Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2012: Difference between revisions
Add 1 |
→July 2012: add one |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
==July 2012== |
==July 2012== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul McCartney/archive3}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bivalvia/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bivalvia/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas J. Hudner, Jr./archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas J. Hudner, Jr./archive1}} |
Revision as of 18:36, 9 July 2012
July 2012
- 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 GrahamColm 18:36, 9 July 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because after implementing the previous FAC suggestions, and a thorough copyedit, I believe it is now up to standards. — GabeMc (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Given that this is written in British English, endeavor should be spelled as endeavour under '1960–1970: The Beatles'.
- Again "New York theater", should be New York theatre?
- Plural of bongo is bongos, not bongoes
- "and earned Martin a grammy for his orchestral arrangement", shouldn't the g in Grammy be in caps?
- "Which faired much better", fared
- "he correctly perceives will give him clarity for melody without rendering his sound to thin for groove" → too thin
- "If I had to pick one elecric guitar", spot the spelling mistake -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments Lemonade51, I believe the above concerns have now been resolved. — GabeMc (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I fixed some of the Americanisms with a script. One comment I have is that the HarvErrors is showing a few errors, let me know if you need help fixing them. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a citation to "Miles 1989, pp. 84–88.", but I don't see any sources from Miles in 1989 in the bibliography, typo? ditto for "MacDonlad 2005, pp. 133–134." Otherwise the Harverrors are cleared up.
- Also, I don't see any citations to Benitez 2010 or Davies 2009, might want to move them to further reading. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments Mark Arsten, and for your help fixing the cites, and clean-up. The Miles cite was intended to be 1997, and MacDonald was misspelled. I think that should clear up the HarvErrors you brought to my attention. I also moved Benitez and Davies to further reading. Thanks again! — GabeMc (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment,
leaning to oppose at present
The prose is wobbly in parts. I'll need two or three goes at this, and here's the first:
- Childhood
- Second para leaps from 1952 to 1961 and back to 1954.
I'm not sure what you mean here, the second graph in "Childhood" goes from 1947 → 1952 → 1953 → 1954, and does not mention any dates in the 1960s.— GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Oh, I see, you mean the mention of his A-level exams at age nineteen, okay, it's fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first member of his family to own a car, his mother rode a bicycle – not clear who was the first member with a car – McC or his mother.
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- an early memory her leaving – missing an "of"?
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- he traded it for a £1 – who traded it – McC father or son?
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Musical career
- fête – I prefer to use the circumflex, but I believe the MoS doesn't. You might like to check.
- Cavern club – as "club" was part of the place's name I think you should capitalise it
- produced what many critics consider to be some of their finest material - I entirely concur, but you really must have a citation or two for this
- the stand-out track "Maybe I'm Amazed" – citation needed
- its a "one-man album" – it is (or at a pinch it's, but that really won't do for a Featured Article)
- Bill Harry. In 1971 he collaborated with her – who did, Harry or McC?
- born to the McCartney's – why the apostrophe?
- the later involved McCartney's – doesn't make sense. Do you mean "the latter"?
- Which fared much better – very odd to start a sentence with this pronoun
- over the course of just two days – editorialising a bit; perhaps lose the "just"
- Liverpool Oratorio – prose is fine here, but I think we really ought to have a sentence or two on its critical reception
- Prince Charles awarded him an Honorary Fellowship of The Royal College of Music – surely the RCM awarded it and the Prince of Wales presented it
- encouraged to do so by his late wife Linda – via a medium or before she was late?
- seventeen-month long battle – trouble with hyphens here; you could just blitz the "long"
That's all for now. More shortly. In the interests of full disclosure I should mention that I went to the same grammar school as McCartney (but later) and had the same English master, A J (Cissie) Smith (a distant relation of George Harrison, I believe), in whose honour I contribute these pedantic quibbles. – Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your helpful and insightful comments Tim riley. I believe I have now resolved all the above concerns, and I look forward to your further comments. Thanks for your time, the article is much improved due to your effort. — GabeMc (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am so sorry for the delay in submitting my second batch of suggestions. I am snowed under at present, but I promise to do my very best to have more comments within the next few days. Tim riley (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, no hurries, thanks for your time and effort! — GabeMc (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope to find time to add further comments within 48 hours. Profound apologies for the delay, and I hope I shall still be in time to contribute while the review is open. Tim riley (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, no hurries, thanks for your time and effort! — GabeMc (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am so sorry for the delay in submitting my second batch of suggestions. I am snowed under at present, but I promise to do my very best to have more comments within the next few days. Tim riley (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More Riley comments
- General
- You begin many paragraphs with "He" – which I think should be replaced with "McCartney".
- Great suggestion, I think this issue is now resolved. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2001–present
- In 2005 he released the rock album – this is a very long sentence and needs splitting.
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- three sold out concerts – I think you probably need a hyphen for "sold-out"
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He has been touring since 2001 … see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- was released in February 2012, that same month – stronger punctuation mark than a comma needed here
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- that he will close – better as "he would close" ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references again)
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Musicianship
- As a musician, McCartney was largely self-taught, musicologist Ian MacDonald - stronger punctuation mark than a comma needed here
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He played a piano – I don't really think we need a wiki-link here: see WP:OVERLINK
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Tim riley (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments Tim Riley, the article is greatly improved due to your effort. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per choppy prose and punctuation. I will give a more detailed rationale later. --John (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This oppose is obsolete, and without an updated rationale, it should be disregarded. user pinged ~ GabeMc (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There have been major improvements, though I was easily able to find some surviving problems with ENGVAR, PEACOCK and so on. I think it could still benefit from another look from an experienced copy-editor ("brilliant prose"? It isn't quite there yet) but overall I weakly support this article's promotion. --John (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking another look, and thanks for your copyedits, and support. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "texture resona around" resonated? check source
- "facination faded fast" check source; fix or add [sic] – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments and copyedits Ling.Nut3, I have fixed the above concerns and look forward to any further comments you make. — GabeMc (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the lead section: "According to the BBC, his Beatles song 'Yesterday' has been covered by over 2,200 artists—more than any other song." This is a statement of fact, not opinion. If there is no serious dispute about it, it need not and should not be attributed in the lead. If there IS a serious dispute about it, it should not appear in the lead. My guess is that the former is true, and "According to the BBC" should be cut. DocKino (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment, great point, I agree. It's a sourced statement of fact that should not be contentious. I think I only had it there to cover my butt, thinking people would want to know who made this claim. I've made an edit that I believe resolves this issue. — GabeMc (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Two sources, Miles, Barry (1998), The Beatles: A Diary—An Intimate Day by Day History and The Beatles (2000), The Beatles Anthology are in the sources, but not referred to in citations.
- Is there a reason for the "Main article: Linda McCartney" tag? It seems awkward on a subheading, and since Jane Asher, Heather Mills, and Nancy Shevell all have main articles, why not just link?
- In the Musicianship section, it lists various instruments he played. Should there be a sentence or two about him as a drummer?
Cheers.
- Thanks for your comments, good eye, Miles 1998 and the Beatles 2000 are not currently cited to in the article, so I have moved them to further reading per your suggestion. I removed the Linda tag. Also, good call on the drumming, I have included some details in the musicianship section as you suggested. Thanks for your time and input! — GabeMc (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to support. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, good eye, Miles 1998 and the Beatles 2000 are not currently cited to in the article, so I have moved them to further reading per your suggestion. I removed the Linda tag. Also, good call on the drumming, I have included some details in the musicianship section as you suggested. Thanks for your time and input! — GabeMc (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an excellent article, worthy of Featured status. I understand how difficult it is to organise an article on a musician, and how hard it is to cover such a well-known subject. Well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The overall weighting is better than in the last FAC, but there are still some major missing pieces here.
- Thanks for taking the time to make comments, I'll do my best to resolve them. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing about the gradual leadership role shift in the group from John to Paul.
- Good point Wasted. I think it's fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing about most of the big singles during the last two years being Paul's.
- I've edited this text string: "McCartney's contributions to the band's hit song's include: "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), "Yesterday" (1965), Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby" (1966), "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Get Back (1969)", "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" (1970).[44]" to this: "McCartney's contributions to the band's early hits include: "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), "Yesterday" (1965), Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby" (1966). He was also the primary writer of five of their last six US number ones, which were: "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Get Back (1969)", "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" (1970).[46]" Which should address this issue, let me know if it does not. Also the article later mentions that "Hey Jude" was the band's biggest single ever. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing about Paul being the immediate cause of the band's breakup (although of course it was headed that way anyway).
- If you mean that he was the first to sue for dissolution, then this is fixed now. If you mean he caused it, then that's really just an opinion that is not exactly supported by most of the sources I own (50+ books). There were many, many factors, (drugs, Yoko, marriage, the fact that they had been together for 13+ years, etcetera) and to blame Paul is overly simplistic, would require a WP:SYNTH, and its a bit dangerous IMO, afterall, this is a BLP. To do that topic justice would require a sub-section that really belongs at The Beatles and/or The Beatles' break-up anyway, not here IMO. I could perhaps be convinced otherwise, but please provide specific sourcing, versus a wild goose-chase for me to prove/disprove. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I just mean the former. Remember that to the outside world, the news came in April 1970 that the Beatles had broken up due to McCartney leaving them. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I've now added the 10 April 1970 date for Paul's public leaving. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I just mean the former. Remember that to the outside world, the news came in April 1970 that the Beatles had broken up due to McCartney leaving them. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean that he was the first to sue for dissolution, then this is fixed now. If you mean he caused it, then that's really just an opinion that is not exactly supported by most of the sources I own (50+ books). There were many, many factors, (drugs, Yoko, marriage, the fact that they had been together for 13+ years, etcetera) and to blame Paul is overly simplistic, would require a WP:SYNTH, and its a bit dangerous IMO, afterall, this is a BLP. To do that topic justice would require a sub-section that really belongs at The Beatles and/or The Beatles' break-up anyway, not here IMO. I could perhaps be convinced otherwise, but please provide specific sourcing, versus a wild goose-chase for me to prove/disprove. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing about the 3-against-1 split among the Beatles the characterized the immediate post-breakup period, both legally (McCartney's lawsuits, Eastman vs Allen Klein, etc) and musically (especially John and George, with Ringo collaborating with them and not yet Paul, although Ringo was obviously less hostile than the other two).
- Fixed I think, but are you expecting info on their post-beatles musical collaborations at Paul McCartney? — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some mention of his drums playing (on five Beatles tracks, then during several solo/Wings albums, especially Band on the Run) should be included.
- Fixed. But I'm only aware of his playing drums on three Beatles tracks, which two did I miss? — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ballad of John and Yoko" (a hit single) and "Why Don't We Do It in the Road" (maybe Ringo too on that one).
- I added "TBOJAY", missed that one last night, but "WDWDIITR" is Ringo, according to MacDonald, Miles and Lewisohn. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, "Why Don't We ..." had Paul playing drums in its first recording, but the recording used on the album has Ringo. I should have double-checked ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added "TBOJAY", missed that one last night, but "WDWDIITR" is Ringo, according to MacDonald, Miles and Lewisohn. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ballad of John and Yoko" (a hit single) and "Why Don't We Do It in the Road" (maybe Ringo too on that one).
- Fixed. But I'm only aware of his playing drums on three Beatles tracks, which two did I miss? — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More description of his piano playing could be added, especially since it's featured on some of the Beatles' most famous late-era songs and with disparate styles - the Fats Domino of "Lady Madonna" to the liturgical of "Let It Be".
- Good suggestions Wasted, I added some detail, and will look for more. Please do point me to any sources you are aware of. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His synthesizer playing/arranging should be mentioned. He was one of the early users of the Moog - somewhere in the Carr-Tyler book it praises him for getting something useful out of it without going overboard - and it became a key part of many of his later songs, e.g. some of Band on the Run, "Wonderful Christmastime", etc.
- I did my best to flesh out some detail here. I'll add more as I find it. Which Carr-Tyler book do you mean? I'm only aware of one, low-quality (IMO) out-of-print, expensive picture-book. As far as Moog use in the Beatles, Harrison played in on two songs (as well as an entire solo album in 1968) and Lennon only once, Paul only played it on "Maxwell's SH" to my knowledge, MacDonald agrees.(MacDonald, 2005, p.366) — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your synthesizer examples of "Loup (1st Indian on the Moon)" and "London Town" seem a little obscure. His most prominent post-Beatles synth parts are probably "Jet", "Band on the Run", and "Wonderful Christmastime", with "With a Little Luck" maybe coming fourth. The Carr-Tyler book ({{cite book |last=Carr |first=Roy |authorlink=Roy Carr |last2=Tyler |first2=Tony |authorlink2=Tony Tyler |title=[[The Beatles: An Illustrated Record]] |publisher=Harmony Books |year=1975 |isbn=0-517-52045-1 |ref=harv}} is actually very good, a NYT best-seller, and filled the gap in Beatles history books between Hunter Davies and the spate in the 1980s. The quote from page 110 is in reference to the Band on the Run album, but also him in general, and says "... he also plays the Moog synthesizer with more taste than most other exponents of this Frankensteinian instrument." And in any case, this section would be a good vehicle for including mention of "Wonderful Christmastime" in the article, which is probably one of the five most played post-Beatles McCartney songs of all when you factor in the many all-Christmas-from-November-on radio stations. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) I specifically mention "Loup (1st Indian on the Moon)" because I have a reliable source (Benitez, 2010, p.46) that explicitly states Macca actually played the Moog on it himself. That you think "London Town" is an obscure mention is an opinion, Ingham calls the song "particularly memorable".(Ingham, 2009, p.117) Again, I also have a WP:RS that states Macca played the keys on it (Blaney, 2007, p.123). 2) Per Blaney 2007, the keyboard parts on "Jet" and "Band on the Run" were played by Linda, not Paul.(Blaney, 2007, p.85) In fact, according to Blaney, Macca played keys on just one track from BOTR; "Picasso's Last Words". 3) I've added "Wonderful Christmastime", but I'm not sure why you are pushing so hard for inclusion of the Carr-Tyler book, which while it may well be "actually very good" as you say, they are likely incorrect to state that Macca played the Moog parts which they praise. Again, according to Blaney, Linda played almost all of the one-finger, monophonic Moog parts of which Carr-Tyler speak. Also, it's highly unlikely (IMO as a musician) that the syth part on "WCT" was even a Moog, as the parts are polyphonic and they modulate (something a Moog from 1979 could not accomplish), it was most likley a Sequential Circuits Prophet-5, though I am still looking for a WP:RS that explicitly states this. That Paul played keys on the track is enough for now. 5) "With a Little Luck" was already mentioned in the section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I wasn't aware that Linda played those parts, but I'm sure he wrote the part and determined what it would sound like. And I wasn't implying that "Wonderful Christmastime" has a Moog. I'm glad that song is now in the article, but in your sentence "McCartney also played a synthesizer on the Christmas song, "Wonderful Christmastime", a perennial holiday favourite", the text "the Christmas song" is pretty redundant. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops. Fixed the wikilink. Thanks for the catch! ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I wasn't aware that Linda played those parts, but I'm sure he wrote the part and determined what it would sound like. And I wasn't implying that "Wonderful Christmastime" has a Moog. I'm glad that song is now in the article, but in your sentence "McCartney also played a synthesizer on the Christmas song, "Wonderful Christmastime", a perennial holiday favourite", the text "the Christmas song" is pretty redundant. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) I specifically mention "Loup (1st Indian on the Moon)" because I have a reliable source (Benitez, 2010, p.46) that explicitly states Macca actually played the Moog on it himself. That you think "London Town" is an obscure mention is an opinion, Ingham calls the song "particularly memorable".(Ingham, 2009, p.117) Again, I also have a WP:RS that states Macca played the keys on it (Blaney, 2007, p.123). 2) Per Blaney 2007, the keyboard parts on "Jet" and "Band on the Run" were played by Linda, not Paul.(Blaney, 2007, p.85) In fact, according to Blaney, Macca played keys on just one track from BOTR; "Picasso's Last Words". 3) I've added "Wonderful Christmastime", but I'm not sure why you are pushing so hard for inclusion of the Carr-Tyler book, which while it may well be "actually very good" as you say, they are likely incorrect to state that Macca played the Moog parts which they praise. Again, according to Blaney, Linda played almost all of the one-finger, monophonic Moog parts of which Carr-Tyler speak. Also, it's highly unlikely (IMO as a musician) that the syth part on "WCT" was even a Moog, as the parts are polyphonic and they modulate (something a Moog from 1979 could not accomplish), it was most likley a Sequential Circuits Prophet-5, though I am still looking for a WP:RS that explicitly states this. That Paul played keys on the track is enough for now. 5) "With a Little Luck" was already mentioned in the section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your synthesizer examples of "Loup (1st Indian on the Moon)" and "London Town" seem a little obscure. His most prominent post-Beatles synth parts are probably "Jet", "Band on the Run", and "Wonderful Christmastime", with "With a Little Luck" maybe coming fourth. The Carr-Tyler book ({{cite book |last=Carr |first=Roy |authorlink=Roy Carr |last2=Tyler |first2=Tony |authorlink2=Tony Tyler |title=[[The Beatles: An Illustrated Record]] |publisher=Harmony Books |year=1975 |isbn=0-517-52045-1 |ref=harv}} is actually very good, a NYT best-seller, and filled the gap in Beatles history books between Hunter Davies and the spate in the 1980s. The quote from page 110 is in reference to the Band on the Run album, but also him in general, and says "... he also plays the Moog synthesizer with more taste than most other exponents of this Frankensteinian instrument." And in any case, this section would be a good vehicle for including mention of "Wonderful Christmastime" in the article, which is probably one of the five most played post-Beatles McCartney songs of all when you factor in the many all-Christmas-from-November-on radio stations. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did my best to flesh out some detail here. I'll add more as I find it. Which Carr-Tyler book do you mean? I'm only aware of one, low-quality (IMO) out-of-print, expensive picture-book. As far as Moog use in the Beatles, Harrison played in on two songs (as well as an entire solo album in 1968) and Lennon only once, Paul only played it on "Maxwell's SH" to my knowledge, MacDonald agrees.(MacDonald, 2005, p.366) — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some mention of the criticism he endured for keeping Linda in his bands (especially on tour) given her somewhat limited musical abilities. The point is he didn't care what anyone thought, he was determined to have her in his musical life just as in the rest of his life.
- Agreed. I added some details to that effect, will add more as I find it. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- McCartney's interest in electronic music is overweighted in the "Beatles" section. Yes, I know ever since the 1989 tour McCartney has been promoting this in order to counter the 'Paul just wrote the pretty songs, John wrote the hard-rocking, artistically challenging material' nonsense. And it is worth a brief mention. But Paul did write beautiful melodies, which were inherently more sophisticated and developed than John's. And "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" were both more important in broadening the horizons of what the Beatles could do on record than any of McCartney's electronic experiments. And to give most of a paragraph to this electronic experiment and never mention at all McCartney's role in side two of Abbey Road is just plain wrong.
- I think it's fixed now. Let me know if/where you want more/less detail. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Guardian criticism of Liverpool Oratorio seems overweighted. It, or at least aspects of it, got some favorable notices too.
- I did my best here, if you are aware of a more favorable review, please do point me in the right direction. As far as I can tell no "real" classical critique gave it an overall favorable review. I could be wrong, and as I said, if you can provide a better example I would be glad to use it. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't make clear what McCartney's level of commercial success has been. Through the mid-1980s his records sold well and he got a lot of radio airplay, but since then he hasn't really. What was his last new song to get any kind of airplay in the U.S.? Probably "My Brave Face" back in 1989, maybe "Freedom" a bit after 9/11. That's it. His concert tours have been very successful, but it's off of old material. To illustrate, has any song later than the early 1980s appeared on any tour after the one to promote its containing album? That's kind of a metric for whether aging performers/composers have vital new music or not.
- "The article doesn't make clear what McCartney's level of commercial success has been."
- A very confusing comment. The fourth sentence reads: "He has been described by Guinness World Records as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles, and "the most successful songwriter" in UK chart history.[1][2]" In "Recognition and achievements" it says: "In 1986 he received acclaim from the Guinness Book of Records Hall of Fame, who presented him with a rhodium disk to commemorate his standing "as the most successful musician of all-time."[1]" The article mentions his three most succsessful songs, and every single #1 he ever had in the US, and in the UK. The lead ends with "He is one of the UK's wealthiest people, with an estimated fortune of £475 million in 2010".
- As far as the radio play stuff. Are you asking me to summarize the end of his popularity according to who? Can you suggest a source for this? — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have written, "The article doesn't make clear what McCartney's level of commercial success has been from the mid-late 1980s to the present." The answer being: Album sales, somewhat successful. Singles and radio play, not successful at all. Concert tours, very successful but based upon old material. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how I could cite that without a WP:SYNTH, or a WP:OR. An astute reader should be able to tell that his last #1 hits came in the 1980s. I know of no way to cite radio play, or any sources that detail which songs he has played live over the last 42 years (minus the 1980s) of touring post-Beatles. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can certainly state somewhere that his last number one hit came in year X, his last top twenty hit came in year Y, things like that. Any of the Joel Whitburn-type sources can verify that. You can say that his last platinum studio album came in year Z, the RIAA database will verify that. You can use a source like this MW/WSJ one to show to McCartney, like many older artists, had struggled to get radio airplay for his newer material. This Chicago Tribune piece confirms that McCartney was dissatisfied with the low radio airplay he was getting. I realize that currently the article doesn't cover any of his record company switches - maybe it should? - but these sources can be used to confirm the point about diminishing airplay for new material. I'll keep looking for sources on what's played in concerts. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now currently mentions: "[When] his last number one hit came", "[When] his last top twenty hit came " and "[When] his last platinum studio album came". I'm not at all interested in the over analysis of his radio play per song, album, state, region, country or decade, radio play is a dying format anyway, should we discuss his 8-track and cassette sales as well? As far as the songlist at his live shows, the article currently establishes that as of 2002 his live sets of 36 songs included 23 Beatles songs. The article also mentions that in 2005 his shows consisted of 35 songs, with 23 Beatles tracks. The article also makes clear that during his most recent shows in Mexico City, just last month, the band played 23 Beatles tracks in a 37-song set, that's enough detail on his performances of Beatles songs I think, we have clearly established that the balance of his live-set has remained roughly consistent since 2002. P.S., paulmccartney.com is good source for "what's played in concerts". ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your comment: "I realize that currently the article doesn't cover any of his record company switches - maybe it should?", there is now a comprehensive sub-section devoted to 50 years of record label data, thanks again for the great suggestions. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can certainly state somewhere that his last number one hit came in year X, his last top twenty hit came in year Y, things like that. Any of the Joel Whitburn-type sources can verify that. You can say that his last platinum studio album came in year Z, the RIAA database will verify that. You can use a source like this MW/WSJ one to show to McCartney, like many older artists, had struggled to get radio airplay for his newer material. This Chicago Tribune piece confirms that McCartney was dissatisfied with the low radio airplay he was getting. I realize that currently the article doesn't cover any of his record company switches - maybe it should? - but these sources can be used to confirm the point about diminishing airplay for new material. I'll keep looking for sources on what's played in concerts. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how I could cite that without a WP:SYNTH, or a WP:OR. An astute reader should be able to tell that his last #1 hits came in the 1980s. I know of no way to cite radio play, or any sources that detail which songs he has played live over the last 42 years (minus the 1980s) of touring post-Beatles. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have written, "The article doesn't make clear what McCartney's level of commercial success has been from the mid-late 1980s to the present." The answer being: Album sales, somewhat successful. Singles and radio play, not successful at all. Concert tours, very successful but based upon old material. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The article doesn't make clear what McCartney's level of commercial success has been."
- Also one element of style that consistently bothers me while reading the article is the overuse of in-text attributions. If something is clearly true and supported by many sources, it's okay just to state it as fact! Some examples:
- "McCartney was dubbed "the cute Beatle", according to Miles." This was added based on a comment I made in the previous FAC, but there's no need to limit it the in-text opinion of one writer. There are many references that will say this, look at this Google News archive search for example.
- "the cute Beatle" is a direct quote from Miles, who has not been established yet, therefore this quote needs to be attributed in-line. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't need a quote. You can write something like, "... McCartney was known as the 'cute' Beatle" and source it. That's not a quote, it's a label, and it doesn't need in-text attribution.
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't need a quote. You can write something like, "... McCartney was known as the 'cute' Beatle" and source it. That's not a quote, it's a label, and it doesn't need in-text attribution.
- "the cute Beatle" is a direct quote from Miles, who has not been established yet, therefore this quote needs to be attributed in-line. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ""one-man album with Paul playing all the instruments" himself, writes Beatles biographer Bill Harry." Why the in-text attribution? Do you or someone else really doubt that McCartney played all the instruments on McCartney himself?
- Ditto. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should paraphrase this and cite it, no quote is needed.
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should paraphrase this and cite it, no quote is needed.
- Ditto. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the feature film Give My Regards to Broad Street, a musical which included Starr, and "was savagely panned by the critics" according to Harry" Was it not panned by critics according to anyone else?
- Ditto, I'm merely attributing a quote in-line because it is unclear who is saying it. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paraphrase and cite.
- I disagree here, and prefer to keep the direct quote/in-line attribution. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed via paraphrase. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paraphrase and cite.
- Ditto, I'm merely attributing a quote in-line because it is unclear who is saying it. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ""religion did not play a part in their upbringing" according to biographer Barry Miles" Are there other biographers who think differently? If so, that should be presented (with "Let It Be" presumably as partial evidence). If not, this should just be presented as fact and sourced.
- No, the sources overwhelmingly agree, I cite Miles because he is being directly quoted, and BTW, "Let It Be" is not at all about the virgin Mary, or religion, Paul's mother came to him in a dream telling him to "Let it Be", or so he claims, her name was Mary. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paraphrase and cite several of the stronger sources.
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paraphrase and cite several of the stronger sources.
