her sources, even though she could probably write a better review of the book than most of the reviewers she cites) with the task of compiling an accurate article from the news information available to her. All kudos. I made my comments at the Peer Review, and the article has improved since then. The only thing I would suggest, reading the additions, is that "George Rowlandson" should probably be Thomas Rowlandson. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I know! Unfortunately, the source actually has "George Rowlandson"! Am I allowed to correct that? Pretty please? Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, because if the source already spoke of "important nineteenth-century illustrators", there is your get out (because there is no important nineteenth-century illustrator called George Rowlandson). You could cover this in a note. It looks to me like it must be a typing error, on the heels of "George Cruikshank", so perhaps Clute would thank you. qp10qp (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I'm so relieved! Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles can only be as good as their sources. The sources for this article are terrible. Book reviewers do not take the time to carefully analyze the novel, I'm afraid; they only offer facile conclusions. However, as of this time, there is only one academic article on Jonathan Strange. The question has repeatedly been raised at FAC whether we should promote articles when the sources themselves do not make for a good article. The answer has always been "yes". I offer this article as yet another test case of whether we should question that answer. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:05, 4 April 2009 [15].

Battle of Tippecanoe

Nominator(s): Charles Edward (Talk) 17:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After several weeks of editing and research, a GA review and an A class review, I believe this article is now worthy of Featured status. I appreciate any feedback. Thanks! Charles Edward (Talk) 17:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical Review
  • Some refs use more than 1 page to source, so instead of p. 6-7, it should be pp. 6-7
  • The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated and appear in the ref section more than once, a WP:REFNAME should be used instead
  • The source is: Funk, Arville L (©1969, revised 1983). A Sketchbook of Indiana History. Rochester, Indiana: Christian Book Press, pages 27 & 28. It was on the page already, just in the incorrect spot. I have moved it. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support - In general, I found this a well-written article. I checked my university library, which has an extensive collection of Indiana-related material, and I found a few scattered books on Tippecanoe, but none that looked particularly promising for this article - many were simply spiffy guidebooks. I was really surprised at the dearth of material on this battle.
  • Is it possible to replace instances of "Indian" with the specific tribe name? If not, should not "Indian" be replaced with "Native American"? I noticed that the term is occasionally used in the article.
  • Sometimes Tenskwatawa is referred to as the "Prophet" and sometimes as "Tenskwatawa" - could this be standardized to avoid confusion? I would suggest using "Tenskwatawa", as that is his name.

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about lack of sources. I was unable to find anything written within the last 75 years that was dedicated to the battle. Most of the sourcing came from the three books you see in the article, each of them with a few pages worth of information on the battle. Langguth puts in in context with the larger war of 1812, Owens puts it in context of Harrison's life, and Funk is written from the perspective of the American soldiers and gives the best step by step description of the battle. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to full support. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - with comments. This an engaging and generally well-written article, but it does seem a little under-referenced. I appreciate that reliable sources may be few and far between, but could more use be made of the ones listed? There are many occasions, such as "they discovered and scalped the bodies of 36 warriors" which cry out for a citation. I spotted few problems with the prose; redundancy "in order to", "so it could qualify" (for it to qualify), "while about 126 were less seriously hurt" (and about 126..), "in an 1816 conversion with Lewis Cass, the Governor of Michigan" (does this mean "conversation"?. Graham Colm Talk 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed the specific concerns you have listed, and would be glad to expand referencing wherever you believe it may be lacking. The info in the paragraphs are all from the citations listed at the end of each paragraph, I have tried to place them also at positions required by guidelines. To move them to specific statements would take me a few minutes to look at which book the info was from, but for the most parts the paragraphs are a blending of all three sources. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b Demaria 1994, pp. 5–6
  2. ^ a b c Murray 1979
  3. ^ a b c Pearce 1994
  4. ^ Stern 2005
  5. ^ Leckman 2006
  6. ^ Martin 2008, p.  94
  7. ^ Zinner 2000
  8. ^ Santangelo 1994
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2009&oldid=282368833"