- No, the sources overwhelmingly agree, I cite Miles because he is being directly quoted, and BTW, "Let It Be" is not at all about the virgin Mary, or religion, Paul's mother came to him in a dream telling him to "Let it Be", or so he claims, her name was Mary. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "McCartney designed a series of six postage stamps issued by the Isle of Man Post in 2002, and according to BBC News, he is the first major rock star in the world to do so." Either we believe this is a fact, in which case it should just be stated, or we think it is it is suspect, in which case (since this is a fairly minor matter) it should be removed.
- Well, the BBC is the source for the claim, so they are attributed in-line, lest the material be challenged later (see below) — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paraphrase and cite. If someone doesn't believe it, they can see what source you are using. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree here. "the first major rock star in the world to do so" is a somewhat bold/ambiguous claim, which I would much rather quote and attribute to the BBC in-line. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is now fixed via paraphrase. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paraphrase and cite. If someone doesn't believe it, they can see what source you are using. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the BBC is the source for the claim, so they are attributed in-line, lest the material be challenged later (see below) — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither the weighting/omissions list or the unnecessary in-text attributions list are exhaustive; they are just some that I noticed going through the current version of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In a work/time crunch at the moment, so will follow up on the above later, but some other things:
- The chronology towards the end of the "1960–1970: The Beatles" section is now all jumbled.
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still ordering problems in this section. "McCartney's contributions to the band's early hits include ..." should come earlier, and before the discussions of "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby". The "For Abbey Road ..." description should go a little earlier, and I think the breakup/aftermath material should be its own paragraph. (The current juxtaposition suggests the Abbey Road medley disagreement was a major factor leading to the breakup, when of course it was just one of many.) The "Between 1963 and 1970 ..." summary should either go near the beginning or near the end, not in the middle of the section. There is a missing link to The Beatles' 1966 US tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this issue is now fixed, though I'm not sure where you expect the Abbey Road material, as it is now mentioned in the chronology during the summer of 1969, when it was recorded. — GabeMc (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still ordering problems in this section. "McCartney's contributions to the band's early hits include ..." should come earlier, and before the discussions of "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby". The "For Abbey Road ..." description should go a little earlier, and I think the breakup/aftermath material should be its own paragraph. (The current juxtaposition suggests the Abbey Road medley disagreement was a major factor leading to the breakup, when of course it was just one of many.) The "Between 1963 and 1970 ..." summary should either go near the beginning or near the end, not in the middle of the section. There is a missing link to The Beatles' 1966 US tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To illustrate that the legal/business squabbles went on a long time, McCartney's absence at the band's inclusion in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989 (or whenever it was) should be included.
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think one of the points about "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" is that the former was their first song to include strings, and the latter the first to include no pop instruments at all. In addition I think something indicating the breadth of McCartney's style during the Beatles is warranted, perhaps text like "While McCartney was featured in many of the group's best-known ballads, he was also responsible for frenetic rockers such as 'Long Tall Sally', 'I'm Down', and 'Helter Skelter'."
- I added the requested detail on "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby", but as far as "the breadth of McCartney's style", I think this is already well covered in the "Musicianship#Vocals" section. Though any suggestions for specific material not already included there is always welcome. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's in the later section, but I still think some kind of mention is due in the Beatles section that he was responsible for some of their fiercest rockers. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As John was equally "responsible for some of their fiercest rockers", this is beginning to border on a WP:NPOV issue IMO, so which song/s do you specifically request I summarize and/or mention in the Beatles summary section that are not already covered in the "Musicianship" section or elsewhere? — GabeMc (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's in the later section, but I still think some kind of mention is due in the Beatles section that he was responsible for some of their fiercest rockers. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the requested detail on "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby", but as far as "the breadth of McCartney's style", I think this is already well covered in the "Musicianship#Vocals" section. Though any suggestions for specific material not already included there is always welcome. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What were the consequence of his drug arrests? Wasn't he barred from entry into some countries for a while? Where did the 1984 and 1997 arrests take place?
- Fixed. Details added. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There really needs to be more on his concert tours. The live albums from them are not significant, except for Wings Over America, but other things about them are. The Wings University Tour illustrated his desire to be in a working band and to escape some of his Beatles fame by operating in a low-key manner and not playing any Beatles songs. The Wings Over America Tour was very high profile and a big success but notably with only five Beatles songs played in most shows. The 1989 World Tour was a milestone in that it was the first time, two decades after the fact, that he fully embraced his Beatles past and fully integrated that material into his shows. Since then his tours have explored more of the Beatles catalogue. Some brief metrics on the commercial success of the tours can be given: how many dates, the total gross, rank within other tours for the year, Billboard or Pollstar awards if any. Sources do exist for all this, see for example this Billboard article declaring his Driving Tour the tops in 2002. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your insightful suggestions, the article is greatly improved due to your effort. I believe I have resolved the issue of lack of detail on his tours. Let me know if/where you think we need more/less detail. — GabeMc (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the material is good, except that a) you are missing links, each of these tours has its own article and b) the material should be integrated into each of the appropriate "Musical career" sections (Wings, 1982-1989, etc). There's no reason to treat the tours separately from his other musical activity at the time (singles, albums, films, etc). The "Tours" section should just have the list of tours, the same way the "Discography" section has a list of albums. You can also be a bit more concise about describing the Beatles content of the tours, meaning there's no need to name specific Beatles songs played. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked and integrated, great suggestions, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks much better, a few further comments on this aspect:
- "while "Scrupulously avoiding Beatles songs" during their performances, writes Ingham." is another example of an unnecessary in-text quote and attribution. Just paraphrase and cite by saying "while not playing any Beatles songs" or something like that.
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wings mananger, John Morris comments ..." the tense is unclear (is he saying this then or now?) and the whole quote seems unnecessary; just say the most of the tour was played in halls. \
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would drop the whole ", including the Little Richard hit, "Long Tall Sally", which McCartney performed during the encore, the only song he played during the tour that had previously been recorded by the Beatles" text, which is unnecessarily complicated; the previous text gets the idea across
- I respectfully disagree. The point here is to inform the reader of the first example of a song performed by Wings that had been previously recorded by the Beatles. I prefer to retain this material for that reason. It also illustrates that a Little Richard cover was his first choice when "breaking" the seal on the Beatles recording catalog, which reinforces Richard's influence on Paul. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Live and Let Die" was a top ten US hit too, and you might add a parenthetical that it became a pyro-filled centerpiece of his later live shows.
- Good suggestion. Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not concerts, but there needs to be more on Band on the Run: it is by far his most critically acclaimed post-Beatles work, as well as his most commercially successful; it was recorded under trying circumstances (band members quitting, Lagos, etc) and has appeared on several "best albums of all time" list. \
- I agree, good suggestion, thanks. I added some detail. Let me know if I missed anything crucial. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, you put too much on it. The "Wings" section is now longer than the "Beatles" section, which doesn't seem right. I think you can omit "It was a US and UK number one", omit the mention of Grammys (they weren't major ones), and omit the mention of "Jet" and "Helen Wheels" (you generally don't mention songs in this section unless they were number ones). At the end where you say "They also recorded six US number one singles ..." you might also give the total number of top tens in both the US and UK for Wings. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasted, the Wings section is now longer then the Beatles section primarily because of the Wings tour info, which about doubled its size and which you (rightly I think) told me to integrate into the section. As far as: "I think you can omit "It was a US and UK number one"" What about your above comment: ""Live and Let Die" was a top ten US hit too, and you might add ... that it became a pyro-filled centerpiece of his later live shows." Only BOTR and Venus and Mars were #1s in the UK and the US, so it's notable. As far as "omit the mention of Grammys (they weren't major ones)" please see: "there needs to be more on Band on the Run: it is by far his most critically acclaimed post-Beatles work, as well as his most commercially successful". Per: "omit the mention of "Jet" and "Helen Wheels" (you generally don't mention songs in this section unless they were number ones)." Please see above, also, not exactly accurate, I mentioned "Live and Let Die" (at your suggestion I believe, and thanks, I agree), which was not a number one in the UK or the US. "Jet" and "HW" were hits, the only other two from BOTR that could be called hits, so their inclusion is appropriate to help illustrate BOTRs commercial success. Further, "you might also give the total number of top tens in both the US and UK for Wings." Yeah, I might, but you just said there is now "too much" detail in the section.
I'll do some research later andI've included Wings top ten totals for the US and UK. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- The idea is for the article to cover the most important things, but do so succinctly. Whether songs reached number one is not the only criteria for giving them attention here. If you go to any McCartney show, what three post-Beatles songs get the biggest audience reaction? "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Band on the Run", and "Live and Let Die". What was the one post-Beatles song to make McCartney's Super Bowl halftime show? "Live and Let Die". What was the one post-Beatles song to make the Queen Jubilee Concert a couple of weeks ago? "Live and Let Die". So that's why I think a little extra attention is warranted to that song. Regarding Band on the Run, I would just say something like: "..., the acclaimed album of the same name, became Wings' first platinum LP. It was recorded in 1973 in Lagos, Nigeria, under difficult circumstances after the sudden departure of two group members. It was the band's first LP to top the charts in both countries and the first ever to top Billboard's album chart on three separate occasions. One of the best-selling LPs of the decade, Rolling Stone named it Album of the Year for 1974 and later gave it a spot on their list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. It is regarded by many as McCartney's finest post-Beatles work." That's about half the length of your text but gets the point across equally well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll trim what I can, but lets just agree to disagree on this one. The BOTR material is one medium sized paragraph, hardly excessive IMO for a 140,000 byte article, when you consider BOTR is likely his greatest post-Beatles accomplishment. That it was made in Nigeria is a trivial detail that belongs at the article page, and that you want me to add that back, yet cut other material in the name of brevity seems to me a dichotomy. — GabeMc (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh, I think the "dichotomy" is that you've nominated this article twice at FAC, meaning after careful, thorough examination you thought the content in the article was just right. The first time, Band on the Run was not even mentioned in it, and the second time, all it said was "the 'acclaimed' album of the same name, Wings' third, was a massive success that became their first platinum album." So now all of a sudden you think the text I proposed is too skimpy!? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the first nom was premature, this second one much less so. In my past experience, an FAC nom was typically ignored for several weeks before any comments even started to come in, so I wrongly thought I could "whip it into shape" before any serious comments, my bad, FAC is not a workshop. My point here, now, is while I have greatly appreciated your helpful, thoughtful and insightful input throughout, I also retain some creative license, i.e. my input has value as well. In a nut-shell, I just think the medium sized graph on BOTR is not excessive in the least. That you want me to mention that it was recorded in Nigeria, now that's excessive IMO, since the article does not mention where any of his other albums (Beatles, Wings or solo) were recorded. I sincerely thank you once again for all the great input that has helped me to improve the article, but it is not my understanding of FAC that a nominator must exactly follow each and every suggestion offered without any autonomous opinions of their own. — GabeMc (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree that the nominator should fight for his or her vision of the article and does not have to agree with, or implement, all of the suggestions at FAC. I'm just not sure what your vision for the article is, given the swings in weighting that have happened between 2nd FAC, 3rd FAC start, and 3rd FAC now. But I don't think I'd be the only reviewer who thinks that weighting the Wings section more heavily than the Beatles section is backwards. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Macca was in both the Beatles and Wings for roughly the same length of time, so I hear you in principle on weight, all things being equal, however word-counting and content analysis are not equal. As I said above, the Wings section details each of their tours (at your suggestion), the Beatles section does not. Remove the tours info from the Wings section and it would no longer be larger than the Beatles section. Also, the Beatles were a band Macca was once part of, whereas Wings was his band. The Wings section goes into detail about albums that the Beatles' section does not. At any rate, if you absolutely insist that the Wings section cannot be longer than the Beatles section, then what specifically do you think is missing from the Beatles section that should be included and/or what excessive detail is there in the Wings section that would significantly reduce it's size if removed, without compromising comprehensiveness? Also, for the record, as the article currently reads: the Wings section contains 1321 words; the Beatles section: 1038, a difference of only 283 words. Keep in mind also that the Wings section covers over 11 years (1970-81) whereas the Beatles section covers less than 10 (August 1960-April 1970). So is less than 300 words really so undue for a section that covers one full year more? ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not insisting on anything, absolutely or otherwise. What I would drop is the naming of the members (other than the McCartneys and Laine); it's handled well in the Wings article, with a nice bar chart indicating periods of membership. I don't see a need for it in this article (and neither did you, on either of your FAC submissions). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Macca was in both the Beatles and Wings for roughly the same length of time, so I hear you in principle on weight, all things being equal, however word-counting and content analysis are not equal. As I said above, the Wings section details each of their tours (at your suggestion), the Beatles section does not. Remove the tours info from the Wings section and it would no longer be larger than the Beatles section. Also, the Beatles were a band Macca was once part of, whereas Wings was his band. The Wings section goes into detail about albums that the Beatles' section does not. At any rate, if you absolutely insist that the Wings section cannot be longer than the Beatles section, then what specifically do you think is missing from the Beatles section that should be included and/or what excessive detail is there in the Wings section that would significantly reduce it's size if removed, without compromising comprehensiveness? Also, for the record, as the article currently reads: the Wings section contains 1321 words; the Beatles section: 1038, a difference of only 283 words. Keep in mind also that the Wings section covers over 11 years (1970-81) whereas the Beatles section covers less than 10 (August 1960-April 1970). So is less than 300 words really so undue for a section that covers one full year more? ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree that the nominator should fight for his or her vision of the article and does not have to agree with, or implement, all of the suggestions at FAC. I'm just not sure what your vision for the article is, given the swings in weighting that have happened between 2nd FAC, 3rd FAC start, and 3rd FAC now. But I don't think I'd be the only reviewer who thinks that weighting the Wings section more heavily than the Beatles section is backwards. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the first nom was premature, this second one much less so. In my past experience, an FAC nom was typically ignored for several weeks before any comments even started to come in, so I wrongly thought I could "whip it into shape" before any serious comments, my bad, FAC is not a workshop. My point here, now, is while I have greatly appreciated your helpful, thoughtful and insightful input throughout, I also retain some creative license, i.e. my input has value as well. In a nut-shell, I just think the medium sized graph on BOTR is not excessive in the least. That you want me to mention that it was recorded in Nigeria, now that's excessive IMO, since the article does not mention where any of his other albums (Beatles, Wings or solo) were recorded. I sincerely thank you once again for all the great input that has helped me to improve the article, but it is not my understanding of FAC that a nominator must exactly follow each and every suggestion offered without any autonomous opinions of their own. — GabeMc (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh, I think the "dichotomy" is that you've nominated this article twice at FAC, meaning after careful, thorough examination you thought the content in the article was just right. The first time, Band on the Run was not even mentioned in it, and the second time, all it said was "the 'acclaimed' album of the same name, Wings' third, was a massive success that became their first platinum album." So now all of a sudden you think the text I proposed is too skimpy!? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll trim what I can, but lets just agree to disagree on this one. The BOTR material is one medium sized paragraph, hardly excessive IMO for a 140,000 byte article, when you consider BOTR is likely his greatest post-Beatles accomplishment. That it was made in Nigeria is a trivial detail that belongs at the article page, and that you want me to add that back, yet cut other material in the name of brevity seems to me a dichotomy. — GabeMc (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is for the article to cover the most important things, but do so succinctly. Whether songs reached number one is not the only criteria for giving them attention here. If you go to any McCartney show, what three post-Beatles songs get the biggest audience reaction? "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Band on the Run", and "Live and Let Die". What was the one post-Beatles song to make McCartney's Super Bowl halftime show? "Live and Let Die". What was the one post-Beatles song to make the Queen Jubilee Concert a couple of weeks ago? "Live and Let Die". So that's why I think a little extra attention is warranted to that song. Regarding Band on the Run, I would just say something like: "..., the acclaimed album of the same name, became Wings' first platinum LP. It was recorded in 1973 in Lagos, Nigeria, under difficult circumstances after the sudden departure of two group members. It was the band's first LP to top the charts in both countries and the first ever to top Billboard's album chart on three separate occasions. One of the best-selling LPs of the decade, Rolling Stone named it Album of the Year for 1974 and later gave it a spot on their list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. It is regarded by many as McCartney's finest post-Beatles work." That's about half the length of your text but gets the point across equally well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasted, the Wings section is now longer then the Beatles section primarily because of the Wings tour info, which about doubled its size and which you (rightly I think) told me to integrate into the section. As far as: "I think you can omit "It was a US and UK number one"" What about your above comment: ""Live and Let Die" was a top ten US hit too, and you might add ... that it became a pyro-filled centerpiece of his later live shows." Only BOTR and Venus and Mars were #1s in the UK and the US, so it's notable. As far as "omit the mention of Grammys (they weren't major ones)" please see: "there needs to be more on Band on the Run: it is by far his most critically acclaimed post-Beatles work, as well as his most commercially successful". Per: "omit the mention of "Jet" and "Helen Wheels" (you generally don't mention songs in this section unless they were number ones)." Please see above, also, not exactly accurate, I mentioned "Live and Let Die" (at your suggestion I believe, and thanks, I agree), which was not a number one in the UK or the US. "Jet" and "HW" were hits, the only other two from BOTR that could be called hits, so their inclusion is appropriate to help illustrate BOTRs commercial success. Further, "you might also give the total number of top tens in both the US and UK for Wings." Yeah, I might, but you just said there is now "too much" detail in the section.
- If anything, you put too much on it. The "Wings" section is now longer than the "Beatles" section, which doesn't seem right. I think you can omit "It was a US and UK number one", omit the mention of Grammys (they weren't major ones), and omit the mention of "Jet" and "Helen Wheels" (you generally don't mention songs in this section unless they were number ones). At the end where you say "They also recorded six US number one singles ..." you might also give the total number of top tens in both the US and UK for Wings. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, good suggestion, thanks. I added some detail. Let me know if I missed anything crucial. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks much better, a few further comments on this aspect:
- Linked and integrated, great suggestions, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the material is good, except that a) you are missing links, each of these tours has its own article and b) the material should be integrated into each of the appropriate "Musical career" sections (Wings, 1982-1989, etc). There's no reason to treat the tours separately from his other musical activity at the time (singles, albums, films, etc). The "Tours" section should just have the list of tours, the same way the "Discography" section has a list of albums. You can also be a bit more concise about describing the Beatles content of the tours, meaning there's no need to name specific Beatles songs played. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your insightful suggestions, the article is greatly improved due to your effort. I believe I have resolved the issue of lack of detail on his tours. Let me know if/where you think we need more/less detail. — GabeMc (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) You keep mentioning how poor quality the article was at it's prior FACs, or even the start of this one, or what content it included or didn't include then, FTR I agree with you, it was poor-quality then, it's much better today, can we please move on Wasted? What matters is whether or not the article is FA quality now, you keep mentioning that prior versions were not FA quality and you have made your point on that perfectly clear, I don't dispute it, never did really and I do not think it needs to be restated ad nauseum. Anyone can check and see what a miserable state this article was in on 25 April 2012, when I began my extensive copyedit, of which you've proved a valuable asset. Indeed, it's clear that the article has come a very long way in two months, as it looks pretty decent right now, exactly two months later. 2) Anyway, if I did trim out the Wings members names, and their joining/quitting, it would result in a net reduction of less than 100 words, which is well within my editorial discretion. In sum, I prefer that the Wings section names each member. Also, see your comments immediately below, "Indeed, unless I missed it, there's nothing in this section about the constant personnel changes that Wings underwent ... it is an important point." Is an "important point" worth 100 words or so? If more editors than just you complain about it how much space is devoted to naming the former members of Wings, I'll gladly trim them out, but then, why do I even mention his current and former band line-ups by name? Indeed it was you who suggested I specifically add the name of the drummer who played with Macca for only one tour ever. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Also, FTR, the Beatles section is now longer than the Wings section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, unless I missed it, there's nothing in this section about the constant personnel changes that Wings underwent. You don't have to name all the members, but it is an important point.
- Seems like excessive detail for an overview article of musician Paul McCartney when there is already a topical article dedicated to the band Wings, but sure, I added details to include every member, when they joined and when they quit. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I agree with you that naming all the members is excessive detail! So I'm not sure why you added it in response to my comment, when all I suggested is stating something near the beginning of the section like "Wings underwent frequent personnel changes, with the McCartneys and Laine the only constant members." Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was fairly easy to just name them all and I would prefer to retain this info now. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I agree with you that naming all the members is excessive detail! So I'm not sure why you added it in response to my comment, when all I suggested is stating something near the beginning of the section like "Wings underwent frequent personnel changes, with the McCartneys and Laine the only constant members." Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like excessive detail for an overview article of musician Paul McCartney when there is already a topical article dedicated to the band Wings, but sure, I added details to include every member, when they joined and when they quit. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording on the 1975-76 Wings Over America/World tour suggests there were more Beatles songs played than there were. I would simply state that there were 5 Beatles songs played in the 29-song shows. If you then want name them, you can.
- Fixed. I retained the five song titles as a matter of personal preference. I cannot currently pin-point whether there were 25, 29 or 30 songs played per night, my guess is it varied. Harry says the shows included 30 songs, yet he lists only 25. He does state that the shows were two-hours long, so I included that for perspective. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wings was formally disbanded in 1981, and Laine claimed shortly after that a significant cause of their dissolution was McCartney's reluctance to tour, fearing for his personal safety after the 1980 murder of Lennon." I've always had the sense that Wings just ran its course, both commercially and artistically. And that McCartney's drugs charges in Japan had as much to do with it as what happened to John. Is this really the major reason that sources give for it ending?
- Yeah, I'm sure Wings running it's natural course was a major factor also. As far as the Japan drug charges, they were dropped and Macca got off with 10 days in jail, so I'm not sure how that would compare to the murder of one of his greatest friends and former bandmates. Also, though I do not include it in the article out of respect/safety for Macca, according to at least two high-quality sources ((George-Warren, 2001, p. 626), (Benitez, 2010, p.97)) Paul was getting death threats against him (George-Warren) and his family (Benitez). Benitez calls the threats, "the final blow" for Wings. Further, Macca did not tour again for over a decade, something that Wings running its course and/or the 1980 drug charges would not likely have been a notable factor in. Afterall, he was busted twice in 1972, convicted in 1973 and busted again in 1975, yet these encounters with the police left him undeterred, indeed he was busted again in 1984. In summary, most sources are vague as to why Wings split, stating merely when they did. The sources that aren't vague generally hint at McCartney's fear he "was gonna be next", a paraphrased Macca quote I can't locate at the moment. At any rate, the article is merely stating that Laine made this claim in 1981, which is indeed a statement of fact, supported by more than one WP:RS. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a few details so as to not make it seem Lennon's murder was the only reason Wings split. Good suggestions as always, thanks again Wasted Time R. — GabeMc (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Later that year he launched the Paul McCartney World Tour ..." Should indicate that it was with a six-person touring band he formed, since you mention the same for his later/current band.
- Fixed, band members added. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I'm not sure adding all the band members is needed, just that he did so. If you do keep all the names in, you need to add the drummer switch for the New World Tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I named them all for internal consistency, since Macca's other bands are named. I've added a bit on the drummer switch for the New World Tour. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I'm not sure adding all the band members is needed, just that he did so. If you do keep all the names in, you need to add the drummer switch for the New World Tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, band members added. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the New World Tour" - tour names are not quoted.
- Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "He toured in support of Driving Rain ..." By this point, the "in support of" notion is obsolete and shouldn't be used. Established rock artists such as McCartney, the Stones, Springsteen, U2, etc. make much more from their tours than they do from their albums. If anything, a new album exists to give them a reason to tour, not the other way around.
- Good point. Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's outside the scope of this article, but the four 2002 Driving tours articles should really be coalesced into one, since they were just differently branded legs of the same thing. (That's how Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour is handled, as well as Zooropa and Zoomerang being included in Zoo TV Tour.) That would make the writing and linking less awkward in this article.
- I agree 100%, the four "mini-drivin'" tours should be merged together. I would certainly be willing to contribute to this effort, but having never merged any articles myself, I would need some assistance from a more experienced editor in that regard. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The ball is rolling on this merge and it could/should be accomplished soon. — GabeMc (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC) The 'Driving' articles are now merged, thanks to Evanh2008. — GabeMc (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work on pushing the merge. I neglected to mention it in the previous comment, but the Driving tour was also named the Pollstar tour of the year, see this source. You can include that, very briefly: "and was named top tour of the year by Billboard and Pollstar". Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the Pollstar detail, thanks for the source. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work on pushing the merge. I neglected to mention it in the previous comment, but the Driving tour was also named the Pollstar tour of the year, see this source. You can include that, very briefly: "and was named top tour of the year by Billboard and Pollstar". Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of time again, more later. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for taking the time to comment and to put forth the effort. The article is greatly improved due to your suggestions. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some new comments from me:
- The list of early Beatles songs he was the contributor of should include "I Saw Her Standing There". Even though not a single, in the U.S. at least it has become one of the best known of all Beatles songs to the younger generation, due to its ubiquitous use during breaks at sporting events and at bar/bat mitzvahs and the like.
- Agreed, it is now included in the list. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the discussion of McCartney's bass playing should refer to the Höfner as the "violin" bass, since that's how many people think of it. You could also mention that he returned to using it in the late 1980s.
- Well, the thing is, it's erroneously called a "violin" bass, it is actually shaped as a viola. So no, I would rather not spread that misnomer, no matter how popular. That is/should be covered/explained at the topical article dedicated to the instrument. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC) The article now specifies when Macca switched back to the Hofner c.late '80-early '90s. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "An upcoming tribute album is expected in June 2012 ..." June is almost over and it hasn't materialized. I would suggest removing this, and adding it back in if and when it happens. In fact, I'd wait to see if it gets much of a reception, since tribute albums have become a dime a dozen at this point.
- I agree, it's now removed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The mentions of "Coming Up" as both a Wings hit and a solo song will confused the reader who doesn't know the back story. I would either omit the second mention or label it an alternate version.
- This is fixed and should be clear now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the version of the article in January 2007 that went into the 1st FAC, when a different group of editors was involved. It might be worthwhile scanning it to see whether anything important is in it, that got lost along the way and should be in the current article. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good advice, thanks again for taking the time out to help Wasted! ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some new comments from me:
- Comment - I'll try to ce out the unneeded in-line attributions. I would however, like to point out, per WP:QUOTE:
Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence). Wikipedia policy for proper attribution of quotes is found in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Other guidelines are found in WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:CITE. Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn whose words a quote is. Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time, however, a good faith search in an effort to find a source before removing a quote is appreciated (see WP:UNSOURCED and WP:PRESERVE).
Also this exchange,
Comment In the lead section: "According to the BBC, his Beatles song 'Yesterday' has been covered by over 2,200 artists—more than any other song." This is a statement of fact, not opinion. If there is no serious dispute about it, it need not and should not be attributed in the lead. If there IS a serious dispute about it, it should not appear in the lead. My guess is that the former is true, and "According to the BBC" should be cut. DocKino (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, great point, I agree. It's a sourced statement of fact that should not be contentious. I think I only had it there to cover my butt, thinking people would want to know who made this claim. I've made an edit that I believe resolves this issue. — GabeMc (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Which thirty hours later resulted in this thread, a subject I cannot remember being challenged in years, if ever. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References to BBC News are inconsistent. Some use BBC while others use BBC News. Also think that publisher should be BBC and work BBC News. Keith D (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment, good eye. I have made the useage consistent throughout, preferring BBC News as the publisher, per two other related FAs (The Beatles and John Lennon, for project consistency) and a previous FA suggestion by Brianboulton. If I used the "work" field, BBC News would be italicised, which, as a non-print source would be in error. — GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- small quibble As of this revision refs #28, 38, and 44 are showing harv errors. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are now fixed, thanks for the catch and for taking the time to help! — GabeMc (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Noleander
- General: Should add
{{personality rights}}
to the images. May not be an FA requirement, but a good thing to do.
- File:Paul McCartney black and white 2010.jpg - Okay
- File:20 forthlin road.jpg - Can you check Freedom of Panorama in UK? Buildings/architecture may be an issue.
- As far as I know, images of buildings taken from public streets are covered in England by FoP, however, I claim to be no expert on this matter. — GabeMc (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Paul, George & John.png - Can you supply some more detail on this license? It is in dutch, and I don't (yet) see where the photographer gave up the copyright.
- Well, this site says: "All of the images in the archive as the source of sound and image, are to be used under Creative Commons license". Not sure if that is enough, if you think it wiser to just remove the image I would be happy to do so. — GabeMc (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now swapped out File:Paul, George & John.png for File:The Beatles in America.JPG, a public domain image. — GabeMc (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. --Noleander (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Paul McCartney during a Wings concert, 1976.jpg - Okay.
- File:Ringo Starr e Paul Mcartney - E3 2009.jpg - Okay
- File:Paul McCartney live in Dublin.jpg - Okay
- File:Paul McCartney landmines campaign.jpg - Okay
- File:Paul McCartney with Linda McCartney - Wings - 1976.jpg - Okay; although I do not have access to OTRS so I cannot validate that aspect.
- File:Paul McCartney on stage in Prague.jpg - Okay
- File:Mccartney gershwin.png - I dont see an explicit statement that the photographer/videographer is a US govmt employee. The image is on a govmt site: but who is the photographer?
- This is a tough one. All the other images on this site are credited to "Official White House Photo by Samantha Appleton". The image in question, is actually a screenshot from a video credited to www.whitehouse.gov, though clearly PBS was also involved in the filming or maybe just the airing. So is the screenshot the property of PBS or the White House? If you think it would be better to just remove it and/or replace it with one from the same source yet explicitly credited to Samantha Appleton I cetainly will. — GabeMc (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it is probably safer to just use one of the still photos from that web site, since the photographer is named. --Noleander (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the only other two images on the site that include McCartney aren't that useful, and the section really does not need another image anyway, I deleted File:Mccartney gershwin.png from the article to resolve this concern. GabeMc talk, 07:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it is probably safer to just use one of the still photos from that web site, since the photographer is named. --Noleander (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a tough one. All the other images on this site are credited to "Official White House Photo by Samantha Appleton". The image in question, is actually a screenshot from a video credited to www.whitehouse.gov, though clearly PBS was also involved in the filming or maybe just the airing. So is the screenshot the property of PBS or the White House? If you think it would be better to just remove it and/or replace it with one from the same source yet explicitly credited to Samantha Appleton I cetainly will. — GabeMc (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Paul McCartney Arms.svg - Okay.
End Noleander image review. --Noleander (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your time and helpful advice. GabeMc talk, 07:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (by contributor) - I've been helping out a little with this FAC, but since none of my contributions have been very significant (mostly punctuation fixes, in fact), I believe I'm qualified to !vote. The article has greatly improved in the past few weeks, and I believe it now meets all the Featured Article criteria. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot check Having failed to complete my editorial comments above (pressure of other things, and not reluctance), I think I owe it to the nominator to volunteer to do the requested spot check of sources. I shall be at the British Library on Thursday this week, and will order the necessary books. If anyone else gets in first I shall make way. Tim riley (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Later: I have ordered Harry 2002 The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia, Benitez 2010 The Words and Music of Paul McCartney: The Solo Years and MacDonald 2005 Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties. Review to follow on Thursday. Tim riley (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Tim Riley! ~ GabeMc (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While a lot of hard work has obviously gone into the substance, this article requires a serious, thorough copyedit. It is just chockful of grammatical errors (punctuation appears to be a particular problem). There are also many instances of poor handling of quotes. Here's a typical example of a problem that occurs at least a dozen times:
MacDonald considers McCartney's Mellotron intro on "Strawberry Fields Forever" a "main feature" of the song's "texture".
Quoting things as simple as "main feature" and "texture"—and two of those in a single sentence? That may be suitable for a Zagat guide, but not an encyclopedia article. Again, that's one example of many. N.B.: I happened to pull that example from the very brief Keyboards subsection, in which there are no less than five grammatical errors, most of them involving punctuation. An outside copyeditor needs to be brought in to give the whole thing a fresh eye.—DCGeist (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to comment DCGeist! I agree and I've fixed (with a paraphrase) the specific example you gave above and I would be happy to fix any other specific examples you are willing to bring to my attention. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I will go through the article tonight and paraphrase as many unneeded quotes as I can. I'll also work on the punctuation issues you've mentioned, though I must admit that I find your comment in that regard somewhat vague as to what specifically is in error, RE:punctuation. Any specific examples and suggestions you are willing to provide would be most helpful. Thanks again! ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Since your above comment from the 25th, I've gone through the article top to bottom, and I've paraphrased as much of the quoted material that seemed to need paraphrasing. I don't really see any more of the "quote" issue you commented on above, but if you see anymore, please do let me know so that I may resolve the issue. Thanks again for your contribution to this FAC. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that, with one exception, all of the grammatical errors in the sample Keyboards subsection have been corrected. It's not clear to me if you or GoingBatty are responsible for the corrections. At any rate, if you wish, I can recommend to you a few online guides to proper comma usage. The improper use of commas was the primary grammar problem I saw in Keyboards, and I continue to observe it (along with other misused punctuation) throughout the article.
- For the moment, here is the remaining error in Keyboards, which resulted from an attempt to correct a misused comma:
McCartney played piano on several Beatles songs including: "Every Little Thing", "She's a Woman"...and "The Long and Winding Road".
- Except for series that encompass one or more grammatically complete clauses, use either a colon or an expression such as such as, for example, or including, but not both to introduce a series. In the present case, either of the following would be grammatically correct:
McCartney played piano on several Beatles songs including "Every Little Thing", "She's a Woman"...and "The Long and Winding Road".
McCartney played piano on several Beatles songs: "Every Little Thing", "She's a Woman"...and "The Long and Winding Road".
- I hope your efforts to recruit a copyeditor to go over the whole piece pan out.—DCGeist (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the specific tip DCGeist, I am sure it will prove helpful. I would appreciate links to any online guides you find useful. I'll go through the article with that specific tip in mind, thanks again! ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope your efforts to recruit a copyeditor to go over the whole piece pan out.—DCGeist (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Source spot-check
I have checked for accuracy of citation and innocence of close paraphrase against Benitez, Macdonald, and Harry (2002).
- Benitez: 6, 8, 38, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 77, 80, 81, 82, 117, 139, 159, 161 and 171 – all fine
- MacDonald: 137, 138, 148, 150, 152, 153, 158, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 175 and 177 – all fine
- Harry 2002: 1, 6, 16, 29, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 79, 88, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100, 103, 104, 105, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121, 174, 178, 186, 200, 202, 203, 216, 217, 218, 219, 256, 257, 258, 259, 262, 265, 266, 267, 268, 280, 282, 287, 288, 294, 296, 298, 326, 329, 331 and 332 – I admit to a certain amount of skipping towards the end of this very large sample, but I checked the majority against the source.
The only query I have is at ref 71, where, unless I'm looking straight through it, the source does not say that this was PMcC's first time singing Beatles songs with Wings, nor that there was a 2-hour set list.
- RE: Harry, 2002, p.848–50. On page 848, he writes "a two hour show with approximately 30 numbers". You are correct to say that Harry does not explicitly state that this was the first time Macca played Beatles songs live, but he does include his set-lists from prior tours that include no Beatles songs, and the set-list he provides for the tour in question does in fact contain five Beatles songs. Also, Ingham, 2009, p.106, states that in the previous tour, the band "scupulously avoid[ed] Beatles songs", and on p.107, while describing the tour in question, he writes: "featuring a modest handful of McCartney's Beatle tunes". Also, McGee, 2003, p.85 states: "Paul decided it would be a mistake not to ... [perform] a few Beatles songs". In Blaney, 2007, p.116: "And for the first time, McCartney included songs associated with the Beatles, something he'd been unwilling to do previously". I've added these sources as in-line cites to the statement in question, which I believe resolves this isssue. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. Thanks for taking the time to help! ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. Tim riley (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: Harry, 2002, p.848–50. On page 848, he writes "a two hour show with approximately 30 numbers". You are correct to say that Harry does not explicitly state that this was the first time Macca played Beatles songs live, but he does include his set-lists from prior tours that include no Beatles songs, and the set-list he provides for the tour in question does in fact contain five Beatles songs. Also, Ingham, 2009, p.106, states that in the previous tour, the band "scupulously avoid[ed] Beatles songs", and on p.107, while describing the tour in question, he writes: "featuring a modest handful of McCartney's Beatle tunes". Also, McGee, 2003, p.85 states: "Paul decided it would be a mistake not to ... [perform] a few Beatles songs". In Blaney, 2007, p.116: "And for the first time, McCartney included songs associated with the Beatles, something he'd been unwilling to do previously". I've added these sources as in-line cites to the statement in question, which I believe resolves this isssue. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. Thanks for taking the time to help! ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise I am most impressed with the precision and clarity of the citations. – Tim riley (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the compliment, and for your time and thoroughness Tim Riley! Much appreciated! ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Noleander
- Lead
- Quote attrib? - "Guinness World Records as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles, and "the most successful songwriter" ..." - It is good to attrib subjective opinions like this; but do both quotes come from Guinness?
- Yes, both quotes are from Guinness. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Childhood
- Wording: "..., where his mother, Mary (née Mohin), had twelve years earlier qualified to practise as a nurse...." - The 'had 12 yrs earlier" seems a bit awkward. Maybe simpler just to say "His mother was a nurse" or similar. The 12 yrs may cause more problems than it solves.
- Great suggestion, I believe this is now resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence too long: - "Paul has one brother, Michael, born 7 January 1944, and though they were baptised in their mother's Roman Catholic faith, religion was not emphasised in their household; Jim was a Protestant turned agnostic who felt Catholic schools sacrificed the education of their students for the sake of their religious teachings." - Break into 2: (1) he had a brother; and (2) religion was not emphasized because agnostic, although they were baptized. Not reversal of sequence in latter.
- Fixed (by another editor). ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: " By 1952, he was at Joseph Williams Junior School." - Odd wording. Just say "He attended JWJS from 19xx to 19xx" or similar.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And then?: "he met George Harrison, who had also passed .." - Did they start a friendship at that point? Did they attend the same school? GH is mentioned then dropped.
- Good point. I've fleshed out some detail there, to make it clear that the two became friends right off. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "McCartney's father was a trumpet player and pianist who encouraged his sons to be musical, having led Jim Mac's Jazz Band in the 1920s ..." - The phrase "having led" is awkward: leading the JMJB is not a direct cause of encouragement. Suggest reword to be simpler.
- Great suggestion, I believe this issue is now resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Verbose: "guitar and, after some adjustments, .." - Not sure "after some adjustments" is needed.
- Agreed, I removed the text string "after some adjustments". ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "and has stated that Little Richard was his idol .." - The "has" is not needed. May be better as "and Little Richard was his idol ..."
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quarrymen
- Define: "and his skiffle band, " - Most readers (US?) will not know that term: can a couple words be added here to explain so those readers dont have to click on the link?
- Actually, skiffle originated in the US so the assumption that US readers will be ignorant about it is like saying UK readers will need Jazz or Blues music explained to them. Also, the Quarrymen played a mix of skiffle and rock-n-roll, not only skiffle tunes, so to call them a skiffle band is not as accurate a description as could be IMO. At any rate, per your suggestion, I've copyedited the section for balance, and I've added some detail on what skiffle is, and made clear that rock-n-roll was also a significant aspect of the Quarrymen repertoire. Though really, this does seem to beg the question, "why not explain what rock and roll is as well". So this addition could lead to excessive detail, we shall see. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "recruited prior to the first of five engagements ..." - No need to say "the first". May be simpler to write "recruited before a five-engagement tour of Germany" or similar.
- Fixed. Though for clarification, they weren't touring Germany, they were booked as a resident band in Hamburg. I think this is made clear in the article now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 60-70
- Wording: "From August 1960, the Beatles were booked by Allan Williams to perform in Hamburg." - Confusing. Was AW their agent starting in 1960? Hamburg was a single event, true, so "From 1960.." doesnt apply to a single event. Maybe rewrite as "They were represented by agent AW starting in 1960. His first booking for them was a series of performances in Hamburg extending over a 2 year period..."
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: " Their fans' frenetic glorification became known as "Beatlemania"; during which McCartney was dubbed the "cute Beatle"." - "during which" requires a time span. But " frenetic glorification" is more of an attitude than a time span. Rewrite as "known as BM. McCartney was dubbed the CB because ... ". See if sources explain why he was considered cute, or at least ID the first person to do so.
- Correct me here if I am wrong, but isn't the time span for BM established in the preceeding sentence? "they became increasingly popular in the UK in 1963 and in the US a year later", also I think why he was dubbed the "cute Beatle" is self-explanatory, not? If Macca were called the "tall Beatle", or the "short Beatle" or the "big Beatle" then this would be easier to quantify. As far as finding the first person ever to refer to Macca as the "cute Beatle", well, that sounds like a wild-goose chase to me. Sure, I'll look for it, and I'll do my best to find it, but I'm not gonna spend hours and hours on this one trivial bit, hope you understand. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Double negative?: " their first recording that did not include more than one band member." - Rewrite as ".. their first recording that involved only a single band member."
- I agree, great suggestion, this is now fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Importance: " After the song's recording McCartney contacted the BBC Radiophonic Workshop in Maida Vale, London, to inquire about recording an electronic version of the song; he never followed up." - It seems odd to have a fact about what did not happen. Either remove, or explain why that is significant: was the absence of an electr version later important to the band? If so, why?
- I removed insignificant material per your suggestion. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Too long: "When visiting artist friend John Dunbar's flat in London, McCartney would bring along tapes he had compiled at then girlfriend Jane Asher's home, mixes of various songs, musical pieces and comments made by McCartney that Dick James made into a demo for him." - Too much going on. Break this into 2 or 3 discrete thoughts.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Grammar: "...and splicing the various loops together, which he referred to as "electronic symphonies"." - This implies that the individual loops (pieces) were called symphonies; when you mean the final spliced product was called that. Reword.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ellipses? - You have two adjacent quotes: "a neoclassical tour de force"; "a true hybrid, conforming to no recognizable style or genre of song." - if those are from the same source, it is much better to use ellipses ... between them, in a single set of quote marks.
- I agree, and normally I would have, but in this case, the quote frags are 52 pages apart in the book. Can we omit 52 pages and use ellipses to connect them. I've fixed this per your suggestion, until further clarification, assuming you are correct in this instance. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Movie? - "... the group were filmed for a promotional trailer for the animated film Yellow Submarine, " - Was is more emphasis placed on the trailer vs the feature length movie?
- The Beatles had absolutely nothing to do with the feature film other than the trailer, and the film's use of four unreleased recordings (among the other Beatle songs used in the film). What detail if any, would you suggest I add here? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Identify subject: "Generally admired by critics for its visual style, humour and music, seven months later, the film's soundtrack album was issued to a less enthusiastic response." - The "greatly admired" is referring to the subject of the prior sentence: but the target should be re-identified in this sentence. Also, is "greatly admired" referring to the trailer or the full movie?
- Fixed (by another editor). ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hackneyed: "relations within the band were deteriorating quickly,.." - no need for "quickly" here.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Repetative: " the situation became particularly strenuous during the recording of The Beatles, commonly known as The White Album, and especially the following ..." - No need to say "particularly" or "especially" - too editorial. Just state the facts (specific arguments or differences of viewpoint or quotes) and let the reader figure it out.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Detail? - "McCartney soon found himself pitted against his bandmates, leading him to .." - If the band was just disintegrating (all 4 equally responsible) need to reword. But if it really was 1-against-3, then a few words of explanation are required here: What specifically about Pauls vision/behavior were the other 3 opposed to?
- I think this is now sufficiently detailed, let me know if you think it requires more details. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who? - "McCartney's representation, his in-laws the Eastmans, .." - Did an entire family represent him legally? Better to name an individual, if there was one.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Detail: - "stating that unresolved legal disputes would make him "feel like a complete hypocrite waving and smiling with [Harrison and Starr] at a fake reunion." - If PM was not on speaking terms with 2 or 3 of the band members from 1970 to 1988, that should be mentioned explicitly.
- It's not as simple as, "PM was not on speaking terms with 2 or 3 of the band members from 1970 to 1988", at various times during that period, he was on speaking terms with all three, just not specifically in 1988 when an active lawsuit was pending. To accurately document when Macca was and when Macca wasn't speaking to G, J, or R, and the various sporadic lawsuits filed against each other and others would require a topical article of it's own, IMO, perhaps this should be covered with the appropriate amount of detail at the Beatles, or the Beatles lawsuits. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Confusing: "Before their break-up in 1970 they produced what some critics consider to be their finest material, .." - Implies that they produced (joint?) material after the breakup. Are you trying to compare their solo works after the breakup with the joint works before? If so, clarify.
- I think this is now clarified and fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Parenthesis: " which was the band's most successful single.." - Try to put that in parenthesis, so it doesnt interrupt the list so much.
- Fixed, I just removed the clause as the commercial success of "Hey Jude" is well covered later in the article. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1970–1981
- Wording: " in which the band played almost entirely Wings and McCartney solo material with the exception of a few covers," - The word "almost" can be omitted, since "with the exception" covers that.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who? - "Recorded in 1973, after the departure of guitarist Henry McCullough and drummer .." - It seems strange to name musicians not involved; wouldn't it be more useful to name their replacements?
- Thing is, they were not replaced for the album of which the graph is speaking to, BOTR, but you make a great point about the lack of clarity there, so I believe I have now resolved this issue with a graph restructure. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Album? - "McCartney released Thrillington, an orchestral ... " - Add word "album" so readers dont think it is a single piece.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Change? - " that included the live début of the Beatles songs ..." - It sounds like there was a major shift from "avoid playing B songs" to "it is okay to play a few". Do the sources say when that change happened? or why?
- Yes they do. The article makes clear that it was during Wings' 1975-76 tour that Macca was first willing to play Beatles songs live, "The tour marked the first time McCartney was willing to perform Beatles songs live". The "why" part is less clear, though one of the cites for the claim, McGee 2003, p. 85 says: "Paul decided it would be a mistake not to ... [perform] a few Beatles songs". I could certainly add more detail there if you think it's needed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Needed? - "The album also contained the songs "Waterfalls", "Temporary Secretary" and "One of These Days".[81]" - Not sure that sentence is helpful.
- Fixed, removed unhelpful sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why attribute? - "According to Benitez, by 1979, McCartney felt he had accomplished ..." - The attribution to Benitez is awkward; can it be eliminated? or is there some dispute or POV about the observation?
- I agree, and I removed the unneeded attribution. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1982–1990
- Wording: "what would be McCartney's most recent US number one .." - What does "most recent" mean here? Does that mean his final #1 (as of 2012)? If so, reword to make clearer.
- The "most recent" language comes from User:Wasted Time R's above FAC suggestion that the article needs to make clear when Macca's most recent hits were. You can view the subsequent discussion here with them here, which occured when another editor, User:Evanh2008 questioned this language at the McCartney talk page based on WP:RECENT. Do you recommend changing "most recent" to "as of 2012", or adding "as of 2012" while retaining "most recent"? ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dated: "The Pipes of Peace LP is McCartney's most recently recorded RIAA certified .." - reword so wont be out of date if he records another. See WP:DATED.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dated: " the song is McCartney's most recent US top-ten single. "
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: "released Снова в СССР, a Russia-only album ..." - does that mean released only in Russia? or in the russian language? Maybe say "an album released only in Russia .."
- Clarified. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Long sentence: " In 1989 he joined forces with fellow Merseysiders Gerry Marsden of Gerry and the Pacemakers and Holly Johnson of Frankie Goes to Hollywood to record an updated version of "Ferry Cross the Mersey" to generate money for the appeal fund of the Hillsborough disaster, which occurred in April that year when ninety-five Liverpool F.C. fans died as a result of their injuries." Break in two? Consider dropping the two band names.
- Fixed via trimming, I don't think it still needs to be broken in two, please correct me if I am wrong. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dated: " remains McCartney's most recent UK number-one album".
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 91-2000
- "In 1991 McCartney ventured into orchestral music, when.." - I think the comma should be removed.
- Rephrased. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "He collaborated with Carl Davis to release Liverpool Oratorio; .." - (1) say "composer Carl Davis"; (2) "release" is not the best verb for a live classical premier: try "mount" or "produce" or ??
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Grammar: " He collaborated with Carl Davis to release Liverpool Oratorio; involving opera singers..." - Break into 2 sentences at the semicolon. Maybe "The performance featured opera singers ...". Also, if it was never performed live again, perhaps that could be mentioned?
- Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now also mentions that after the London premier, it was performed around the world, and that it was a UK #1 classical album. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- " In response, McCartney wrote a defensive letter to the paper, which they published, where he states: " - (1) I'd remove "defensive" and let the letter speak for itself; (2) "states" - Should be past tense; (3) "wrote" and "published" are repetitious. How about "The paper published a letter McCartney submitted in response in which he stated: ..."
- Great suggestion, now implemented. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First? - "which released their first electronica album together, .." - Was it their only? "first" implies multiple. ... Ah, I see there is another one in year 2000. Never mind.
- Never minded. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: " ... was followed by the New World Tour, which produced the LP Paul Is Live later that year." - Produced is ambiguous in a music context. Consider "generated" or "occasioned" or "gave rise to".
- Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Inform vs happen: "and in December 1996 he was informed that he was to be named in the 1997 New Year Honours and knighted for services to music. His ceremony took place in March 1997." - Unless there is a good reason, I would drop the 1996 informing & only state the fact of the 1997 ceremony.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dated: " His latest UK top-ten album, it ..."
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- " something he said he had planning for years" - Remove "he said" unless there is some suspicion of POV or inaccuracy.
- Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove commas: "He contributed a song, "Nova", to a tribute album ..." - Consider "He contributed the song "Nova" to ... ".
- Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Long sentence: "In May 2000 he was awarded a Fellowship by the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors, and in August he released the electronica album, Liverpool Sound Collage with Super Furry Animals and Youth, utilising the sound collage and musique concrète techniques that fascinated him in the mid-1960s." - Break into two.
- Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2001-pr
- Wording: "Having witnessed the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks from the .." - Would it be better as "After witnessing the .."?
- I agree. Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Long sentence: "Having witnessed the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks from the JFK airport tarmac, McCartney was inspired to take a lead role in organising the Concert for New York City, and his studio album release in November of that year, Driving Rain, included the song "Freedom", written in response to the tragedy." - Break into two at "City, and"; those are two separate thoughts & at least merit a semicolon.
- Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: "McCartney's top-grossing Driving World Tour included stops .." - (1) is that the same tour from the previous sentence? If so, introduce the name in the prior sentence; (2) What does "top grossing" mean? Top for for any artist in the year of 2003? Or top for PM's personal career?
- Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Year? - "He has also participated in the National Football League's Super Bowl, performing "Freedom" in the pre-game show for Super Bowl XXXVI[126] and headlining the halftime show at Super Bowl XXXIX" - Probably best for readers to state the year, not the SB number. As in "for 2004's SB " or "in the 2006 SB", etc. But it is not a big deal.
- I added the years. Super Bowls are idiomatically referred to by Roman numerals. Because the American football season covers two years, it would reduce clarity to use a term like "2002 Super Bowl". I think both the year and Roman numeral are useful, to clear things up for non-football fans and those outside the U.S. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "He has also participated in .." - (1) No need for "has"; (2) In general, the word "also" should be avoided, it usually adds nothing to an encyclopedia article. Everything is "also" to the event before it. Just omit "also" everywhere unless there is a compelling reason for it.
- Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambiguous: " the rock album Memory Almost Full followed in 2007 and in 2008, his third Fireman release.." - It reads as if the MAF album was released in two separate years.
- Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: " Among the last of the great classic rock artists who had not previously made their catalogue available online .." - better as "Among the last of the classic rock bands to make their music available online ...". Also, did PM have is solo work available on iTunes before 2010? or was it both the Beatles and his solo work that was withheld?
- Fixed wording. PM did have his solo work available on iTunes before 2010, at least since Memory Almost Full. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "In 2011 McCartney released the original orchestral score ..." - (1) no need for "original"; (2) The start of the sentence should indicate that it is for a ballet or dance. Maybe "In 2011, Mc wrote his first music for ballet, in collaboration with .PM. They wrote the score for OK, under a commission from ..." or similar.
- Tweaked. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tweked it a bit further, linking to Dance versus using ballet twice in the sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dated: "McCartney remains one of the world's top draws; ..."
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambiguous: " playing to over 100,000 people, his two performances .." - 100K each performance? or total?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Musicianship
- Simpler: "McCartney has stated that he does not use .." -> "Mc does not use .." unless some good reason
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Simpler: "bass during live shows and when recording, .." -> "bass, ..."
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When? ; ".. around this time for that reason .." - When is "this time?"
- Fixed/clarified. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "McCartney confirms the influence of Motown on his playing, in particular that of James Jamerson, whom he described as a hero and included with Brian Wilson as his most significant bass influences." - Reword to something like "McC was strongly influenced by Motown, in particular by JJ. McC was also influenced by [ describe here BW's style] BW." I presume BW is not Motown, so separate sentence is better.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Simpler: "He has also mentioned Stanley Clarke as a favourite bassist" -> "Another favorite bassist is SC".
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Acoustic
- Simpler: " on many, if not most of his acoustic recordings " -> " on many of his acoustic recordings"
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Electric
- Clarify: "McCartney said this of the song: "If I had to pick one electric guitar it would be this." - Shouldn't "song" be changed to "guitar"?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "He also contributed what .." - "also" not needed.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dated: "In recent years he has primarily used .."
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vocals
- looks good
- Thanks. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keyboards
- Clarify: "MacDonald considers the piano part in "Lady Madonna" as played in the style of Fats Domino and he describes "Let It Be" as having a gospel rhythm." - (1) "as played" is not optimal. Mabye "to be in the style of FD"; (2) Who is "he" refereing to: FD or MacDonald?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Drums
- Link - " the Beatles songs "Back in the U.S.S.R.", "Dear Prudence", " - should link DP song.
- Linked. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Early Influences
- Ambiguous: "Along with Perkins, McCartney calls Little Richard an idol .." - Do both Perkins and PM call LR an idol? Or does PM consider both Perkins and LR to be idols?
- Fixed/clarified. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Misleading: "McCartney calls Little Richard an idol and freely admits that his own penchant for the falsetto vocalization .." - "freely admits" should be used by talking about a shameful or sinister act, but this is talking about a legitimate artistic inspiration. Maybe replace with "McCartney calls Little Richard an idol whose falsetto voc inspired PM's own vocal techniques" or similar.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Creative outlets
- So what? - " he passed one subject – Art" - Need to know how many subjects, approx, there were total. Two? twenty?
- Removed, I can't pin down exactly how many exams he took, some sources say only two, and some sources say he passed English, not art. I added some similar detail with sourcing. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Awkward: "brought McCartney into contact with Barry Miles, whose underground newspaper, the International Times, McCartney helped to start." - Maybe better as "brought McCartney into contact with Barry Miles. PM later helped Miles start the u.n. IT." or similar. Or maybe the original is okay; not sure.
- I think this looks good now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Year? - "While living at then girlfriend Jane Asher's parent's house, .." - when is this?
- Clarified. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Year? - "He later wrote and released several pieces of modern classical .." - when?
- Fixed/clarified.
- Wording - " Queen Elizabeth II officially opened the ..." - Not sure "officially" is needed. Maybe "QEII presided over the opening of ..." or similar.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Painting
- Simplify: "In 1966, McCartney met gallery-owner Robert Fraser, whose flat was visited by many well-known artists, some of which McCartney met, including; Andy Warhol, Claes Oldenburg, Peter Blake, and Richard Hamilton, and it was at Fraser's flat where McCartney first learned about art appreciation." - probably should be a colon after "including". - Consider rewording to "In 1966, McCartney met gallery-owner Robert Fraser, and it was at Fraser's flat where McCartney first learned about art appreciation. Through Fraser [and other art scene venues] PM met A, B, C..".
- Reworded. Clarification request, according to User:DCGeist's FAC comment above, "Except for series that encompass one or more grammatically complete clauses, use either a colon or an expression such as such as, for example, or including, but not both to introduce a series.", so, what is best practice in that regard? ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that the semicolon was not correct. The colon is not ideal either. Best is "including A, B, .." without thee colon. --Noleander (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. Clarification request, according to User:DCGeist's FAC comment above, "Except for series that encompass one or more grammatically complete clauses, use either a colon or an expression such as such as, for example, or including, but not both to introduce a series.", so, what is best practice in that regard? ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Simplify: " The first UK exhibition of his work was opened in Bristol, England with more than 50 paintings on display. " - " The first UK exhibition of his work was 50 paintings [in a gallery] in Bristol, England."
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move: - "McCartney had previously believed that "only people that had been to art school were allowed to paint" – as Lennon had." - That sentence is probably better up at the start of the paragraph near the "started painting in 1983" sentence.
I agree, moved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambiguous: " he is the first major rock star in the world to do so." - first to design any stamp? or first to design stamps for Isle of Man?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: " Ono and McCartney presented art exhibitions in New York and London." - Were these joint exhibitions? Or separate but happened to be at the same time?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing
- Clarify: "his father was interested in crosswords and invited he and his brother" - Who is "he"? the father or PM?\
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: "about the death of his childhood friend, Ivan Vaughan." - Did IV die in childhood? or in adulthood?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Film
- Clarify: " an interview by Mary McCartney with her father. " - Who was the interviewer & the interviewee?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- lifestyle
- Wording: "McCartney's introduction to drugs started in Hamburg, Germany; ..." - Introductions are events and should not "start". Better as "McCartney's was introduced to drugs in Hamburg, Germany; "
- Thanks, great point. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: " when the Beatles would play for long hours they were often using Preludin to maintain energy, .." - try "They would often use Preludin to maintain their energy when performing for long periods of time."
- Again, fine suggestion, thanks for taking the time to teach me! Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who? - "when the Beatles were introduced to marijuana by Bob Dylan in a New York hotel room in 1964.[211] His use of the drug .." - Is "His use.." referring to Dylan or PM?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Simplify: "McCartney admits that he used the drug .." -> "McCartney used the drug .."
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Girlfriends & Wives
- " he had become involved with another woman, Francie Schwartz. .." - I take it FS does not warrant her own paragraph here?
- No she does not, there involvement together was limited to a brief sexual fling, she is not notable. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "see artists such as: Fabian, Bobby Darin, .. " - No need for a colon here.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Beatles
- Move footnote: "On 24 April 1976,[296] the two were watching an episode .." - Move FN 296 to end of sentence.
- Rewords: "In McCartney's effort to avoid talking with him only about business, they often spoke of cats, baking bread, or babies." - Awkward. Rewrite: "In an effort to avoid ..." ?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Improve? "He was later criticised for what appeared, when published, to be a superficial response: "It's a drag".[296] He later explained, .." - Maybe: "He responded "It's a drag". He was later criticised for what appeared to be a superficial response. He later explained .."
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Improve: "Harrison said this about working with McCartney: .." - The "said this" doesnt sound correct to me. Maybe: "Discussing his relationship with Mc, Harrison said: .."
- Great suggestions, this is now fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? - "Harrison spent his last days in a Hollywood Hills mansion that was once leased by McCartney." - Unless PM donated the building for Harrison's use, that seems confusing & misleading. Implies charity, when it may have been just coincidence.
- Good point, trivial datum removed, issue resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No attrib needed: "According Harry, Starr once described ..." - No need to attribute to H unless there is some bias or dispute involved. The attribution interrupts the flow.
- I agree, this is now fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Recognition
- Pronoun? - " from the Guinness Book of Records Hall of Fame, who presented him .." - Should that be "which presented him" ?
- I agree, fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move parenthetical comment: "In the US, as a songwriter or co-writer, McCartney is included on 32 number-one singles " -> move ", as a songwriter or co-writer, " after the "singles".
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote? - "Although Elvis Presley has achieved the most UK number-ones as a solo artist with eighteen" - No need to mention records that are held by others. Suggest move this into a footnote.
- Moved to Notes section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No quote: "the "Fab Four" to receive a .." - I believe quotes are not needed there, since it is a very common nickname (vs quoting a specific individual's statement).
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Business
- Clarify: "..making him Britain's highest media earner." - What is a "media earner"? Someone who is paid in books? Maybe "highest income within the media professions" or similar.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: "... with Parlophone and Capitol retaining label billing." - What does that mean?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who released: " continued to be released by Apple Records until Wings' "Junior's Farm"/"Sally G" single,.." - If not Apple, who released JFSG?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain: "Despite the lack of publishing rights to most of his Beatles songs, McCartney continues..." - This seems like an important fact that should be higher up in the Business section, instead of buried in the final paragraph. I'm not a music person, and I do not quite grasp this. Add more words to explain. Maybe "From 1963 to 1968, when the B published most of their hits, the rights to publish their songs where sold/given to NL. As other artists recorded B songs, royalties were paid to NL, which passed on 1/3 to 1/2 to the individual members of the Bs. NL was sold to MJ, and then to Sony. As of 2012, the B catalog is still owned by Sony." I don't know what I'm talking about here, but you get the idea.
- I guess I disagree a bit on this one, and to me, it's nice right at the end to wrap up the story. I believe the two graphs in the sub-section spell out the situation well. It's buried in the last graph, and not higher up in the Business section because essentially, Macca had little or nothing to do business wise with NS, other than writing songs published by them, and temporarily owning some of their stock. He has since only reduced his business position in NS, now defunct/absorbed by Sony/ATV. Please correct me if you disagree, I would be happy to add deatil to improve the section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusion
- Great article! Leaning to Support, once the above are addressed.
- Thanks for the compliment, and the thorough and insightful review. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to help out Noleander, your comments are much appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – the edits made in response to the many suggestions above have much improved the prose of this article – just about enough to meet the FAC standard, I think – and there was never any doubt about the comprehensiveness and depth of the research. I was particularly impressed by the nominator's method of citing references, which is probably the clearest I have run across (I may have to rethink my own methods after this) and makes plain for all to see how thoroughly the nominator has absorbed his/her sources and set the information out accessibly and logically. Well done! Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from JG66
Hi GabeMc. A few specific points about the text, which reads pretty well for the most part, I think:
- Under The Quarrymen, does "St. Peter's Church" need the point in St − seems very American English.
- Good catch, they wouldn't use that point in the UK. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there really any need to define skiffle? There's a link to the genre of course, and the definition bogs down the discussion, in my opinion.
- It was added at the specific request of another reviewer, so I'm not sure what I should do with this one. FTR, I'm fine either way, but it's also not too ridiculous to educate the reader here in what is a realtively small section anyway. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, it's not too ridiculous, and I understand it's not easy when another reviewer has suggested something different. No big deal, but I wonder whether the sentence might read better without the bit explaining "that originated as a musical form in the US in the first half of the twentieth century". Just a thought. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I kinda like the "made in the US" bit, as I think many readers assume skiffle originated in the UK, and because it makes clear that the Quarrymen's repertoire consisted of rock & roll and skiffle, both with origins in the US. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, it's not too ridiculous, and I understand it's not easy when another reviewer has suggested something different. No big deal, but I wonder whether the sentence might read better without the bit explaining "that originated as a musical form in the US in the first half of the twentieth century". Just a thought. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was added at the specific request of another reviewer, so I'm not sure what I should do with this one. FTR, I'm fine either way, but it's also not too ridiculous to educate the reader here in what is a realtively small section anyway. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a hyphen necessary in "mid-August 1960"? It wouldn't be needed if the timespan were "early" or "late" August 1960.
- Good catch, fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Under The Beatles, not quite sure what "upon returns to Liverpool at the Cavern Clujb" means. The "upon returns" phrase jars somewhat.
- Clarified, I believe. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are a few specifics, but more generally:
- The Beatles
- The segue from "Yesterday" discussion into the one regarding visiting John Dunbar's flat comes as a bit of a surprise; a definite hiccup, so to speak. Seeing that the text goes from a such a speedy, generalised approach in the previous paragraph and through the previous sentences in this one, it feels like we get bogged down in the tapes discussion. I can't help thinking that a very brief mention of McCartney's early experimental work is needed here, and then a more detailed subsection for these experiments could be included under Musicianship. As I say, the change in pace is very noticeable.
- Good point. I agree, and others have mentioned it as well. The material is much better as a Musicianship sub-section, and it is one now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another factor in this issue is that while some detail has been given to Mac's experiments with backwards tapes, there is no actual mention of "We Can Work It Out", Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's until the very end of the Beatles subsection. I know that MacDonald and others have noted how Mac was distracted to some extent during 1964 by his relationship with Jane Asher, while Lennon dominated the songwriting at that point, so it's a surprise to see those Beatles works not getting a mention earlier in the article − they're works where Mac really stated a claim to greatness, no? This becomes increasingly more obvious, as Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine each get a surprising amount of attention. Just a suggestion, but I think the text at this point should discuss Mac's growing urbane sophistication (plenty in Miles, MacDonald, Sounes, etc); he's really the arty Beatle-about-town in '65−67. Rubber Soul, Revolver etc could be given as examples of this change.
- I mentioned "We Can Work it Out" earlier in the section. As far as more details on specific albums, I hate to invoke sub-articles, but that all sounds like stuff that should be covered in detail at the Beatles, or the appropriate album/song page. This overview article is already getting bogged down in detail a bit, IMO. As far as Macca's "claim to greatness". That sounds like WP:NPOV territory to me. His nightlife around London was absolutely typical of any musician his age, at the time, and not particularly notable. Also, some aspects are covered in other sections, if you read the whole article, in totality, that picture is painted, if somewhat vaguely. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm sorry − "We Can Work It Out" was there all along. Perhaps I didn't express myself properly, though, in my comments about McCartney's increasing sophistication and its reflection in The Beatles' music. I was referring to Mac's mixing in circles that included Robert Fraser, John Dunbar, Tara Browne, Michelangelo Antonioni, via the Ashers − yes, this was very typical of musicians then, but the point is (as acknowledged by McCartney, Miles, MacDonald and Sounes) he was the only Beatle fully exposed to this influence, living full-time in London and being unmarried and without children. I agree the level of detail in this section needs to be limited, but I'd still say a sentence or two covering this mid-period Beatles development very generally would be a useful addition. Looking back in the article's edit history to about four days ago (wow, you've been busy!), I can see you led from discussion on "Yesterday" to a mention of a possible electric version of the song and on to the recently deleted point about Mac visiting Dunbar and making experimental tapes; while it was right to lose that level of detail, what those extra two sentences did was segue nicely into the mention of "Paperback Writer" being "a satire of pop ambition" and "Eleanor Rigby", "a neoclassical tour de force", and the growing sophistication of McCartney's compositions during the period was implied over the three or more sentences without being stated directly. Now, along with those deleted details, the implication has gone, and I think something does need stating directly on the subject. (Certainly, the flow into that point about "Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby" seems a bit abrupt.) Again, the lack of any mention of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepp's until the very end of the section is very surprising, in my opinion. And if you are concerned about the article getting bogged down in detail, why those two sentences about the Magical Mystery Tour soundtrack's commercial fate, when "However, the film's soundtrack was more successful." pretty much covers the point? (Don't mean to push the issue − just wasn't sure you understood my original comment.) JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as this comment, please see your above comment, "The segue from "Yesterday" discussion into the one regarding visiting John Dunbar's flat comes as a bit of a surprise; a definite hiccup, so to speak. Seeing that the text goes from a such a speedy, generalised approach in the previous paragraph and through the previous sentences in this one, it feels like we get bogged down in the tapes discussion. I can't help thinking that a very brief mention of McCartney's early experimental work is needed here, and then a more detailed subsection for these experiments could be included under Musicianship. As I say, the change in pace is very noticeable." So I guess I'm a little confused and seem to be getting a mixed message here from you on this point. I'm not sure how that info could be chopped up while retaining meaning in the parts. FTR, the graph wasn't deleted, I moved it to a sub-section of Musicianship, as you suggested, so to also mention it in the Beatles section would be to introduce redundancy, not? More specifically, what do your suggest I add to the Beatles section that is not already covered in the Musicianship sub-section "Tape loops"? ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting difficult! No, of course, the tape-loops mention wasn't deleted altogether − but deleted (removed) from this section. I understand the message might appear mixed: to go into some detail regarding Dunbar, tape loops and their use in "Tomorrow Never Knows" (as you had it previously) did strike me as a noticeable change of pace, yes, something that could be avoided because you rightly include a section on Musicianship; a general mention of Mac blooming artistically during the Rubber Soul to Pepp's period, through his immersion in London's countercultural scene, might break what I referred to as a "speedy, generalised approach" (not much, though, I'd suggest, if handled deftly), but it is an important point to make in a subsection that serves as an overview of Paul McCartney's Beatles career. And I don't really see that there's any NPOV issues in that, or that any very general mention here might make a later discussion on tape loops redundant. To me, if I were to make a bulleted list of points to cover in this section, a rough sketch, its items would be exactly as you have it until the end of your discussion on "Yesterday". Next point(s) would be the mid-'60s phase culminating in Sgt Pepper's. To repeat and/or clarify what I wrote below last time around, I'm referring here (and in most of the points I raised, I think) to what comes to mind at a particular point in the article − in this case, as one reads about a year in the Beatles chronology: personally, I read the post-"Yesterday" text down to mention of Brian Epstein's death and wonder where discussion of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepper's has got to. Fine, there's an Oh good − there they are moment at the end of the subsection, before Wings, but back when one's reading about 1965−67, it feels like an obvious omission. Again, this feeling is exacerbated by the surprising level of detail given to Magical Mystery Tour: "Released in the UK as a six-track double extended play disc (EP), in the US the material was issued as an identically titled LP ... setting a record for the highest initial sales of any Capitol LP up to that point." (I mean, all up, three sentences discussing MMT's commercial fate ... And who/what is Capitol in the Paul Mac-Beatles story? Point two: he co-wrote "She Loves You", the biggest selling single in the UK for quite a while; the lack of that detail earlier on makes this MMT description even more out of place.) Yellow Sub to some degree also − the phrase "In early 1968, the group were filmed for a promotional trailer" seems unnecessary; the Mac-centric point which you include is that it was "a production based loosely on the imaginary world evoked by McCartney's 1966 composition". (Don't want to throw another spanner in the works, but now I'm wondering about the lack of a mention of "Hey Jude" in '68 ... I know, I'm sure someone else has said delete it!) But to rewind to what I was trying to say in my comment above this one, the sentences that have gone from this section over the last four or more days (possible electric version of "Yesterday"; Dunbar & tapes) did at least serve as a good segue into your discussion of "Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby", both in the flow of text and also in the implied message of growing sophistication in Mac's songwriting. (There was no explicit mention of Mac's artistic growth or of those '65−67 albums, no, but at least the message was implied.) What's left now is a jump into talking about two singles that weren't from the year discussed previously (1965) that doesn't seem like a natural progression. My suggestion is that the point about Mac's maturing as an artist now needs to be made explicitly somehow, incorporating mention of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepp's. As far as specific text to insert, all I could find − and it serves as inspiration rather than anything necessarily usable, I'm afraid − is from MacDonald p. 153, 1998 edn (discussing We Can Work It Out): "From now on, his partner [McCartney] would be in the ascendant not only as a songwriter, but also as instrumentalist, arranger, producer, and de facto musical director of The Beatles." Sorry, if I had a day to spare I'm sure I could do some research and come up with something succinct to plug the gap. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added summary material on Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper per your suggestions. I hope this resolves some, or maybe all of your concerns, at least with the Beatles section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, this article has really changed since I last looked at it a few days ago. I would really caution against repeating too much general Beatles history here. The material added on Rubber Soul, Revolver, the end of touring, Sgt. Peppers, etc is mostly not specific to McCartney. It is all material that readers can better find in The Beatles and the individual album articles. This section should be focused on McCartney's role in the Beatles. So to mention that McCartney was the driver behind Magical Mystery Tour is okay, but all the stuff about, say, how the recording process worked on Sgt. Peppers - why is that here? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasted, per your comment, "I would really caution against repeating too much general Beatles history here." Could the same be said for Wings? The added material speaks to the band's growth in general, and to Macca's increased leadership specifically. ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- McCartney was responsible for almost every aspect of Wings, so I don't have a problem in that respect. But with the Beatles, most of the changes described are just as much John's and George Martin's doing, and to a lesser extent George Harrison's. The reader who doesn't understand this will be misled by this text, and the reader who does understand it doesn't need to see it repeated here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be more specific with your criticisms. What info was added that does not directly pertain to McCartney, and what specific material do you suggest I remove? ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'll respectfully remind you of your above comments at this FAC Wasted Time R, "The "Wings" section is now longer than the "Beatles" section, which doesn't seem right.", "But I don't think I'd be the only reviewer who thinks that weighting the Wings section more heavily than the Beatles section is backwards". ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, currently the Beatles section contains 1968 words, the Wings section has 1440. So, I don't think this a WP:UNDUE issue, is it? ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of length. For example, instead of going on about how the Beatles did not play their Revolver material on tour – which was attributable to many factors and not McCartney specific – you could mention "For No One" and "Here There and Everywhere". The latter is McCartney's favorite of all the Beatles songs he wrote (at least in the interviews I've seen - he talks about the chordal pivot from the bridge back into the verse) and is currently unmentioned in the article. Instead of the long Emerick quote – and from the Lewisohn book I have the impression that it was John, not Paul, who was the driving factor behind trying to produce a different 'sound' in the studio using devices such as ADT – you could mention that "Penny Lane" was McCartney's reflection upon his Liverpool origins and that the distinctive piccolo trumpet part was his inspiration following seeing a Bach concert on TV (foreshadowing his classical music involvement). Also, is McCartney becoming the "de facto musical director of the Beatles" from 1965 on really a consensus view? I've never gotten this impression. This seems like one writer's opinion getting too much weight here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasted, per your comment, "I would really caution against repeating too much general Beatles history here." Could the same be said for Wings? The added material speaks to the band's growth in general, and to Macca's increased leadership specifically. ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, this article has really changed since I last looked at it a few days ago. I would really caution against repeating too much general Beatles history here. The material added on Rubber Soul, Revolver, the end of touring, Sgt. Peppers, etc is mostly not specific to McCartney. It is all material that readers can better find in The Beatles and the individual album articles. This section should be focused on McCartney's role in the Beatles. So to mention that McCartney was the driver behind Magical Mystery Tour is okay, but all the stuff about, say, how the recording process worked on Sgt. Peppers - why is that here? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added summary material on Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper per your suggestions. I hope this resolves some, or maybe all of your concerns, at least with the Beatles section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting difficult! No, of course, the tape-loops mention wasn't deleted altogether − but deleted (removed) from this section. I understand the message might appear mixed: to go into some detail regarding Dunbar, tape loops and their use in "Tomorrow Never Knows" (as you had it previously) did strike me as a noticeable change of pace, yes, something that could be avoided because you rightly include a section on Musicianship; a general mention of Mac blooming artistically during the Rubber Soul to Pepp's period, through his immersion in London's countercultural scene, might break what I referred to as a "speedy, generalised approach" (not much, though, I'd suggest, if handled deftly), but it is an important point to make in a subsection that serves as an overview of Paul McCartney's Beatles career. And I don't really see that there's any NPOV issues in that, or that any very general mention here might make a later discussion on tape loops redundant. To me, if I were to make a bulleted list of points to cover in this section, a rough sketch, its items would be exactly as you have it until the end of your discussion on "Yesterday". Next point(s) would be the mid-'60s phase culminating in Sgt Pepper's. To repeat and/or clarify what I wrote below last time around, I'm referring here (and in most of the points I raised, I think) to what comes to mind at a particular point in the article − in this case, as one reads about a year in the Beatles chronology: personally, I read the post-"Yesterday" text down to mention of Brian Epstein's death and wonder where discussion of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepper's has got to. Fine, there's an Oh good − there they are moment at the end of the subsection, before Wings, but back when one's reading about 1965−67, it feels like an obvious omission. Again, this feeling is exacerbated by the surprising level of detail given to Magical Mystery Tour: "Released in the UK as a six-track double extended play disc (EP), in the US the material was issued as an identically titled LP ... setting a record for the highest initial sales of any Capitol LP up to that point." (I mean, all up, three sentences discussing MMT's commercial fate ... And who/what is Capitol in the Paul Mac-Beatles story? Point two: he co-wrote "She Loves You", the biggest selling single in the UK for quite a while; the lack of that detail earlier on makes this MMT description even more out of place.) Yellow Sub to some degree also − the phrase "In early 1968, the group were filmed for a promotional trailer" seems unnecessary; the Mac-centric point which you include is that it was "a production based loosely on the imaginary world evoked by McCartney's 1966 composition". (Don't want to throw another spanner in the works, but now I'm wondering about the lack of a mention of "Hey Jude" in '68 ... I know, I'm sure someone else has said delete it!) But to rewind to what I was trying to say in my comment above this one, the sentences that have gone from this section over the last four or more days (possible electric version of "Yesterday"; Dunbar & tapes) did at least serve as a good segue into your discussion of "Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby", both in the flow of text and also in the implied message of growing sophistication in Mac's songwriting. (There was no explicit mention of Mac's artistic growth or of those '65−67 albums, no, but at least the message was implied.) What's left now is a jump into talking about two singles that weren't from the year discussed previously (1965) that doesn't seem like a natural progression. My suggestion is that the point about Mac's maturing as an artist now needs to be made explicitly somehow, incorporating mention of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepp's. As far as specific text to insert, all I could find − and it serves as inspiration rather than anything necessarily usable, I'm afraid − is from MacDonald p. 153, 1998 edn (discussing We Can Work It Out): "From now on, his partner [McCartney] would be in the ascendant not only as a songwriter, but also as instrumentalist, arranger, producer, and de facto musical director of The Beatles." Sorry, if I had a day to spare I'm sure I could do some research and come up with something succinct to plug the gap. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as this comment, please see your above comment, "The segue from "Yesterday" discussion into the one regarding visiting John Dunbar's flat comes as a bit of a surprise; a definite hiccup, so to speak. Seeing that the text goes from a such a speedy, generalised approach in the previous paragraph and through the previous sentences in this one, it feels like we get bogged down in the tapes discussion. I can't help thinking that a very brief mention of McCartney's early experimental work is needed here, and then a more detailed subsection for these experiments could be included under Musicianship. As I say, the change in pace is very noticeable." So I guess I'm a little confused and seem to be getting a mixed message here from you on this point. I'm not sure how that info could be chopped up while retaining meaning in the parts. FTR, the graph wasn't deleted, I moved it to a sub-section of Musicianship, as you suggested, so to also mention it in the Beatles section would be to introduce redundancy, not? More specifically, what do your suggest I add to the Beatles section that is not already covered in the Musicianship sub-section "Tape loops"? ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm sorry − "We Can Work It Out" was there all along. Perhaps I didn't express myself properly, though, in my comments about McCartney's increasing sophistication and its reflection in The Beatles' music. I was referring to Mac's mixing in circles that included Robert Fraser, John Dunbar, Tara Browne, Michelangelo Antonioni, via the Ashers − yes, this was very typical of musicians then, but the point is (as acknowledged by McCartney, Miles, MacDonald and Sounes) he was the only Beatle fully exposed to this influence, living full-time in London and being unmarried and without children. I agree the level of detail in this section needs to be limited, but I'd still say a sentence or two covering this mid-period Beatles development very generally would be a useful addition. Looking back in the article's edit history to about four days ago (wow, you've been busy!), I can see you led from discussion on "Yesterday" to a mention of a possible electric version of the song and on to the recently deleted point about Mac visiting Dunbar and making experimental tapes; while it was right to lose that level of detail, what those extra two sentences did was segue nicely into the mention of "Paperback Writer" being "a satire of pop ambition" and "Eleanor Rigby", "a neoclassical tour de force", and the growing sophistication of McCartney's compositions during the period was implied over the three or more sentences without being stated directly. Now, along with those deleted details, the implication has gone, and I think something does need stating directly on the subject. (Certainly, the flow into that point about "Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby" seems a bit abrupt.) Again, the lack of any mention of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepp's until the very end of the section is very surprising, in my opinion. And if you are concerned about the article getting bogged down in detail, why those two sentences about the Magical Mystery Tour soundtrack's commercial fate, when "However, the film's soundtrack was more successful." pretty much covers the point? (Don't mean to push the issue − just wasn't sure you understood my original comment.) JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned "We Can Work it Out" earlier in the section. As far as more details on specific albums, I hate to invoke sub-articles, but that all sounds like stuff that should be covered in detail at the Beatles, or the appropriate album/song page. This overview article is already getting bogged down in detail a bit, IMO. As far as Macca's "claim to greatness". That sounds like WP:NPOV territory to me. His nightlife around London was absolutely typical of any musician his age, at the time, and not particularly notable. Also, some aspects are covered in other sections, if you read the whole article, in totality, that picture is painted, if somewhat vaguely. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would remove or greatly condense: the Hamburg period description, "My Bonnie", "Love Me Do", the first list of albums, short promotional films/forerunner of videos, no Revolver in concerts/end of touring (end of touring is currently in three consecutive paragraphs!), the whole Emerick quote (this one doesn't demonstrate any McCartney connection any more than the other one, and I disagree re studio effects - John was obsessed with altering his voice, Paul never was), "Strawberry Fields", the detail on Magical Mystery Tour's commercial results, and the "Between 1965 and their break-up in 1970" sentence (redundant based on what's now before it). You will claim that some of these things, like the end of touring, are very important in band history ... sure, but so are many other things that you haven't included, like that the Beatles were the first band to write all their hit songs, play all their own instruments, put all good songs on albums instead of one or two singles and the rest filler, have high-quality album covers, revolutionize personal style with their long hair, showcase an original sense of humor in press conferences, set records that still hold for simultaneous hits on the US singles chart, have the first really good film vehicle, etc - and I'm only listing things from 1963 and 1964! You cannot possibly relate the whole story of the Beatles here, so my feeling is, don't try. Just relate the story of Paul in the Beatles. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, thanks anyway. If I removed all that material then the Wings section would be larger than the Beatles section, which you've said twice cannot happen. Also, please keep in mind, as I'm sure you already know, others edit the article, and others have made some great suggestions that led to content additions. So I would rather not disregard all comments by others, because you do not approve of the newer content. This is a community effort, which is good. Several people have given advice, diversity of opinion is a good thing. Also, I like the way it is now, sure, maybe a tweak or two, or three is needed, but hey, at the end of the day, you, I, have to like the article to put so many hours into editing it. I mean, if I can't use that little amount of space to summarize the most defining period of Macca's life, a full deade, then I'm fine with that. You are now arguing over about 3.5 medium sized paragraphs. There are currently 2089 words in the Beatles section (about 3.8 pages in a word.doc), and 1440 words in the Wings section (about 2.8 pages in "word"), so there is no issue with weighting as you seem to imply. For evidence of this, according to Lobo's comment below, the article is currently 14,000 words, so if 2,000 are dedicated to 10 years, then that means 1/7th of the article is dedicated to the most notable 1/7th of McCartney's life. As far as your comment, "Just relate the story of Paul in the Beatles." Well, I honestly believe I've done that, quite well if I do say so myself, with much help from my friends thankfully. I'll wait to hear from some fresh perspectives, but for now I just disagree with you, and I retain that right. I will copyedit with your suggestions in mind however. Thanks again. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi GabeMc. Here's what I've come up with as a guide for content and scope in the Beatles section. (Don't really know the protocol, so I've cut & pasted the whole section below, minus images.) I have to say, I mostly agree with what Wasted Time R has written, about there being way too many things in there that aren't Mac-specific at all. My suggestion about that all-important middle period ('65 to '67) was a couple of sentences, with one or two additional points later in the section perhaps − I'm not quite sure how it ended up leading to so much new info. (Wasted's right: talk of whether Revolver songs were played on tour, discussion on recording techniques used for Sgt Pepper's − that's all band-article material, or one on Geoff Emerick or George Martin, not a section within Mac's article.) Perhaps even more could be cut from this; on the other hand, maybe a few of Mac's album tracks need highlighting, as has been suggested most recently. (I was thinking of She's Leaving Home, personally.)
- Please note this really is a guide − so I've made no attempt to source anything new I might've added in the following text, but all statements are easy to source within the works you've used, I'm sure, certainly in the ones I've referred to in earlier comments. Also I've cut & pasted this from Word, so any new quote marks will be wonky no doubt, new links (if I've bothered adding them) may be out. The important thing from my point of view was the scope of the piece, not minor copy-editing points. PS. I realise the final line of the section has now been made redundant, but it's left in anyway for now. Anyway, hope all this is of some use ... JG66 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the effort, but really, your massive copy-paste (see below) is not appropriate here, or helpful to this FAC. It would have been much easier/appropriate to bullet point your specific suggestions for changes, versus copy-pasting the entire section here. 1) it really bogs down an already long FAC, 2) Since 95% of your copy-paste is from the current version of the article nearly verbatum, it gives the false impression that you are copyediting the entire section, or that the entire section needs a re-work IYO, versus the reality, which is that you are in fact suggesting extremely minor removals of material. I personally like the text as it now reads, but I will keep your suggestions in mind as I continue improve it. Thanks again. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, thanks anyway. If I removed all that material then the Wings section would be larger than the Beatles section, which you've said twice cannot happen. Also, please keep in mind, as I'm sure you already know, others edit the article, and others have made some great suggestions that led to content additions. So I would rather not disregard all comments by others, because you do not approve of the newer content. This is a community effort, which is good. Several people have given advice, diversity of opinion is a good thing. Also, I like the way it is now, sure, maybe a tweak or two, or three is needed, but hey, at the end of the day, you, I, have to like the article to put so many hours into editing it. I mean, if I can't use that little amount of space to summarize the most defining period of Macca's life, a full deade, then I'm fine with that. You are now arguing over about 3.5 medium sized paragraphs. There are currently 2089 words in the Beatles section (about 3.8 pages in a word.doc), and 1440 words in the Wings section (about 2.8 pages in "word"), so there is no issue with weighting as you seem to imply. For evidence of this, according to Lobo's comment below, the article is currently 14,000 words, so if 2,000 are dedicated to 10 years, then that means 1/7th of the article is dedicated to the most notable 1/7th of McCartney's life. As far as your comment, "Just relate the story of Paul in the Beatles." Well, I honestly believe I've done that, quite well if I do say so myself, with much help from my friends thankfully. I'll wait to hear from some fresh perspectives, but for now I just disagree with you, and I retain that right. I will copyedit with your suggestions in mind however. Thanks again. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
|
---|
The Beatles were represented by Allan Williams, their informal manager, starting in 1960.[1] Williams' first booking for them was a series of performances in Hamburg.[2] During their extended stays there over the next two years, they performed as the resident group at two of Bruno Koschmider's clubs, the Indra, then the Kaiserkeller. Periodically, the band received breaks from playing in Hamburg, and would return to Livepool, performing regularly at the Cavern Club.[3] In 1961, Sutcliffe left the band and McCartney reluctantly became their bass player.[4] The Beatles recorded professionally for the first time in Hamburg, performing as the backing band for English singer Tony Sheridan on the single "My Bonnie".[5] The recording would later bring them to the attention of a key figure in their subsequent development and commercial success, Brian Epstein, who became their manager in January 1962.[6] Epstein negotiated a record contract for the group with Parlophone that May.[7] After replacing Best with Ringo Starr in August and releasing their first hit, "Love Me Do", in October, they became increasingly popular in the UK in 1963 and in the US a year later. Their fans' frenetic glorification became known as "Beatlemania", during which McCartney was sometimes referred to by the press as the "cute Beatle".[8] In 1963 and 1964, the band released four studio LPs: Please Please Me, With the Beatles, A Hard Day's Night and Beatles for Sale.[9] McCartney's contributions to their early hits included "I Saw Her Standing There", "She Loves You", "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (1963), "Can't Buy Me Love" and "She’s a Woman" (1964), all of which were co-written with Lennon.[10] In 1965, the Beatles were appointed Members of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) by Queen Elizabeth II. The same year, they recorded the McCartney composition "Yesterday", featuring a string quartet. Included on the Help! LP, the song was the group's first recorded use of classical music elements and their first recording that involved only a single band member.[11] "Yesterday" later became the most covered song in popular music history.[12] By the end of 1965, with “We Can Work It Out” and the album Rubber Soul, McCartney had begun to usurp Lennon's role as the dominant musical force within the band. From that point on, musicologist Ian MacDonald writes, McCartney "would be in the ascendant not only as a songwriter, but also as instrumentalist, arranger, producer, and de facto musical director of the Beatles".[13] Rubber Soul is described by critics as a significant advancement in the refinement, and thematic profundity of the band's music.[14] The song "In My Life", of which both Lennon and McCartney claimed lead authorship, is widely considered a high point in the Beatles catalogue.[15] Recording engineer Norman Smith states that the Rubber Soul sessions exposed indications of increasing contention within the band, "the clash between John and Paul was becoming obvious", he writes, and "as far as Paul was concerned, George could do no right — Paul was absolutely finicky".[16] In 1966, one week before the start of the group's final tour, they released Revolver. Featuring sophisticated lyrics, studio experimentation, and an expanded repertoire of musical genres ranging from innovative classical string arrangements to psychedelic rock, the album marked an artistic leap forward for the Beatles.[17] The LP's release was preceded by the single "Paperback Writer", a McCartney composition which Beatles biographer Jonathan Gould describes as "a satire of pop ambition".[18] Revolver featured the McCartney song "Eleanor Rigby", which included a string octet. Described by Gould as "a neoclassical tour de force ... a true hybrid, conforming to no recognizable style or genre of song".[19] With the exception of some backing vocals, the song included only McCartney's lead vocal and the strings arranged by producer George Martin.[20] After touring almost non-stop for a period of nearly four years, and giving more than 1,400 live performances internationally, the group gave their final commercial concert at the end of their 1966 US tour.[21] Later that year, McCartney was commissioned for what would be his first musical project apart from the Beatles, a film score for the UK production, The Family Way. The score was a collaboration with Martin, who used two McCartney themes to write thirteen variations. The soundtrack failed to chart, but won McCartney an Ivor Novello Award for Best Instrumental Theme.[22] Sensing unease upon the end of the band's touring period, McCartney then pressured the other Beatles to start a new project, which eventually became Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.[23] Widely regarded as rock's first concept album, McCartney was inspired to create a new persona for the Beatles, a vehicle for experimentation, and to demonstrate to their fans that the band had matured as musicians.[24] McCartney explains, "we were fed up with being the Beatles. We really hated that fucking four little mop-top approach. We were not boys, we were men ... and [we] thought of ourselves as artists rather than just performers".[25] The band adopted an experimental attitude during the subsequent recording sessions for the album, beginning in November 1966.[26] The sessions produced the double A-side single "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane" in February 1967, and the LP, featuring the McCartney-penned title song, followed in June.[9] The Sgt. Pepper cover was based on an ink drawing by McCartney, depicting the Beatles standing in front of a wall featuring framed images of their heroes.[27]
~ John Lennon, Rolling Stone magazine, 1970 Epstein's death in August 1967, created a void, and the group was left perplexed and concerned about their future. McCartney, stepping in to fill that void, gradually became the de facto leader and business manager of the group Lennon had once led.[29] McCartney's first significant creative suggestion was to propose that the band move forward on their plans, to produce a film intended for television, which was to become Magical Mystery Tour. The project was "an administrative nightmare throughout", writes Beatles historian Mark Lewisohn.[30] The film—largely directed by McCartney—garnered the group's first significant antagonistic critical response.[31] However, the film's soundtrack was more successful: augmented with tracks from the band's 1967 singles and issued as an LP in the US that December, it set a record for the highest initial sales of any Capitol album up to that point.[32] The accompanying non-album single, “Hello Goodbye”, was written by McCartney, and he would likewise supply the A-sides for the Beatles’ next two singles, “Lady Madonna” and “Hey Jude”, both released during the following year. The band’s animated movie Yellow Submarine, a production based loosely on the imaginary world evoked by McCartney's 1966 composition, opened in cinemas in July 1968. Though the film was generally admired by critics for its visual style, humour and music, the movie's soundtrack album would be issued six months later to a less enthusiastic response.[33] From June through October 1968, relations within the band became particularly strained during the recording of The Beatles, commonly known as the White Album. It was the band's first Apple Records LP release, and the new label was a subsidiary of Apple Corps, formed as part of Epstein's business plan to provide the group tax relief.[34] Like the other Beatles, McCartney would increasingly use Apple as a vehicle for his extracurricular projects, producing and writing hit singles for the likes of Mary Hopkin and Badfinger. Tensions within the band increased in January 1969 during the Let It Be sessions, another film project instigated by McCartney, originally titled Get Back after his song of the same name. With McCartney alone in wanting the Beatles to return to live performance, he was filmed lecturing his bandmates: "We've been very negative since Mr. Epstein passed away ... we were always fighting [his] discipline a bit, but it's silly to fight that discipline if it's our own".[35] The resulting album and documentary film would be shelved until 1970, when their release would be accompanied by two more McCartney-penned hit singles in “Let It Be” and “The Long and Winding Road”. In March 1969, McCartney married Linda Eastman, and in August, the couple had their first child together, Mary, named after Paul's late mother.[36] For Abbey Road, which was to become the band's last recorded album, George Martin had suggested "a continuously moving piece of music", urging the group to think symphonically.[37] McCartney agreed, but Lennon opposed the idea. They eventually agreed upon McCartney's suggested compromise, featuring individual songs on side one, with side two including a long medley.[37] In October 1969, a rumour surfaced that McCartney had died in a car crash in 1966 and been replaced by a look-alike, but this was quickly proven false when a November Life magazine cover featured him and his family with the caption, "Paul is still with us".[38] By 1970, following business disagreements over the group's management, McCartney found himself pitted against his bandmates, leading him to announce his departure from the Beatles on 10 April.[39] He filed suit for the group's formal dissolution on 31 December 1970. More legal disputes followed, as McCartney's representation, his in-laws John and Lee Eastman, fought Lennon, Harrison and Starr's business manager Allen Klein over royalties and creative control of musical projects. The band was formally dissolved in an English court on 9 January 1975, though sporadic lawsuits against their record company EMI, Klein and each other persisted until 1989.[29] When the Beatles were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, their first year of eligibility, McCartney did not attend, stating that unresolved legal disputes would make him "feel like a complete hypocrite waving and smiling with [Harrison and Starr] at a fake reunion".[40] Between 1962 and 1970, the group released twenty-two UK singles and twelve LPs, of which seventeen of the singles and eleven of the LPs became number ones.[41] The band topped the US Billboard Hot 100 twenty times, and recorded fourteen number-one albums as Lennon and McCartney became one of the most celebrated songwriting partnerships of the 20th century.[42] Between 1965 and their break-up in 1970, they produced what some critics consider to be the band's finest material, including the innovative and widely influential albums Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles, and Abbey Road.[43] McCartney was the primary writer of five of their last six US number-one singles: "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Get Back (1969)", "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" (1970).[44] |
- There doesn't seem to be any mention of Apple, which was Mac's idea apparently − I'd think Apple's a pretty significant point in any of the ex-Beatles' stories. And wouldn't his work with early signings to the label merit a mention? Only George Harrison and Mac really followed up on Apple's original promise; in Mac's case, only for the first year or so., until Klein's arrival.
- Great suggestion, good catch, I've added some detail on Apple, and will add more as I find it, but for the record, Apple was part of Epstein's business plan, to avoid taxes, so I wouldn't exactly give Macca credit, even if it was in some way his "idea". ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the discussion of the 1968−69 period, I'm surprised at the the lack of a mention of George's emergence as a songwriter to rival Lennon-Mac − in fact, I think I'm right in saying that it's not until the Personal relationships/Beatles subsection that Harrison's even mentioned as a songwriter in the band, when in fact it's acknowledged that his emergence was a key factor in the their eventual demise.
- That's not even covered at the Beatles, currently a FA. This article is about Macca, not Harrison. Also, I seriously doubt Harrison's three or four high quality songs per year were "a key factor in the their eventual demise". ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I read something about it (the significance of Harrison's growth as a songwriter) in Herstgaard the other day and in a Rolling Stone Press book. That's a worry that it doesn't even merit a mention in the band article − logically, it affected the whole group dynamic, just as Yoko's arrival did. Anyway, yes, I take your point − not an issue that's needed here perhaps. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, Harrison coming into his own was certainly a factor in the break-up, I don't deny that, but there were so many factors that the material would bring WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues I predict, as well as bogging down the Macca article with excessive detail about Harrison. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I read something about it (the significance of Harrison's growth as a songwriter) in Herstgaard the other day and in a Rolling Stone Press book. That's a worry that it doesn't even merit a mention in the band article − logically, it affected the whole group dynamic, just as Yoko's arrival did. Anyway, yes, I take your point − not an issue that's needed here perhaps. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not even covered at the Beatles, currently a FA. This article is about Macca, not Harrison. Also, I seriously doubt Harrison's three or four high quality songs per year were "a key factor in the their eventual demise". ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- During the same period, you have mentions of Mac "lecturing the group" and that "relations within the band were deteriorating", but the overall impression underplays what he brought to the party. Both Harrison and Starr attribute their temporary walkouts to Mac; and he was buying up Northern Songs shares on the sly. These points are well documented, and if an article is hoping to be an FA, shouldn't it be prepared to cover some notable, more grubby details also? Again, as supported by numerous sources, he was a bossy so-and-so. Plus, while George and Ringo played with better musicians than Mac post-Beatles (and none of them seemed to have a problem), Mac had frequent changes of line-up in Wings. Glyn Johns, Dave Spinozza, Eric Stewart and Denny Laine are all on the record as saying how hard he was to work with, how he never listened to others' advice.
- So you want the article to make clearer that Macca "was a bossy so-and-so", I think if you read between the lines a little enough of that comes out. There are Starr and Harrison quotes to that effect, also Lennon's quotes aren't that flattering. The article has a quote from Macca "lecturing the band". I don't think the article should get too deep into why the Beatles broke up. 1) WP:BLP, 2) WP:UNDUE, this article is about Macca, not the break-up of the Beatles, 3) there is already an article, the Beatles' break-up, linked to in the second graph of the Beatles. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess this point goes hand in hand with one under Wings, about the lack of any mention of critical negativity towards his '70 solo work, about the picture being a little too roseate at times. Mostly though, as with the issue about Rubber Soul, Revolver, etc (above), I was referring to thoughts that come to mind at a particular point in the article as one reads about a year in the Beatles chronology. (My earlier suggestion about mentioning Live Aid was another example.) Anyway, it's good to hear you're considering addressing that Wings point at least. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear you, good suggestions, and as I said, I'll do some research and see if I can't balance this aspect out a bit. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess this point goes hand in hand with one under Wings, about the lack of any mention of critical negativity towards his '70 solo work, about the picture being a little too roseate at times. Mostly though, as with the issue about Rubber Soul, Revolver, etc (above), I was referring to thoughts that come to mind at a particular point in the article as one reads about a year in the Beatles chronology. (My earlier suggestion about mentioning Live Aid was another example.) Anyway, it's good to hear you're considering addressing that Wings point at least. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want the article to make clearer that Macca "was a bossy so-and-so", I think if you read between the lines a little enough of that comes out. There are Starr and Harrison quotes to that effect, also Lennon's quotes aren't that flattering. The article has a quote from Macca "lecturing the band". I don't think the article should get too deep into why the Beatles broke up. 1) WP:BLP, 2) WP:UNDUE, this article is about Macca, not the break-up of the Beatles, 3) there is already an article, the Beatles' break-up, linked to in the second graph of the Beatles. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Like George working on 1970 Billy Preston and Doris Troy albums, the McCartney album was a Beatles-era activity − worth a mention therefore in this section, perhaps where "Paul Is Dead" rumour is discussed?
- That would totally break the current flow and muddy the solo versus Beatles work, no need, the official announcement came one week before the album's release, so to say it was released after the break-up is not at all misleading or inaccurate. They were well past the point of no return by 10 April 1970. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't really agree with the first point you make here, but never mind. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, even if the flow wouldn't be broken per se, I think Macca's first solo work need not be squeezed in at the end of the Beatles section, would be awkward IMO because as my second point states, Macca announced he was leaving the band one week before the album was released, which makes it perfectly accurate to state that McCartney was released after their break-up. I also think it's the most logical place to start his solo career, being his first solo album, and released after the Beatles broke-up. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't really agree with the first point you make here, but never mind. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wings
- That would totally break the current flow and muddy the solo versus Beatles work, no need, the official announcement came one week before the album's release, so to say it was released after the break-up is not at all misleading or inaccurate. They were well past the point of no return by 10 April 1970. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Throughout this subsection, and further to my point above about needing to address the more inconvenient points of notability, there's a noticeable lack of comment regarding the very low opinion critics had of Mac's solo/Wings work throughout the '70s, bar Band on the Run. Certainly McCartney, Ram, Wildlife and Red Rose Speedway were reviled at the time for the most part. In the grand scheme of things, in the '70s and beyond, his lyrics are widely acknowledged as being pretty awful, even on Band on the Run, and let's not forget, this guy was one half of the Lennon−McCartney songwriting partnership. I think a major weakness of the article, at least in this Musical career section, is that his many achievements are listed but there's almost no mention of his fall from greatness in artistic terms. This applies to his work way outside the Wings timeframe, but haven't many in the UK press repeatedly said that his substandard releases and the fact that for so long he's been the most public ex-Beatle cheapened the Beatles legacy? eg his pursuing grudges (Long and Winding Road/Let It Be), attempting to get "Yesterday" assigned as a McCartney-only song? It doesn't seem as though any of these points are touched on in the article (apologies if I'm wrong about this, but I'm coming from the point of view of someone reading the musical career section, which I'd think would be the most widely read part). Hunter Davies, McDonald and Sounes point out how prone Mac is to rewriting history; George Harrison observed how, from the late '80s, Mac's announcements regarding possible Beatles reunions were always timed to coincide with an album or tour of his own. Personally, it worries me slightly that this section doesn't seem to go anywhere too un-roseate or controversial − like it or not, it's part of the picture of the man's musical career. He's a workaholic and he works very hard at protecting his image, as Yoko Ono does with Lennon's. (Sometimes I wonder whether wiki's McCartney album articles have been written by MPL employees ...)
- I'll keep this in mind, and introduce some balance after a bit of research. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording in the Band on the Run discussion needs revisiting, I suggest. The frequent mentions of 'LP' and 'album' jar quite a bit.
- Good point, thanks, I think I fixed it now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's good to see the critical reaction acknowledged at least for London Town and Back to the Egg, is it really fair to say the first of these albums "passed with little ... commercial notice"? (I'm sure you'd know better than me, but "With a Little Luck" was a US number 1 and the album was top 3, no?)
- Great point, I've tweaked the prose a bit, and added some detail for accuracy and balance.~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1982−1990
- Live Aid was a major event in Mac's solo career at the time and while it's mentioned elsewhere in the article, I believe, it does seem odd not to see any comment on it here. Especially as "Spies Like Us" merits a couple of sentences.
- Great catch, not sure how that got missed. I fixed it now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. You've done a great job of pulling the article together. I don't mean to sound too anti-McCartney; in the musical career section in particular, I think build up his presence at the time of unquestioned greatness (Work It Out, Revolver, Sgt Pepper's) but for the article to be even a GA, it has to state the other cold reality also. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to offer some great suggestions JG66. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, hope these comments help, GabeMc. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Big help, great suggestions JG66, I will keep them in mind as I research and edit. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, hope these comments help, GabeMc. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to offer some great suggestions JG66. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Accedie
- Just one small quibble so far, other than grammatical nits that I'm picking at myself: you alternate between present and past tense on the quotes from McCartney (e.g., "On his bass playing, McCartney states, 'blah...'" in one section and then "On the album, McCartney stated, 'blah...'" in another), which is somewhat confusing. Are you using present tense when the quote comes from the recent past and past tense when it comes from closer to the time of whenever the "blah" actually happened? I'd prefer just one tense or the other, as long as it's used consistently (though past seems much more intuitive than present to me). Accedietalk to me 19:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A lack of consistency in this area may be blamed on my fixing this issue in the sections where I've done a thorough copyedit so far. Clearly, any introduction to these quotes should be in past tense. szyslak (t) 21:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that past tense is best, and I will do my best to improve the article's consistency in that regard. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A lack of consistency in this area may be blamed on my fixing this issue in the sections where I've done a thorough copyedit so far. Clearly, any introduction to these quotes should be in past tense. szyslak (t) 21:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose.
- Second paragraph of the lead has exactly the same problem as was discussed in the first FAC.
- Specifically, which verifiable facts would you remove from the paragraph, and why? The graph is currently summarizing the article per WP:LEAD. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still too much emphasis on trivial crap. Why do the meaningless sections get full paragraphs, but the ones that people would actually want to read only get bulleted lists? WP:SUMMARY should be read and adhered to. The biggest offender is This section is about social and other general interactions. For creative collaborations, see Collaborations between ex-Beatles. What it should say is This section is about creative collaborations. For other unimportant shenaniganry that one would expect to find in a biographical but not an encyclopedia article, read a biographical book. Other examples:
- What material specifically do you think is "trivial crap" and which "bulleted lists" do you think should be summarized in prose? Per your suggestion, I've now summarized Macca's musical collaborations with Starr. It was already covered for Lennon (two jams) and Harrison (one backing vocals over-dub). ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1966, McCartney met gallery-owner Robert Fraser, and it was at Fraser's flat where he first learned about art appreciation." Sentences like these make me wonder if the author realizes that inclusion in a 700-page biography is not sufficient reason to include something in an encyclopedia article.
- Macca is a painter of 30 years with over 500 completed canvasses to his credit, so it is notable where, when, and why he first became interested in art. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Miles would become de facto manager of Apple's short-lived Zapple Records label" Relevance?
- Why is a little background info on Macca's official biographer, a former Beatles employee, not relevant? Many sources find Apple, and Zapple notable enough for a brief description, as this article currently does. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "McCartney attended the 1968 FA Cup Final played by West Bromwich Albion against the Everton Football Club, and after the match, shared cigarettes and whisky with other fans."
- Demonstrates a non-musical, or non-professional side to his personality/life, hence it's inclusion in "Lifestyle". ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is now removed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 10:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sir Paul McCartney's agent was Hubert Chesshyre, LVO, Clarenceux King of Arms" I mentioned in the last FAC that this claim was not covered by the source that was then given, and I see that the solution was to simply remove the source...?
- Fixed. I searched for several hours for a WP:RS to back up this statement but could not, so I just deleted it, as it didn't add that much and/or wasn't that needed anyway. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Or between two Flaunches fracted fesswise two Roundels Sable over all six Guitar Strings palewise throughout counterchanged." Are we supposed to be able to understand this? Also, source?
- Ditto. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very comprehensive. Well-sourced. Appreciate the hard work the nominator did to bring this to FA status. --Noleander (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Lobo: The article has certainly improved a lot since the last FAC, and I commend GabeMc on all the hard work. I'm afaid I do still find much of the content after "Musicianship" (and even some of the stuff there) to be bloated and given too much importance. For instance, all of "Creative outlets", in my opinion, could quite easily be compressed to one paragraph giving a summary of his interests and achievements in these areas. Just to prove my point, here's an alternative: "McCartney is an avid painter who has exhibited his work in public. He has also written a book of poetry and a childrens' book." That alone could more or less cover the first two subsections! I'm not suggesting it should be that brief, but it also proves how padded this section is. The "Drugs" section is even worse since it has little relation to his notability, and - to be brutally honest - I don't even think the football section should be there. So he loves football...okay, so do 90% of other British men! I really think this is trivial. Personal relationships...again, we have a lot of unnecessary information here, such as "Rhone felt McCartney had a compulsion to control situations, choosing clothes and make-up for Rhone, encouraging her to grow her hair out like Brigitte Bardot's,[297] and at least once insisting she have it re-styled, to disappointing effect."
- Two specific points: 1) I'm not keen on this phrasing: "The loss of McCartney's mother was later a point of relation with John Lennon". 2) No mention of him headlining Glastonbury in 2004? (*cough* which I was there for *cough*)
All in all it's an impressive article, but it is just too detailed at times IMO. The sections most in need of attention, for me, are "Creative outlets" and "Lifestyle". Please don't let my comments be a downer, I'm sure this fault is only a result of your enthusiasm for the man and the article. That can only be admirable. :) But I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting until the less important sections are substantially trimmed. --Lobo (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed your first specific point, a good one. As for the second, well ... if I added every notable festival that Macca has ever played in 42 years as a solo artist, it would only serve to increase the verbosity of which you disparaged in your general comments, which I might be tempted to resolve by trimming a few sections, but as you are the only reviewer who has really ever gone there, specifically, I'll hold off for now, since really, you can say "I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting until ..." all you want, but unfortunately, you might not support anyway, no matter how much material/edits/personhours I delete. Macca smoked pot for 40-50 years, habitually, according to many reliable sources, and he was busted five times, once for cultivation, so it is certainly notable. He has painted over 500 canvasses, and had major showings where thousands showed up, 45,000 at one, so that's also notable. Many edits went into the FB section, many not mine, so to delete the work of others to please one off-hand comment seems rash. He is indeed a rabid fan, or was, and two graphs in the bio of a 70 year-old man does not seem excessive. If and when others complain about similar concerns I will reassess. Thanks for taking the time to comment. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough about Glastonbury, it just seemed like that section was very detailed so I thought I'd point out an omission. I have no objection to there being lots of detail about his musical career by the way. I wasn't saying his painting, drugs etc shouldn't be mentioned, it should, I just think the article dwells on these things more than is necessary. And in such a long article (oh my god, 14,000 words!!! I didn't know it was that long!), I'm inevitably going to be looking at what could be trimmed. Although, I'm starting to think it may be the introductory bit to "Creative outlets" that makes this section look so bloated to me...I can't really see a need for it? The football, I'm afraid, I really do think should be deleted (other than perhaps a sentence about him being a fan and supporting both Liverpool teams) - it trivialises the article IMO. I'm surprised no one else has commented on it. When I get home from work, I may start a discussion about it on the talk page. I know it is horrible deleting stuff that you spent time researching and writing, but trimming out the fluff is also a big part of article refinement. I most likely would support if this was done, since I can't see anything else wrong with the article. I sincerely think this would be an improvement, but I understand your reticence in acting upon it as well...just think about it. People are actually more likely to read your work if it doesn't look too daunting. ;)
- That sentence I picked out - it was actually "..was later a point of relation" that I found a bit strange. Would it be accurate to say "McCartney and John Lennon would later bond over this..." or something similar? Because I think that would be clearer, if so. Congratulations again on all the work you've put into the article. --Lobo (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I much prefer "point of relation", the reliable sources do not say they bonded over it per se, in the sense that it was something they discussed at length, and which strengthened their friendship, just that they had a common frame of reference, as a sad child who lost a parent. A commonality of experience, hence, "point of relation". The introductory bit to "Creative outlets" sets up all the material to come. To remove it would undercut the section. It needs an intro, IMO. I've trimmed most of what I believe should be trimmed out, and I like the article as it reads now. Is 14,000 words to many for one of the most famous and successful entertainers of the last 100 years ... who also happens to be 70 years old? Huh? Who says 177,000 bytes is the limit for McCartney's bio and why? These seem like arbitrary limits you are applying without any rationale.
As if you think the sections that bore you need to be deleted, or the article isn't good enough.As far as article length, as I said above, currently the McCartney article is about 178,000 bytes, look at others to compare
- Hmmm, I much prefer "point of relation", the reliable sources do not say they bonded over it per se, in the sense that it was something they discussed at length, and which strengthened their friendship, just that they had a common frame of reference, as a sad child who lost a parent. A commonality of experience, hence, "point of relation". The introductory bit to "Creative outlets" sets up all the material to come. To remove it would undercut the section. It needs an intro, IMO. I've trimmed most of what I believe should be trimmed out, and I like the article as it reads now. Is 14,000 words to many for one of the most famous and successful entertainers of the last 100 years ... who also happens to be 70 years old? Huh? Who says 177,000 bytes is the limit for McCartney's bio and why? These seem like arbitrary limits you are applying without any rationale.
- I fixed your first specific point, a good one. As for the second, well ... if I added every notable festival that Macca has ever played in 42 years as a solo artist, it would only serve to increase the verbosity of which you disparaged in your general comments, which I might be tempted to resolve by trimming a few sections, but as you are the only reviewer who has really ever gone there, specifically, I'll hold off for now, since really, you can say "I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting until ..." all you want, but unfortunately, you might not support anyway, no matter how much material/edits/personhours I delete. Macca smoked pot for 40-50 years, habitually, according to many reliable sources, and he was busted five times, once for cultivation, so it is certainly notable. He has painted over 500 canvasses, and had major showings where thousands showed up, 45,000 at one, so that's also notable. Many edits went into the FB section, many not mine, so to delete the work of others to please one off-hand comment seems rash. He is indeed a rabid fan, or was, and two graphs in the bio of a 70 year-old man does not seem excessive. If and when others complain about similar concerns I will reassess. Thanks for taking the time to comment. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Current FA status Music Biographies
- Nick Drake - 53,000 bytes, died aged 26.
- John Mayer - 78,000, age 34.
- Aaliyah - 80,000, died aged 22.
- Metallica - 108,000, active 31 years.
- John Lennon - 118,000, died aged 40.
- Bob Dylan - 177,000, active 51 years.
- Elvis Presley - 178,000, active 21 years.
- Mariah Carey - 179,000, active 24 years.
- Michael Jackson - 225,000, died aged 50.
Please keep in mind, you do not have to agree with or like every section for it to be FA quality. It seems like you have an issue with his lifestyle and creative outlets sections in general. Are there prose or punctuation issues, or anything less vague that can be addressed? ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright Lobo, I stayed up all-night, and edited the sections you suggested editing. In total I trimmed over 11,000 bytes, around 6% of the article you last saw. So I'm calling your bluff, I trimmed. Now what? I did my best to trim the sections you suggested trimming. Thanks for taking the time to comment. ~ GabeMc (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, after looking through the article, I feel confident that the following areas can be adjusted for brevity without adversely affecting the article. These are out of order, so bear with me.
- The Beatles - I don't think the paragraph on the Pepper cover is terribly important. You could trim it without affecting the article.
I think also the last paragraph of this subsection (beginning "Between 1962 and 1970") is also unnecessary. We've already covered the major singles and albums in detail, and don't need to summarize here.Other than that, this section looks perfect to me.
- Drugs - This section is reasonably succinct, and I do think most of the content should stay. This sentence:
is entirely unnecessary, however. We already have the bit about him signing the Times advert in 1967, so no one reading the article really needs to know that he also talked about it thirty years later. You could also tweak the bit about the Times thing, maybe cut out the name of the group that produced it and the celebrities who signed it. Maybe something like this:In 1997 he spoke out in support of decriminalisation of the drug: "People are smoking pot anyway and to make them criminals is wrong".
would work? The way I see it, the names of the others who signed it really aren't that important. The Beatles and Epstein should be mentioned, obviously, but the others aren't terribly important, for our purposes.His attitude about cannabis became public in 1967, when he, along with sixty-four others (including the other three Beatles and Epstein), added his name to a 24 July advertisement in The Times which called for its legalisation, the release of those imprisoned for possession, and research into its medical uses.
- As an aside, does the "never arrested by Norman Pilcher's Drug Squad" clause need to be there? I'm sure there are lots of English policemen he was never arrested by.
- Football - I would say trim all the specifics, as was suggested by Lobo, and mention that he supports both clubs. I could be wrong on this, though.
- Anyway, Gabe, I'm with you on the article not actually being too long, per se, but I think it does spend a bit too much time on some things. I feel strongly that the "Musical career" section was fine before some of the additions. I don't dislike it now, and I still think it meets the FA criteria, but I think it has gotten away from summary territory for certain, and it seems like that particular guideline is something those who commented here should have thought about before asking that it be expanded in those areas.
- That said, all my concerns are now a matter of taste, so on some level the changes I mention may not be necessary. I don't think any of the above concerns are (or should be) a barrier to getting this already inordinately long FAC successfully passed, as it has met all the criteria for quite some time. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is getting a bit ridiculous IMO.To address your concerns, 1) if Macca sketched the Pepper cover, then it is notable enough for inclusion, as the most famous cover ever. 2) The last graph of the Beatles covers their chart, and lasting success and influence, something the summary section does not do. 3) I think it's notable that he has been openly for pot legalisation from 1967 until recently. It establishes his continued opinion. 4) I just disagree, with the drugs thing, wikipedia is getting too touchy. Why hide all the controversy? 5) I nuked the FB sub-section, I fought too hard for that one, out of respect for Brits, and those that had dedicated time into crafting it, but it's not worth it to me at this point. I don't even like football, nor do I care that Macca does. 6) What specifically about the "Musicianship section" is excessive IYO, as most of the material was added there at the direct request of other FAC reviewers, in particular, User:Wasted Time R. Thanks for your comments Evan. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will stay up all-night, and trim as much detail as possible from the sections Lobo and Evan suggested trimming. Please remember, I'm just a human doing their best. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Per Lobo's suggestions, I trimmed out over 11,000 bytes. I believe all the remaining content is important to the subject, well-weighted, and worthy of inclusion in a featured article. ~ GabeMc (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can honestly say that I have done my very best up to this point to resolve everyone's comments. If I missed any key points please remind me, perhaps in a new section down here, as I may have missed something in the wall of text above. This FAC is now to the point where I am resolving concerns caused by my resolving of previous FAC concerns. Perhaps I'll write an essay called, "The FAC feedback loop". ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: In some articles, particularly those about non-controversial science topics, it can be very easy to determine what content belongs in the article, and the FAC becomes a matter of tweaking it and finding little mistakes. For a topic such as this one, however, it can be a huge pain in the ass to find a structure that everyone is satisfied with, as I'm sure you've noticed. In such cases, the polishing of individual sentences really is a waste of effort, as much of the work can get lost in the shuffle. FAC is consensus-driven, and it seems clear to me that no consensus will be found here. I suggest spending some time away from the article, allowing the entire readership to push and pull the article into its most agreeable shape, rather than relying on the often contradictory opinions of a few well-meaning reviewers. Once it has arrived at a stable state, the refinement can begin. Just my two cents, of course. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, maybe we've just reached the point where almost all of everyone's requests for inclusion have been granted, and now the article is much longer, causing comments to come in requesting trims. FWIW, I agree that some trims were needed, and I have already trimmed almost everything that was specifically contended, as far as I know anyway, I may have missed something in the above text. IMO, no actionable objections are currently left unresolved. Please correct me if I am wrong. ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A week and a half after I emphasized the need for the article to receive a comprehensive, skilled copyedit, that has still not happened (though given the extensive substantive editing that has occurred, perhaps it was best to hold off the copyedit until that wound down). The quickest glance at the middle of the article shows that multiple grammatical errors—and I mean multiple errors even in individual sentences—remain.
Among the seven or eight online guides to proper comma usage I looked at, the following two struck me as potentially the most useful: [2] and [3].—DCGeist (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are "multiple grammatical errors" as you say then perhaps you would be kind enough to give a few examples here so that they can be resolved and the article improved. Many editors have gone through the article since you last commented, at least 4 or 5, not counting me. So it appears you can see errors all the rest of us have missed. Please, do share some specifics, or this is merely an unactionable objection, with no rationale to support the concern you want others to look for. Also, I think it is a bit inappropriate of you to even comment here, now, when you and I are in the middle of several talk page disputes at the Beatles. I could be wrong, but to comment here negatively, while there are open RfCs and content disputes with which you and I are directly involved, seems improper, IMO. Maybe someone can clarify this point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Currently open content disputes between User:DCGeist and myself: here, here, and here.
Also, while I hate to ABF, I cannot help but feel this has something to do with the whole "The/the" Beatles issue, which has mysteriously reappeared recently after 18 months of silence on the issue, I hope I am wrong about this.~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]- We were involved in those "disputes"—I thought they were content discussions—at The Beatles a week and a half ago. You didn't presume back then to argue that they disqualified me from vetting this FA candidate. As for now, why in the world would I want to give you any more help after this gratuitous display of bad attitude? The fact that your grammar is poor and you have been unable to recruit or retain a competent copyeditor is your problem (and, unfortunately, the article's), not mine. As an example for the benefit of the delegates, I provide the sentence with multiple errors that it took me about two seconds to spot when I went to look at the current state of the article:
While London Town (1978), was supported by the US number-one, "With a Little Luck", and was a top-five in both the US and the UK, critical reception was less favourable, and McCartney expressed disappointment in the release.
- The prose in much of the article does not come close to meeting the FA standard for similar reasons, and on that basis I oppose its promotion.
- P.S. GabeMc's comments are veering into very silly territory, but just for the record, aside from enforcing consistency, I couldn't care less about the endless "The/the" debate.—DCGeist (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed that horror. More, please. Rothorpe (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, your example above has one, maybe two unneeded commas. Am I incorrect about this? Please tell me how many errors there are in the graph, I'm curious. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There were three commas that were wrong (not simply "unneeded") in the sentence. So, to answer your question: Yes. You were incorrect about that. There are no remaining objective errors in the graf consequent to Rothorpe's intervention; however, the second sentence, judged on prosody, is most sour. The pertinent FA criterion calls for prose that is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." The prose of this article is sporadically engaging, never brilliant, and well short of professional standard. Guess what: A serious copyeditor could change that.—DCGeist (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DCGeist,
your oppose seems little more than a sour grapes retaliation against me,I will reiterate, it is not appropriate to oppose an an FAC while you are currently in the middle of more than one content dispute at a related page with the nominating editor. Please, can any admins verify whether or not I am correct in this assertion? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Both of the comma usage guides you linked to seem to be dealing largely with the serial comma, which is optional per WP:SERIAL. Of course, the MoS seems to be increasingly unpopular these days, so that may be part of the issue. Yes, the excerpt you posted is grammatically screwed-up. The majority of those problems have been solved by I and others, I believe. I intend to go through the article tonight for one last, thorough copyedit. Since I'm a professional writer, I think I should be able to satisfy at least the "competent" criterion you mentioned. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's schedule that copyedit for tomorrow (Friday), actually. Sorry. I'm easily sidetracked... Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, your example above has one, maybe two unneeded commas. Am I incorrect about this? Please tell me how many errors there are in the graph, I'm curious. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To both GabeMc and DCGeist: Neither of you are assuming good faith about each other. I don't think DCGeist is opposing this FAC as revenge for a silly capitalization dispute from months ago. In fact, I think he has/had legitimate concerns about poor grammar. I also don't think it's fair to blame GabeMC himself for the errors, nor is it very nice to tell him to his face that he "has poor grammar". But even if he were responsible for every single, solitary grammar mistake, that wouldn't matter to me. I copyedit articles, not people. Also, I would appreciate another look at the prose quality. I've just done a thorough copyedit, mostly after DCGeist's "oppose" !vote, and more changes are on the way. DCGeist, do you think I and the others have come close to giving this article a "comprehensive, skilled" copyedit? (If you think my copyedits are half-assed and incompetent, I promise my feelings won't be hurt.) I don't deny there's room for improvement, as there will be if/when this article is promoted. I do, however, feel that the prose meets or almost meets FA standards. szyslak (t) 13:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Szyslak, well said. I will not assume bad faith on DCGeist's part, but to clarify, he and I are not currently in a "The/the" dispute "from months ago". We are currently in dispute over several other issues, which began weeks ago and are ongoing. I should not have dragged "The/the" into this, for I have no reason to believe it is a factor in Geist's !vote. I agree that DCGeist's personal attacks on me are inappropriate, and I stand by my comment that I feel it is improper to oppose an FAC when you are currently in more than one content dispute (at another article) with the nominating editor. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I have no idea about any motives DCGeist may have had, I agree that opposing a FAC nominated by an editor you're in dispute with doesn't look good to say the least. It would be understandable if one were to wonder whether he just doesn't want you to have your star. szyslak (t) 22:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Szyslak, if you insist on dragging out the off-topic discussion of personal motives, then at least make a little effort to get your facts straight. My last contributions to any Talk thread at The Beatles were made on June 25, within a half hour of when I made my first contribution here regarding the issues with grammar. GabeMc in his response here several hours later did not then think to characterize our Beatles Talk exchanges as "disputes", nor did he when I again weighed in here on June 27. On the contrary, he thanked me for my help on both occasions. Only when I noted here that there still remained many grammatical problems in the McCartney article a week-and-a-half later did those Beatles exchanges—to which I had contributed nothing since June 25—magically transform into "disputes" that supposedly disqualified me from vetting any FAC in which GabeMc might be involved. Szyslak, it does not look good at all when you make derogatory insinuations about fellow editors in evident ignorance of what has actually taken place. That said, I hope you are as ready to move on to more productive efforts as I am.—DCGeist (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've insinuated nothing. All I was saying is that it's understandable that GabeMC might have taken things that way. I said above, "I don't think DCGeist is opposing this FAC as revenge for a silly capitalization dispute from months ago" ... or any other disputes, disagreements, arguments, pleasant conversations, or however else you want to characterize the interactions between you and GabeMC. No really, I don't think you have ulterior motives. I do think that if you've been in conflict with an editor, people tend to look at your opposing a FAC they've done extensive work on in a different way. szyslak (t) 07:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. But the point, as I have attempted to demonstrate, is that I had no reason at all to believe GabeMc and I were "in conflict", until GabeMc suddenly determined that exchanges elsewhere that had ended, at least on my part, a week-and-a-half ago constituted "disputes", rather than normal back-and-forth on maintenance and improvement efforts. Ach. There's enough actual (if often equally silly) conflicts on Wikipedia; the last thing we need to be doing is imagining new ones into existence.—DCGeist (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, fair enough. Now I'm sorry I even got myself involved in this discussion thread. At this point, I don't care who is in conflict with whom., or whether a conflict even exists. szyslak (t) 09:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. But the point, as I have attempted to demonstrate, is that I had no reason at all to believe GabeMc and I were "in conflict", until GabeMc suddenly determined that exchanges elsewhere that had ended, at least on my part, a week-and-a-half ago constituted "disputes", rather than normal back-and-forth on maintenance and improvement efforts. Ach. There's enough actual (if often equally silly) conflicts on Wikipedia; the last thing we need to be doing is imagining new ones into existence.—DCGeist (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've insinuated nothing. All I was saying is that it's understandable that GabeMC might have taken things that way. I said above, "I don't think DCGeist is opposing this FAC as revenge for a silly capitalization dispute from months ago" ... or any other disputes, disagreements, arguments, pleasant conversations, or however else you want to characterize the interactions between you and GabeMC. No really, I don't think you have ulterior motives. I do think that if you've been in conflict with an editor, people tend to look at your opposing a FAC they've done extensive work on in a different way. szyslak (t) 07:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Szyslak, if you insist on dragging out the off-topic discussion of personal motives, then at least make a little effort to get your facts straight. My last contributions to any Talk thread at The Beatles were made on June 25, within a half hour of when I made my first contribution here regarding the issues with grammar. GabeMc in his response here several hours later did not then think to characterize our Beatles Talk exchanges as "disputes", nor did he when I again weighed in here on June 27. On the contrary, he thanked me for my help on both occasions. Only when I noted here that there still remained many grammatical problems in the McCartney article a week-and-a-half later did those Beatles exchanges—to which I had contributed nothing since June 25—magically transform into "disputes" that supposedly disqualified me from vetting any FAC in which GabeMc might be involved. Szyslak, it does not look good at all when you make derogatory insinuations about fellow editors in evident ignorance of what has actually taken place. That said, I hope you are as ready to move on to more productive efforts as I am.—DCGeist (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I have no idea about any motives DCGeist may have had, I agree that opposing a FAC nominated by an editor you're in dispute with doesn't look good to say the least. It would be understandable if one were to wonder whether he just doesn't want you to have your star. szyslak (t) 22:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Szyslak, well said. I will not assume bad faith on DCGeist's part, but to clarify, he and I are not currently in a "The/the" dispute "from months ago". We are currently in dispute over several other issues, which began weeks ago and are ongoing. I should not have dragged "The/the" into this, for I have no reason to believe it is a factor in Geist's !vote. I agree that DCGeist's personal attacks on me are inappropriate, and I stand by my comment that I feel it is improper to oppose an FAC when you are currently in more than one content dispute (at another article) with the nominating editor. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's amazing how much this article has improved since GabeMc (and 50 others) started working on this article in earnest in mid-April: diff. Great work! GoingBatty (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks GoingBatty, I needed that! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just want to say thanks to all the editors who have been helping out at the McCartney article putting in hundreds of edits. Regardless of the outcome of this FAC I am proud of the work we have done, and I am proud to have worked with so many excellent and helpful editors along the way. Thanks everyone! It has meant alot to me, and I have learned much as well. I know I'll come away from this a better editor, and I hope that the McCartney article is much improved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: based off my reading of about 2/3 of the article thus far. My apologies to the nominator, I'd meant to read more, but it's not a subject I find very interesting/know much about and it's a long article (and I read slowly). That being said, my impression based on my reading is that it's at FA quality and that the grammar and prose meet the criteria at this point. I don't think that an article can be written that will satisfy everyone, there will always be questions about whether to include a certain detail or not and exactly how many commas to use etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The issue is not about "how many commas to use." There are, indeed, different acceptable styles for handling commas in certain grammatical situations. The choice of one of those styles over another is neither a problem in general nor an actionable objection in the context of a Featured Article Candidacy. The problem we face here is a massive amount of objective grammatical errors, largely involving punctuation, particularly commas. The nominator is not well versed in English grammar and he has failed to recruit a copyeditor capable of diligently applying good English grammar to the article. I have never claimed that the article is a "horror". It is simply replete with grammatical errors and is not close to representative of our best work.
- Evanh2008, both of the online guides I commended to GabeMc deal with MANY issues beside that of the relatively minor issue of the serial comma, which involves only a choice and consistency. Most of those MANY other issues are matters of grammatical right and wrong; this article currently gets them wrong over and over and over again. As my initial contributions to this thread should have made plain to any adult here, I would very much like this article to achieve FA status. However, the prose does not now come close to meeting that standard.
And the only real horror here is GabeMc's abusive treatment of those who displease him. I trust it is evident who is truly sucking on those "sour grapes."—DCGeist (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My content edits have been trivial, but you may think of me as a "contributor" if you wish. I have copyedited this article extensively, repeatedly, from top to bottom. After I worked on the first half or so, there were extensive edits to those sections in response to the featured article process. Since further errors were introduced, I went back and copyedited those sections all over again, some hours after DCGeist's objection above (and more work is on the way, from me and others). I don't take all or most of the credit for this article's improved prose; other editors have done more than their part. And what I really can't take credit for are the other qualities that make this a superb article. The referencing is superb, with a clear, easy-to-follow citation style that should be held up as an example for articles like this. The content is highly comprehensive, telling readers everything they need to know about Macca, and nothing they don't. This article came to FAC as a solid GA, and the sometimes-difficult FAC process has led to immense improvements. Everyone who's worked on this article deserves credit for making this happen. szyslak (t) 13:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following are all from a randomly chosen brief subsection, Activism, in the middle of the article:
Paul and Linda became outspoken animal rights activists after their vegetarianism was realised when Paul saw lambs in a field as they ate a meal of lamb.
"After their vegetarianism was realised" is not English. "Paul saw lambs in a field as they ate a meal of lamb" is very awkward, unnecessarily confusing, and prone to a risible misreading.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The couple debated with Newfoundland's Premier Danny Williams...
There are various grammatically proper ways to handle titles and names; this is not one of them.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
McCartney has been involved with several charity recordings and performances, such as the Concerts for the People of Kampuchea, Ferry Aid, Band Aid, Live Aid, and the recording of "Ferry Cross the Mersey".
This sentence employs the serial comma, though most of the article does not.
- Fixed, comma deleted. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...in 2008 he donated a song to Aid Still Required's CD to assist with recovery from the devastation done to Southeast Asia from the 2004 tsunami.
This passage falls apart with "to assist with recovery from". The final "from" is also incorrect.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 2009, McCartney wrote to the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso...
Another mishandled title/name construction.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problems in this randomly chosen subsection look to be representative of the sort of problems that remain throughout the article. Copyeditors, please keep an eye out for them.—DCGeist (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to make some specific suggestions, much appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on DATED I see the discussion above where we acquired all the "as of 2012"s; I now think we have too many of these, and that it may indicate an underlying problem with too many factoids. I have made a more detailed comment in article talk on this. --John (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree 100%. Many of these additions were made at the direct request of FAC reviewer User:Wasted Time R (see above), and this discussion with Wasted. I'll go through and remove the excess factoids added to resolve prior FAC comments. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree too, even though I restored the "as of" constructions. I would've removed some (the entire claims, not just the "as of"), but I prefer not to mix technical edits with content edits. Many of the "as of" claims are trivial IMO, such as the most recent UK top 20. szyslak (t) 22:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Szyslak, at the McCartney talk page, John has made a list of suggestions for deletion. Perhaps you could find the time to go there and give some input. Again, "the most recent UK top 20" was added at the direct request of User:Wasted Time R (see above for a link to the subsequent discussion at their talk page). ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through the article top to bottom and moved as much chart data to notes as seemed proper. I've retained the most important points in-line (number-ones, album sales) but if I missed anything please let me know. Thanks again for all the great teamwork! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's an excellent article. Rothorpe (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Back on June 26, I posted a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Paul_McCartney for a thorough copyedit. That copyedit has now been completed by User:Lfstevens. GoingBatty (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I loosened it. :P Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As of Lfstevens' last revision, this article is 100% free of grammatical errors. I would be happy to sign a sworn affidavit to that effect. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not quite... I found a couple more missing commas :D Now, though, it's 200% error-free! Accedietalk to me 18:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment - I am finding problems with the references, which I have either fixed or listed on the article's Talk Page. Please double-check them. Graham Colm (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I contributed only in the capacity of adding and removing commas, so my net input was likely close to zero :) Anyway, it's an excellent article, comprehensive without being overwhelming, and it definitely deserves the gold star. Kudos to all who worked on this! Accedietalk to me 18:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- That lede is rather short for an article with 60kb of text.
- "he pursued a solo career and formed the group Wings with his first wife, Linda Eastman, and singer-songwriter Denny Laine." - If they were married already, wouldn't she be McCartney? If they weren't, she shouldn't be referred to as his first wife, but perhaps his future wife.
- "Harrison joined in 1958 as lead guitarist, followed by Lennon's art school friend Stuart Sutcliffe on bass, in 1960." - I don't think George has been introduced with his full name yet (outside of the lede)
- Added citation needed tag (direct quote needs reference directly after it)
- Also in 2011, McCartney married Nancy Shevell - When did he divorce his other wife?
- "In June 2012, McCartney closed the Queen's" - Her name, for those (few) not in the know
- More to follow (tomorrow, perhaps). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given my comments have been addressed and the article has improved dramatically, I support this based on comprehensiveness and prose. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comments I think there is a consensus to promote this candidate. Any remaining issues can be dealt with post FAC, on the article's Talk Page. Thanks to the nominator and all the reviewers for engaging in our FA process. Graham Colm (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2012 (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 Ian Rose 11:57, 9 July 2012 [4].
- Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this as a featured article because it is the main article of the newly formed WikiProject Bivalves. A thorough GA review was undertaken by Keilana and since then I have tried to make the article as comprehensive as possible. This is my first solo nomination for FA so bear with me as I am unfamiliar with the procedure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cwmhiraeth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
"Bivalves have been an important source of food for humans at least since Roman times." Perhaps the earliest written accounts are from Roman times but I suspect that bivalves were an important food source much earlier than this. Have shells been found at early archaeological sites? Aa77zz (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) They have, and I have added this fact. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations for first paragraph of Brachiopods? Added. This is FN67 and all higher number references quoted by Nikkimaria in this section are now +1 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN7, 65, 81: page formatting Done
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods Done to the best of my ability.
- Ranges should use endashes Done
- FN15 and similar: missing author No author's name is given, as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's at the bottom of the article linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Done[reply]
- FN19, 32: publisher? Done
- Be consistent in when you include locations, and when these include states I could omit locations altogether. I think those used are consistent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN36, 52, 53, 58: page(s)? The trouble here is that these sources predate my involvement with the article and I do not have access to the page numbers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Well, they're not reliable sources, and I doubt whether I could find reliable sources for this information. I could either remove the citations - using shellfish for bait is hardly controversial - or I could remove the statements to which they refer and the citations.
- I have removed two of these and found a new citation for the third. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN46: retrieval date? Done
- FN79, 100, 104: italicization Done
- Use a consistent date format Done
- Don't mix templated and untemplated citations I am unaware that there are any untemplated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN115: formatting Done
- Formatting used for Further reading should match that used by citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Done[reply]
- Comment I changed the sloppy table to one which is accessible and sortable. I also used the {{sort}} template, but for some reason the second column does not sort properly. Also I am not satisfied that the capitals are useful and in my opinion fail WP:SHOUT.--GoPTCN 17:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you. I have removed the capital letters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Jim. Da iawn, very brave to attempt such a large topic. I made these edits, mainly mos, typos, AE to BE. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you.[reply]
- Could infaunal and epifaunal as technical terms be introduced later? They seem both off-putting and unnecessary in the lead I have removed them.
- Almost everything possible is wrong with the caption starting Systematische Geschichte .... It's in German, there is a url link that contravenes mos (especially as the Smithsonian has an article) it goes to a page that has no obvious relevance, and seems to be repeating what's on the image's page. I have removed the offending caption and its image and replaced it with another.
- in Evolutionary History, developed has close repetitions. Done.
- Check that all your Howevers are necessary and followed by a comma I could only find two and I removed one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I certainly wouldn't claim any expertise on this class, but it seems to tick all the FA boxes, well done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments reading through now - will jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, the species generally regarded as the largest living bivalve is the giant clam Tridacna gigas, which can weigh more than 200 kilograms (441 lbs) - looks odd as it doesn't have size/length, just wieght, and next sentence has length, leaving the reader unable to compare - I think a length'd be good to add here. Done.
Link or explain byssus.
In bivalves, as is the case in other members of the phylum Mollusca, - why not "In bivalves, as with all molluscs,...."Done.
I'd do a bit of shuffling - to me, the Comparison with brachiopods section sticks out a bit where it is. I'd slot it as a subsection at the bottom of the Anatomy section, as it is about comparative anatomy.I have moved "Comparison with brachiopods" to immediately before "Evolutionary history" and have rewritten part of the latter because there was some duplication. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- that helps too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly, the taxonomy sections, biodiversity and evolution are all naturally linked in subject matter, and worthwhile being adjacent to each other. At a minimum I'd move them all up to where the evolution bit is. They need a bit of a rejig. I need to read a bit and think about it.... I would like to keep the Taxonomy section near the end because otherwise it interrupts the general flow of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved the "Biodiversity" section to after the "Evolutionary history". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly, the taxonomy sections, biodiversity and evolution are all naturally linked in subject matter, and worthwhile being adjacent to each other. At a minimum I'd move them all up to where the evolution bit is. They need a bit of a rejig. I need to read a bit and think about it.... I would like to keep the Taxonomy section near the end because otherwise it interrupts the general flow of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, having both the 2010 proposed taxonomy of the Bivalvia and Biodiversity of extant bivalves seems to be somewhat duplicative. One might be best as a summary on a subpage. Maybe the second one? I agree with this suggestion and will work on it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created a subpage 2010 proposed taxonomy of the Bivalvia and left a summary. I'm not keen to put the technical taxonomical part of the article in the middle of the narrative, general interest part so I favour keeping taxonomy at the end. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, having both the 2010 proposed taxonomy of the Bivalvia and Biodiversity of extant bivalves seems to be somewhat duplicative. One might be best as a summary on a subpage. Maybe the second one? I agree with this suggestion and will work on it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. First of all, kudos for taking on this article, it's great to see higher-level taxa presented at FAC. I'd like to review this, but am worried about one of your responses to Nikkimaria. If there are sources used here that predate your involvement, and you have not seen them, how can you be sure the article accurately represents the source text, or is adequately paraphrased from the source? Would it not be possible to change the citations to sources you have at hand? Sasata (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first started editing the article on March 26th, it had 48,695 bytes and 30 sources, one used multiple times. Now it has 116,686 bytes and 123 sources. I think it would be a mammoth task to check all the sources that pre-dated my involvement. If it was a requirement that the editor putting an article forward needed to have checked every fact personally, it would be almost impossible for an article to attain FA unless it had been written from scratch. And what about a collaboration where several editors have access to different sources? When I see some well-referenced fact added by another editor, I am normally prepared to think that they are acting in good faith. Some of the information I will be able to verify but much of it I will not. I will see what I can do. I could ask someone who has access to a Barnes "Invertebrate Zoology" to check that multiple source, but no, that wouldn't do, because I wouldn't have seen the material myself ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a copy at my local uni library (but a more recent edition), so in the spirit of WP:sofixit, I'll try to get a hold of it this week and add specific page numbers myself. Full review coming soon. Sasata (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been through all the online sources that predated my involvement with the article and replaced the only one with which I was unhappy. I look forward to your full review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found replacements for nearly all the Barnes' references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just started taking a look through, and it seems that the refs still need some cleaning up. Could you work on the following:
consistently use either title case or sentence case for journal article and book titlesIs lower case for journal articles and upper case for books OK?
- Sure. Sasata (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
ensure that all available biliographic information is given in the citation for web sites. For example, current reference #4 does not have the author(s) listed, even though this is available on the linked page. Ref#15 is missing an author. etc.Done.it is redundant to give both a doi, and link to the same page that the doi leads to (see e.g. ref #6). In general, only include url links if the article is not behind a paywall, or otherwise include the (subscription required) template.Do you want the urls removed when the article has a doi and is freely available?
- If they both lead to the same place, it's still redundant. In these instances though, you might want to use the handy {{open access}} template to let the reader know the source is free. Sasata (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
not necessary to include the total # of pages in a book (nor the fact that it has an attached CD), ref#7Done.please include a direct link to Linnaeus' protolog (it's available at Biodiversity Heritage Library and other places)Done.no page#'s for ref#14?Done.the double periods in the refs can be solved by removing "Inc.", "Co.". "Ltd.", and other similar abbreviations from publisher names. (This is recommended by the MoS, although I don't remember exactly where)Done.page ranges require endashes, not hyphensDone, I think.ref #19 should be formatted as cite journal with a link to the web pageDone.ref #21 missing authors and pub. date (find this info by clicking back to the homepage)Done.- cleanup (i.e. remove) empty, unused parameters from citation templates Done.
- this list is not exhaustive, just examples from the first couple dozen refs. Please check the rest with a fine tooth comb. I'll be back later with hopefully more substantive commentary about the content :) Sasata (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I have worked through all the journal references applying the above suggestions. Books next! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I am aware, I have dealt with all the reference matters listed above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry to be a pain about the reference formatting, but if you master this now, your future FACs (I hope there will be many!) will be much smoother. Again, this list is not comprehensive:
there's still a few "Inc."s and "Co."s causing a double periodAll removed, I think.many page ranges still use hyphens instead of the proper endashesAll removed, I think.the subscription needed tag is only required if a link is directing the user to a paywalled site. If only a DOI or JSTOR link is given, this template is not needed.I have now removed the unnecessary tags.ensure all of the journal titles are not abbreviated (I saw Amer. Zool., there may be more)Done.the open access template needn't be used if the url leads to a PDF download (the reader can see the PDF icon and knows the article is free)All removed.
- What you say above does not seem to be correct. #36 Honkoop (1999) is a pdf file and is not free. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if there's a choice between linking to an open access article (e.g. Tëmkin 2010), or linking to the free downloadable PDF, I think the former should be preferred (that way the reader gets to access the information on a web page, but has the option of downloading the PDF if they so desire)Done.it seems the DOI is busted for Taylor et al. 2007 & 2011 (refs #114, 118). Missing an issue # too.#114 is OK, issue added. For #118 I have reported the error so I hoped it would soon be sorted. Otherwise, what should I do about a busted doi?
- I have now replaced the faulty doi with the url (now #120). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
missing info in Franc 1960 (ref #124). Is this a book? Who is the publisher, what are the page #'s, etc.It's a book but I don't understand the url I found well enough to be sure I have filled in the template correctly.
- I found the source and fixed the citation. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- why is only one author listed before et al. in ref #127 (contrary to multiple authors listed in other refs?) There are about 50 of them, do you want them all?
- I have added the other 49 :)
locations for books are not given consistentlyAll removed, I think.author and publisher missing for ref #50 (you have to go back to the homepage and navigate a bit to find it)Done.- It's getting late here so I will deal with Cryptic C62's comments tomorrow. Its a pity I chose such a large article for my first attempt at FAC! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in the table in "Diversity of extant bivalves", shouldn't the title of the first column be "Name" or "Taxon"? Why are some taxa in bold? Why is Anomalodesmata in parentheses?
- I have reorganised and I think improved the table. It was not previously in alphabetical order. Anomalodesmata used to be considered a subclass but has been demoted and its orders are now included within Heterodonta. I have removed it. Early on in this FAC, GoP improved the table and made it sortable. I'm not sure that having it sortable is a good thing as it does not retain the orders in the correct subclass. I could, I suppose, resolve that by including the name of the subclass on every line. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit odd to use a 1971 PhD thesis to cite the fact about the southern black bream eating bivalves. Couldn't this fact be sourced to a more recent, more accessible publication?I have given a different example of a predatory fish species, citing a more recent source.the "Defensive secretions" subsection isn't long enough to warrant a new heading, and the first and third sentence repeat information ("produce a noxious secretion when stressed"; "When … attacked … secretes a toxic substance")Done."Here they are largely free from bottom-dwelling predators such as starfish and crabs but require more labour." More labour for the juveniles, or more labour to harvest them?Done."Ian McNeil, writing in 1990, stated that the button "... was originally used more as an ornament than as a fastening, the earliest known being found at Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley. It is made of a curved shell and is about 5,000 years old." Typically, specific quotes and in-text attribution are used when for whatever reason it is important for the reader to know who said it, and exactly how it was said; I don't think that need applies here.DoneIn the symbolism subsection, how about mentioning the use of bivalve shells in funeral and burial rites? This is known from early American civilization (e.g., Archaic shell mounds of Kentucky's Green River area); prehistoric China and India, and Mesoamerica (there's probably more, I'm just going off a quick Google Books search)
- I'm not sure about this and couldn't find much when I searched. I did, however, find an interesting article on the traditional use of shells by the Winnebago Tribe and I have added that information to the "Other uses" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source, bivalve shell structure can be divided into three main types: the oyster (latticed sculpture), and scallop (radial sculpture), and the clam (concentric structure). Seems like good overview information that might perhaps be suitable for inclusion?
- Its not the structure but the sculptured decoration. I have added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "One of the most widely accepted systems was that put forward by Norman D. Newell in his Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology" seems to imply that this book is solely Newell's creation, but our article on the topic indicates that it's a multi-author, multi-volume, decades-long work, so the wording needs to be tweaked.Done
- I've finish copyediting the article, and think it broadly meets the FAC criteria 1a,d,e; 2; 3; and 4. I'm not in a position to judge 1b (comprehensiveness), though I find it reassuring that Invertzoo was involved in helping to write the article. I'm still concerned about the lack of page numbers for many book sources (criteria 1c–"well-researched"). It was precisely this same reason that the brain FAC was not promoted. To quote the spot-checker Fifelfoo from that FAC, "400 page passim. citations aren't appropriate, and indicate sloppy verification." I don't see why this article should be held to a lower standard. For this reason, I can't support this yet, sorry. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found alternative sources for all except one of the books with unknown page numbers. The exception is Marcus Huber's Compendium of Bivalves, now #50. I am making efforts to find the page number for that. Does anyone have a copy or access to one? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Based on the recent improvements, I think I can get behind this. One final nit: I can't find evidence for the existence of current ref #79 (Fishelson 1979); the only mentions on the net appears to be from mirrors of this page. Fishelson doesn't even mention this volume on his academic web page, unless it's actually supposed to be Zoology. British Encyclopedia for Youth (In Hebrew). Since the fact it's supporting is double cited (and the other source clearly supports the article text), perhaps you might consider removing it as extraneous? Otherwise, great effort on an important high-level taxon article! Sasata (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the Fishelson source. Thank you for your help in improving this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead comments. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The gills have been modified into ctenidia" This phrasing suggests that humans made the modification. Perhaps "have evolved" would be an appropriate replacement?Done."Most bivalves bury themselves in sediment on the seabed." Why? Is this to hide from predators, or to search for food? Or just for fun?Done."The shell of a bivalve is composed of calcium carbonate and consists of two rounded halves called valves, which in most species are more or less mirror images of each other." Most species, meaning not all, and "more or less", meaning not really. The second clause doesn't seem to serve any actual purpose, and may be more misleading than saying nothing.Rewritten.- From "The adult maximum shell size..." onwards, the second paragraph of the lead presents detailed overly trivia about size. It should instead give the reader a broad understanding of size, as the purpose of the lead is to summarize key ideas, not to repeat factoids. Also, the average shell size would be much more informative than the maximum ever recorded. Also, the units are all over the place here. I see mm converted to inches, meters converted to decimal feet, meters, converted to feet+inches... it's just a barrage of data. Removed this section. The information is now included in the "Diversity" section with the units more consistent.
- Definitely better, but not quite there yet. "the majority of species are at the lower end of this range" is rather vague. Considering how much variation there is between the big guys and the little guys, this phrasing leaves the reader guessing what "normal" is. A possible workaround would be to give the size of one of the most common species.
- I have reworded it.
"Bivalves have been a traditional part of the diet of maritime nations over the years." Lots of problems here. "over the years" is a useless filler phrase, as it gives no indication of the actual time frame. "the diet of maritime nations" wrongly implies that entire nations consume bivalves (do people in Nebraska even know what clams look like?), whereas "coastal communities" or something similar would be more accurate.Done."... new culture techniques over the last few decades. There is now..." Which decades? When is "now"? See WP:ASOF. Time-related language needs to be more precise than this.I have rewritten this part."Bivalves have also been used in the biocontrol of pollution, in making jewellery, sea silk and buttons and are the source of pearls and mother-of-pearl." Too many unrelated ideas crammed into one sentence.Done.- These suggestions have now been attended to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to the lead: am I correct in seeing that the 2010 proposed taxonomy of the Bivalvia section is a summary of a single journal article, without any indication as to whether or not the results have been accepted as consensus? This is a blatant misuse of a top-level section, and could even be considered POV-pushing. Something needs to be done about this, and the current solution of moving the content to a daughter article is not adequate. That article currently does not meet the WP:Notability standards, and should be deleted unless reliable third-party sources can be added to back it up. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC) I have renamed this section and made it lower in level. WoRMS, the World Register of Marine Species, has adopted this taxonomy and I have added an extra reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. The problem now is that each of the subclass subsections (hee!) are of the same level as the 2010 taxonomy section. Actually, I'm not even sure that the subclasses should be subsections. It clutters up the TOC and floods the screen with [edit] buttons. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rearranged it and I think it is better now.
Comment There are several refs that are online dictionary links, but ref 8 is not formatted like the rest. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Well spotted! #8 is formatted the same as the others now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now PumpkinSky talk 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think a 1925 source for the evolutionary emergence of bivalvia is appropriate, and the article should explicitly state when bivalvia first emerged. At the moment, all the article tells me is that they appeared later than the Early Cambrian. (However, there is a cited note in the infobox that suggests this might not be correct). Evolutionary emergence (or dominance) is pretty significant and (once adequately sourced) can be mentioned in the lede. In many other respects the article is excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten this section using new sources. The 1925 book gave rather more detailed palaeological information but I agree that views may have moved on since that date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but I still think there should be a sentence in the lede stating when the bivalvia first evolved. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thank you for your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but I still think there should be a sentence in the lede stating when the bivalvia first evolved. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten this section using new sources. The 1925 book gave rather more detailed palaeological information but I agree that views may have moved on since that date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2012 (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 Ian Rose 23:46, 8 July 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 14:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article. It's about a Naval aviator, the last living Medal of Honor recipient from the Korean War. —Ed!(talk) 14:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- Please check various recent edits to the article. For instance, "Hudner assumed command as commanding officer (CO) of VF-53" is triply redundant, since CO isn't used again in the article; "Hudner assumed command of VF-53" works. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hudner rose to the rank of captain and received the Medal of Honor for his actions in trying to save the life of his wingman, Ensign Jesse L. Brown during the Battle of Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War." Second comma after Brown. Also: This says that he was promoted because he tried to save Brown; was this what you wanted to say?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "disinterested in aviation": disinterested is a tough word; it can be used in contexts not too different from this, but it's generally better to use "uninterested". "disinterested" is more commonly used to mean "impartial".
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "crash land". crash-land.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In subsequent years, he has won several awards and worked for various veterans organizations in the United States." An "award" can be anything, so either list the more important awards (or give a general idea), or shorten the last bit to "... before retiring in 1973 and working for ...".
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Following the incident, Hudner held a number of positions in the U.S. Navy aboard several ships and with a number of aviation units," The word-to-useful-content ratio is too high; either use fewer words, or give more interesting details.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent on whether to use a comma before "Jr.". Btw ... as I've mentioned, "second comma" usage is evolving, and so am I: I used to ask for a comma after "Jr." if a comma came before, but I'm not any more; the period suffices. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After Ian's comments, I did more copyediting. Sorry about that, chief. These are my edits. (The most recent edits won't show up for a few days; the toolserver needs time to catch up.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and images but no spotchecks, PD attribution tag present. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Use a consistent date format
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you use {{citation}} or the {{cite}} family
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 46 is incomplete
- There isn't a footnote 46. —Ed!(talk) 19:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Location for Appleman?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Naval_Aviator_Badge.jpg needs licensing info for the insignia itself, not just the photo
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Navy_and_Marine_Corps_Commendation_ribbon.svg: description template is broken, missing licensing info
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vietnam_gallantry_cross-w-palm-3d.svg needs licensing info for original ribbon and device
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vietnam_Campaign_Medal_Ribbon.png needs licensing info for original ribbon
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:United_Nations_Service_Medal_for_Korea_ribbon.png needs licensing info for original ribbon. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- "a class officer, a member of student council and a house councilor", is it house councilor, or house counselor? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, it was a student government position, not a mentoring/social position. —Ed!(talk) 12:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot check comments:
- I ran the Duplication detector through the article, comparing it against the websites listed (looking for strings of 5 words or more):
- I found this [6]: wording seems common and probably not copyrightable, so I don't think there are any issues;
- This: [7]: no issues with this as it is a PD source and the one string longer than five words is the title of an appointment;
- This: [8]: again PD source, so no major issues. There are a couple of strings longer than five words, but they seem relatively common;
- This: [9]: again, PD source, no major issues and largely common phrases.
- This: [10]. Not a PD source, but no issues. Common phrases or titles of works/ships etc.
- Overall, these seem find to me and appear to support what they are sourcing.
- A couple of other issues:
- date format here: Captain Thomas J. Hudner, Jr., USN, United States Navy, 2000-06-21, retrieved 2 November 2011 (perhaps change "2000-06-21" to "21 June 2000");
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- does this need a reference: "In 2000 this award was made retroactive to all U.S. military personnel who served in the Korean War"?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- does this need a second comma: "Hudner was accepted and sent to Naval Air Station Pensacola in Pensacola, Florida where he completed..." (after "Florida")?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- you use the "cite web" template for the Secretary of the Navy article, but I think it should just use the "citation" template for consistency with the other web sites (e.g compare Citation # 40 with # 41). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed everything. —Ed!(talk) 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, happy to add my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed everything. —Ed!(talk) 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- date format here: Captain Thomas J. Hudner, Jr., USN, United States Navy, 2000-06-21, retrieved 2 November 2011 (perhaps change "2000-06-21" to "21 June 2000");
Support Comments from Noleander
- Caption: "Hudner speaks with Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter .." - should say (right) to tell reader which person is Hudner.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who? - " Present at the commissioning ceremony in Boston, Massachusetts, were Daisy Brown Thorne, who had remarried, Pamela Brown, .." - Who is Pamela Brown? Brown's daughter?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Crop picture: - The picture with Winter has a lot of wasted background ... a cropped version should be created.
- Done. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Details? - " ... before intentionally crash landing his aircraft a .." - This sounds like a phenomenally difficult and courageous thing to do. Are there any details on how he was able to pull that off?
- Not really. Sources just say he landed it skids-up and don't go into detail about the procedure. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "and "about 90" people in his life told him .." - that "in his life" phrase is a bit confusing, and some readers may not grasp what is being said. Try to reword, maybe eliminate it entirely: " ... about 90 people have told him .." etc
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Date? - " In 1955 and 1956, he was transferred to .." - Transfer seems like a single-point-in-time event, so why 2 years?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: "Naval commanders felt the pilots on the carrier were better trained, .." - Better than who?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "Hudner flew 20 missions in-country." - Could "in-country" be explained for readers who are not familiar with the term?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why question source? - "bombed the crash site with napalm two days later, reportedly reciting the Lord's Prayer over the radio .." - Why use the word "reportedly" there? Is the source suspect for some reason on that one fact?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why claimed? - "During his initial years in the military, Hudner claimed to have no interest .." - Why use the word "claimed", is there some reason to doubt the source? See WP:CLAIM.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dated? - "He currently resides in Concord, Massachusetts, with his wife, Georgea" - is there a way to reword that so it won't get out of date if he moves or passes away? (WP:DATED)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning to support, once the above are addressed.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's everything. Thanks for your review. —Ed!(talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Support, based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support well done.PumpkinSky talk 23:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- Ed, I've just copyedited the lead as I think we had too much repetition of the subject's name. In a long paragraph, or when there's a chance of confusion because you're mentioning other people, it's fine to repeat the name occasionally. Otherwise, you should probably use pronouns more often. Anyway, pls check the rest of the article and see if anything needs to be done on that basis. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through and fixed a few more instances of it. I think it's more balanced now. —Ed!(talk) 15:42, 8 July 2012 (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 GrahamColm 15:47, 8 July 2012 [11].
- Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from Colin Hannah, here's another RAAF Chief who became a State Governor. Compared to Hannah's, Jim Rowland's governorship was uncontroversial but not without its interesting side, one author describing him as "the first vice-regal whistleblower". His Air Force career also broke the mold in a few ways, as he was the first RAAF Chief who:
- Joined the Air Force in World War II
- Commanded the RAAF personally, rather than through a committee
- Was from the Engineering Branch, as opposed to the General Duties Branch, i.e. the pilots' club.
This is currently GA, and A-Class at various Wikiprojects. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. No edits, a few comments, none stopping my support. - Dank (push to talk)
- I don't personally have a problem with this sentence, but I'd have to turn in my copyediting merit badge if I didn't point it out: "The CAS was nevertheless required to be a member of the Air Force's aircrew stream so, although already a qualified pilot, Rowland had to transfer from the Technical Branch to the General Duties Branch." Consider this change: "... aircrew stream; Rowland, a qualified pilot, had to transfer ...". You can kind of get the meaning from that, and there's a general sense among copyeditors that if you can kind of get the meaning without the qualifiers, then 3 qualifiers in a row ("so, although already") must be more than you need.
- Fair point; I felt that the "so" was useful to emphasise causality but trimmed the "although already" so there's one less qualifier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Air Force historian Alan Stephens, Rowland considered that the "collective wisdom" engendered by the Air Board had been generally beneficial to the RAAF, and believed the new arrangements led to "'paralysis and arrogation of decision making', and empire building in the Public Service component". [I left out my usual quotes here]: I take it that Rowland said "decision making" etc. and Stephens said "Public Service" etc., but perhaps that could be a little clearer. If you do need quotes within quotes, here and below, replace '" by {{' "}} and "' by {{" '}}.
- Yes, that's right. Heh, I wouldn't be in business here without Al Stephens but just occasionally I'd like to alter his expression... Implemented your suggestion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "set in train": Any objections to "set in motion"? Here's the Google ngram.
- None at all -- done. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Two_Mirage_III_of_the_Royal_Australian_Air_Force_1.JPEG returns 404 error
- FN10: page notation
- Does the Korbl title include a hyphen?
- FN31 vs 43. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, except the image link -- from 2006 and obviously gone dead over time -- doesn't show up in Wayback Machine so may have to think of something else... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, except the image link -- from 2006 and obviously gone dead over time -- doesn't show up in Wayback Machine so may have to think of something else... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Nice work as usual Ian. This is relatively short for your articles on RAAF chiefs, but I imagine that this reflects the odd fact that sources are harder to find for more recent military officers, and Rowland appears to have enjoyed a controversy-free career (helped by heading the RAAF during one of its duller periods no doubt). I've added a couple of odds and ends about him today, but I don't think that this reaches the level where I can't review the article.
- Thanks, I liked both those additions. I had in fact perused the F-111 book and was going to add something along the lines you did but got impatient trying to word it neatly, went on to Williams' interesting governorship tidbits, and never made it back to Lax... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are:
- "Rowland joined the Pathfinder Force" - 'joined' implies that he volunteered for this duty - is this correct? Otherwise 'was posted to' or equivalent might be better.
- Heh, it wasn't supposed to imply he had a choice but I agree your wording makes that clearer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rowland led trials on many of the Air Force's early jets" - this is a little bit awkward (mainly as 'led trials on' is sort-of passive). You could replace this with something like "Rowland led trials programs involving many of the Air Force's early jets".
- Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of becoming unpopular, the page range in citation 1 is probably too wide given that it's referenced seven times in quite a few different contexts. Can you reformat this to individual pages?
- Heh, there's less to that than may appear to meet the eye. High Fliers is a book of mini-bios, much like the Australian Dictionary of Biography. The pages are quite small and the printing quite large, plus one of the pages is a portrait of the subject, so there's only three pages of prose, which together hold no more info than the average ADB article, and probably less. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, fair enough then. I'm not familiar with this book. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, there's less to that than may appear to meet the eye. High Fliers is a book of mini-bios, much like the Australian Dictionary of Biography. The pages are quite small and the printing quite large, plus one of the pages is a portrait of the subject, so there's only three pages of prose, which together hold no more info than the average ADB article, and probably less. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As a suggestion only, you might want to briefly note what No. 3 Aircraft Depot's role was given that we still don't have an article on it (and this role was much more interesting and important than the unit's name suggests!). Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really wish you'd stop reading my mind... ;-) I was going to add a line on what it did, then thought bugger it, now I've done all the service flying training schools I might start on redlinked aircraft depots as a distraction -- if you can wait a little while, that might be the simpler solution as far as this article goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really wish you'd stop reading my mind... ;-) I was going to add a line on what it did, then thought bugger it, now I've done all the service flying training schools I might start on redlinked aircraft depots as a distraction -- if you can wait a little while, that might be the simpler solution as far as this article goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
- FN10 (Nelson, From Wagga to Waddington, pp.37–38): no problems, though you could explicitly note that master bombers had to circle over the target area at considerable risk to themselves.
- I double-checked Nelson and I think he only implied the above rather than stating it explicitly, at least on the pages I've used -- perhaps I missed something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I must have read it elsewhere. It's true though! ;) (and explains why so many of the master bombers ended up being both decorated for bravery and shot down)
- I double-checked Nelson and I think he only implied the above rather than stating it explicitly, at least on the pages I've used -- perhaps I missed something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN17 (Stephens, Going Solo, pp. 354–357): no problems, though it appears that the minister reached this conclusions separately to Rowland which doesn't quite come through in the text of the article at present
- I felt that the wording wasn't implying direct causality -- if I changed "the same" to "a similar", does that sound better? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds sensible. Placing Rowland's views directly alongside those of the minister's implies that there was some connection, which doesn't seem to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, and only mentioned them in the same breath because the source did -- anyway that little change is done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds sensible. Placing Rowland's views directly alongside those of the minister's implies that there was some connection, which doesn't seem to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt that the wording wasn't implying direct causality -- if I changed "the same" to "a similar", does that sound better? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN18 (Susans, The RAAF Mirage Story, p. 12): no problems
- FN25 (Stephens, The Royal Australian Air Force, pp. 296–297): no problems
- FN27 (Stephens, Going Solo, p. 80) and FN28a (Stephens, Australia's Air Chiefs, p. 11): checks out, and your phrasing to clarify what are Rowland's words and what are Stephens' in this somewhat complex passage is well handled
- FN35 (Dennis et al., Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, pp. 338–339): says that McNamara was the "second RAAF officer" to be the Chief of the Defence Force, not the first (this is presumably counting Scherger's period as the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee as being equivalent to the CDF, which I think is broadly correct). Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The emphasis intended was on "commanding" the three services, which CCOSC never actually did. I could probably reword, but now I re-read it I think it's debatable whether that guff is in fact necessary, given we link to a decent article (yes, all right, it's one I took to GA...!) about McNamara anyway -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree. The first time I read this sentence I actually thought it was Rowland who became the CDF, and had to double back. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (with a different tidbit thrown in). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree. The first time I read this sentence I actually thought it was Rowland who became the CDF, and had to double back. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The emphasis intended was on "commanding" the three services, which CCOSC never actually did. I could probably reword, but now I re-read it I think it's debatable whether that guff is in fact necessary, given we link to a decent article (yes, all right, it's one I took to GA...!) about McNamara anyway -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many tks, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Supported below looks good, only a few small comments thus far.
- "senior commander in the Royal Australian Air Force, serving as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) from 1975 to 1979." I'd add (RAAF) after Royal Australian Air Force.
- " on the family's 3,000-acre rural property" Might want to add a conversion here.
- "At 17, he entered the University of Sydney to study aeronautical engineering but left in May 1942 to enlist in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) as a pilot under the Empire Air Training Scheme." Might want to add a comma before "but" here.
- "in solitary confinement, he was scheduled" Is solitary confinement common enough to be delinked here? ditto for " being "the first Viceregal whistleblower" for"
- There is some inconsistency with comma usage: "In 1952 he was appointed" vs "In 1957, he raised concerns"
- "a consequence of defence reorganisation in the wake of the "Tange report" in 1973" Might want to add a brief mention of what the "Tange report" was. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I've done all those -- tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Alright, the few quibbles I could come up with have been resolved, and I'm satisfied that this meets the FA criteria. A worthy addition to the Australian Milhist series. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Much appreciated, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Should RAAF Staff College be linked?
- Yep.
- I thought the National Medal was a long service award?
- Doesn't the citation imply as much?
- Why isn't Air Vice Marshal James Flemming red-linked? He is in List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals.
- I think I've stated elsewhere I'm dubious about red-linking 2-stars just because they're 2-stars, even if according to our current notability standards I could do so. I mean he may well qualify for an article for more than just his rank anyway, I haven't gone into it...
- "University of Sydney" is linked on its second appearance.
- I think I meant to link to the list of chancellors, as in the lead -- done.
- Link "Labor" to "Australian Labor Party"
- Done.
- In "Labor Premiers", "premiers" should not be capitalised.
- Done.
- "As Governor of New South Wales, Rowland held a dormant commission to serve as Administrator of the Commonwealth" That is completely true, but he actually served as Administrator not merely because he was the Governor of New South Wales, but as the senior state governor, if you see what I mean. Also, you should probably link "Administrator of the Commonwealth" to Administrator (Australia).
- Fair enough -- added something but feel free to tweak if you think it can be better expressed.
- Any idea what he died from ? (NB: Lady Faye also died from cancer, in 2011)
- Him -- 'fraid not, but will keep an eye out. Her -- will look for newslink and put it in if I find it.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for review/support, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2012 (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 GrahamColm 16:47, 7 July 2012 [12].
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
“ | That story is known to all of you. It needs no profuse panegyrics. It is the story of the American soldier of the World War. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefield many years ago and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's greatest figures -- not only in the era which witnessed his achievements but for all eyes and for all time. I regarded him as not only one of the greatest military figures but also as one of the most stainless; his name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen.
The world's estimate of him will be founded not upon any one battle or even series of battles; indeed, it is not upon the greatest fields of combat or the bloodiest that the recollections of future ages are riveted. The vast theaters of Asiatic conflict are already forgotten today. The slaughtered myriads of Genghis Khan lie in undistinguished graves. Hardly a pilgrim visits the scenes where on the fields of Chalons and Tours the destinies of civilization and Christendom were fixed by the skill of Aetius and the valor of Charles Martel. |
” |
Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The big issue in the previous FAC seems to have been that the article was considered too large by FAC standards. On the day the FAC was archived, I'm getting: Prose size (including all HTML code): 127 kB, Prose size (text only): 76 kB (12667 words) "readable prose size". Today, I get: Prose size (including all HTML code): 118 kB, Prose size (text only): 71 kB (11654 words) "readable prose size". So, the first questions are: have FAC standards changed, and if not, is the trimming sufficient? (I don't have any view on this, I'm just trying to get us past the first hump.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FAC standards have indeed changed. A number of much larger FACs have since been approved, and today this article would not even make the top 100 in terms of size. I did cut it back severely, both during the FAC and since. My personal view about article size is that articles need to be as big as they need to be, and this one probably needs to be larger. It covers a long and very distinguished career - enough for it to qualify as a Vital article. So a great deal is expected. I think that in the severe pruning, the reader may have lost the ability to form an opinion on MacArthur's generalship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you like to add? - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We lost some material about his World War II campaigns, and some bits about his private life. I believe that the former is adequately summarised, but I was just afraid that the summary style means that reader must seek a deeper understanding in the subarticles, which in this case still often do not exist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you like to add? - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FAC standards have indeed changed. A number of much larger FACs have since been approved, and today this article would not even make the top 100 in terms of size. I did cut it back severely, both during the FAC and since. My personal view about article size is that articles need to be as big as they need to be, and this one probably needs to be larger. It covers a long and very distinguished career - enough for it to qualify as a Vital article. So a great deal is expected. I think that in the severe pruning, the reader may have lost the ability to form an opinion on MacArthur's generalship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Arthur MacArthur, Jr.,": Just a note that the second comma stuff is brutal for copyeditors because it's evolving and everything looks wrong to someone. This is fine with me; it's also fine to omit the second comma if there's some other punctuation there, which there is, in this case.
- "General of the Army Douglas MacArthur ... was an American general and field marshal of the Philippine Army. He was a Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the 1930s and played ...": We get criticized from time to time if the lead in FACs is too ... "he was this, he was this". It wouldn't hurt to tighten this lead; there are many options. How about this? "General of the Army Douglas MacArthur ... was a Chief of Staff of the United States Army and a field marshal of the Philippine Army during the 1930s who played ...". Here's another opportunity: "... MacArthur attended the West Texas Military Academy, where he was valedictorian, and the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he was First Captain, and graduated ..." If he was valedictorian, then he attended, so: "... MacArthur was valedictorian at the West Texas Military Academy and First Captain at the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he graduated ..." - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two more second commas needed: "San Antonio, Texas" and "Army Chief of Staff, Major General Leonard Wood".
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, So far so good down to Douglas MacArthur#Veracruz expedition. You've already picked up plenty of support on this one; well done on a long, difficult and very important article. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually for a biography, "Bibliography" would refer to the subject's own works. Any particular reason for the layout you've chosen?
- No. Changed to the usual format. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually "Usually for a biography, "Bibliography" would refer to the subject's own works" is nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Changed to the usual format. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare FNs 149 and 126
- Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 238: why no retrieval date?
- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 272: formatting's strange, and any chance of a better source for this info?
- What is wrong? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare publisher formatting on Dower and Farwell
- Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- State for Drea?
- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of your sources are missing locations
- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you use "DC" or "D.C."
- Be consistent in when you provide state
- Not sure about this one. Went through this before and the reviewers did not like a lot of "New York, New York"s. So it was decided to use the state only where the city was not well known. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but you're not doing that consistently - for example, you have first "Lawrence" and then later "Lawrence, Kansas". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They all say "Lawrence, Kansas" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but you're not doing that consistently - for example, you have first "Lawrence" and then later "Lawrence, Kansas". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about this one. Went through this before and the reviewers did not like a lot of "New York, New York"s. So it was decided to use the state only where the city was not well known. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher for Lutz?
- It's a journal. Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:VCSA_Flag.jpg: source link is dead (this image is a source for one in a navbox)
- Put one in. Not sure I should have done that now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Macarthurmemorial.JPG: what's the copyright status of the memorial?
- It's copyrighted, but when a building is ordinarily visible from a public place, its protection as an "architectural work" does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but freedom of panorama in the US does not extend to statues. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The MacArthur Memorial believes that they own it, as they bought the statue. They say you can photograph the statue, and so does the City of Norfolk, under its public art policy; but I am not a lawyer, and don't know what rights remain with the sculptor, who died ten years ago. It is impossible to photograph the memorial without the statue, but we could use this image instead in which it is less prominent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but freedom of panorama in the US does not extend to statues. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's copyrighted, but when a building is ordinarily visible from a public place, its protection as an "architectural work" does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:IMTFE_defendants.jpg: when/where was this first published?
- No idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Japanese-surrender-mac-arthur-color-ac04627.jpg: source link appears broken
- Not really. Some browsers automatically insert the WWW when they get a 404. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Curtinmacarthur.jpg: source link is dead
- Only moved. I've correct it, but may be better to leave these alone. FAC takes 3 or 4 years; the links are not expected to be around when an article finally makes it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Douglas_MacArthur_as_USMA_Superintendent.jpg: source link returns 404 error
- Yep. West Point reorganised the site. The picture is from the yearbook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:General_Pershing_decorates_General_MacArthur_with_the_Distinguished_Service_Cross.jpg: what is "SC"?
- Signal Corps The image is actually a motion picture still. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Douglas_MacArthur,_Army_photo_portrait_seated,_France_1918.JPEG: source link returns 404 error
- Works for me. I wound up here
- The source link in the pic page does not work for me. The link I'm seeing is http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/2005/Army/DA-SD-05-00593.JPEG which has a 404 status. --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. Fixed the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The source link in the pic page does not work for me. The link I'm seeing is http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/2005/Army/DA-SD-05-00593.JPEG which has a 404 status. --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. I wound up here
- File:View_copy.jpg: source?
- What is it?
- File:Cmoh_army.jpg: source?
- No idea. There are copies all over the internet, and the original uploader has been inactive since 2008. The image is not copyrightable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I supported this article's previous nomination, and it's been further improved since then. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Noleander
- Clarify: "... withdraw to Bataan, where they held out until May 1942. In March 1942, MacArthur, his family and his staff left Corregidor Island in PT boats ..." - Readers not familiar with the geography may not realize that Corregidor is next to / part of Bataan, so the two sentences may be perceived as not related. Can the connection be made stronger somehow?
- Changed to "nearby Corregidor Island"
- Clarify: "Somehow MacArthur, who did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons, became in the popular imagination the one who did." - A bit too poetic, and many readers wont be able to understand the point (frankly, Im not 100% sure what it is trying to say). Also, grammar is not quite right: "the one who did" requires a "the ..." earlier in the sentence. Suggest rewrite sentence in plainer terms.
- Reworded: Ironically, MacArthur, who did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons, became associated with threatening their use.
- Huge sentence: "Douglas MacArthur was born 26 January 1880, at the Arsenal Barracks in Little Rock, Arkansas to Lieutenant General Arthur MacArthur, Jr., at the time a U.S. Army captain and a recipient of the Medal of Honor for action during the American Civil War, and Mary Pinkney Hardy MacArthur (nicknamed "Pinky") from Norfolk, Virginia." - Should break into two. Also, who is from Norfolk? Just the mother? or both parents? Originally from Norfolk, or living in Norfolk at the time of birth?
- Pinky was born in Norfolk. Why is this important? Because Norfolk is where the Douglas MacArthur museum is now located.
- Wealth? - Do the sources indicate how (relatively) wealthy his parents/family were? If so, that should be included in the Education and early life section.
- Not very. They lived on Arthur's army salary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hidden reason: "..Louise obtained a divorce, ostensibly on the grounds of "failure to provide"." - If the reader is told it is the ostensible reason, they should also be told the (historian's guess at) the real reason.
- According to court documents, maybe? - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand that "failure to provide" is a legal term that was used in the divorce paperwork. My point is that the word "ostensibly" should either be removed or explained. Keeping "ostensibly" means that some underlying reason is suspected, in which case it should be explained to the reader. Or, just remove "ostensibly". --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct. It was preposterous in view of Louise's vast wealth. Unfortunately, material about this was cut in the trimming process.
- Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand that "failure to provide" is a legal term that was used in the divorce paperwork. My point is that the word "ostensibly" should either be removed or explained. Keeping "ostensibly" means that some underlying reason is suspected, in which case it should be explained to the reader. Or, just remove "ostensibly". --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wives in InfoBox: The infoBox has several male relatives (including a son without a WP article), but neither of his two wives, both of whom have their own WP articles. Recommend including wives.
- Agreed. I keep removing his son, because Arthur IV (who is still alive) is not notable. Added Louise and Jean. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote #272 is missing a period at the end (but not sure if that is what Nikkimaria is talking about above).
- Could be. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording not ideal: "For someone who served so long, MacArthur made little impact on the Army. " - First, the mere fact that someone served a long time would not lead one to think they should have an impact (e.g. 30 yr enlisteds; or even most 30 yr generals) - instead should say "For a five-star general who served 40+ years ..."; Second, is this the editor's opinion, or do the sources say that? If the latter, need a footnote on that sentence, since it is a rather dramatic statement.
- Better to let the facts speak. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoBox formatting: In the "Rank" item: I'm seeing some ugliness caused by the five-star icon: the left parenthesis is raised up above the text (above "Army" and "United"). Should be fixed for an FA article.
- Not on my screeb. What browser, platform and resolution are you using? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chrome / Mac OSX.
If it is only me, don't worry about it.Aha .. the problem is the Skin I choose in my WP preferences. The problem shows up in the Modern skin, but goes away in the Monobook skin (have not checked the others). --Noleander (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chrome / Mac OSX.
- Otherwise, a great article! Leaning towards support.
End Nolender comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questions:
- is the spelling "reconoiter" a correct transcription of the original?
- No; it is spelled "reconnoiter". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- is "General M'Arthur" a correct transcription of what The New York Times called him?
- Yes, it was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange! Tim riley (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The article is authoritative, in good prose, balanced, properly illustrated and formidably referenced. I don't see its length as in any way a drawback. In some long articles one has the impression that the author has thrown in every obtainable fact regardless of importance, but this article is very much to the point throughout. Tim riley (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, close to support -- a monumental undertaking, well done. A few thoughts for improvement at this stage; will complete this in next day or so:
- Junior officer: He passed his examinations for promotion to first lieutenant in Manila in March 1904 and was promoted to the rank in April -- Minor point but was it unusual to have to pass an exam for promotion? I'd prefer to trim this to He was promoted to first lieutenant in April 1904.
- No, that was normal at the time. It's really only a problem for people familiar with the moderrn system, whereby you are promoted to first lieutenant on receiving your first posting. Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- World War I: The 42nd Division returned to the line for the last time on the night of 4/5 November 1918. In the final advance on Sedan, it became involved in what MacArthur considered "narrowly missed being one of the great tragedies of American history." -- Don't really like "considered 'narrowly'" even though it might be grammatically okay. Can we say The 42nd Division returned to the line for the last time on the night of 4/5 November 1918, to take part in the final advance on Sedan. MacArthur later wrote that [or In MacArthur's words] the assault "narrowly missed being one of the great tragedies of American history."?
- The Big Chief often uses Victorian grammatical idioms that are perfectly correct, but sound odd to the modern ear. Re-worded as suggested.
- Between the wars:
- MacArthur became romantically involved with socialite and multi-millionaire heiress Louise Cromwell Brooks. Rumors circulated that General Pershing, who was fond of Louise, had exiled MacArthur to the Philippines. This was denied by Pershing as "all damn poppycock." MacArthur married Louise on 14 February 1922 at her family's villa in Palm Beach, Florida. In October 1922, MacArthur left West Point to assume command of the Military District of Manila. -- Think we need a bit more context: 1) First sentence seems to cry out for a date or "during his posting to West Point", or some such; 2) When was Black Jack supposed to have exiled him to the Philippines to keep him away from Louise, given Mac went to Manila after he married her?
- However, he encountered southern prejudice against the son of a Union Army officer, and requested to be relieved. -- Do we mean he encountered southern prejudice "because he was the son" of a Union Army officer? If so, think we should use the latter wording to spell it out.
- Yes. Re-worded as suggested. Forgot to say his father was with the Union Army. Added a bit. Of course this thread ultimately leads to his entombment in Norfolk. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "We have not come 3,000 miles," he told them, "just to lose gracefully." -- Given this emphasis on Mac's grand designs, I feel we should learn something of the result, say a sentence.
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- World War II:
- Anticipating that the Japanese would strike at Port Moresby again... -- First time you've mentioned Moresby, so the "again" needs context or rewording.
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the New Guinea campaign's bloodiest and most strategically useless battle." -- I think such opinionated quotes (however widely held) should be attributed in the article text. There are a number of quotes in the subsequent Luzon subsection that could use similar attention. Likewise "one of the most impressive and divisive oratorical performances of recent American times" in Relief.
- Hawkeye, returning to this review, I don't think the above point re. "bloodiest and most strategically useless battle" has been actioned (the second is moot now as the quote's been removed). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anticipating that the Japanese would strike at Port Moresby again... -- First time you've mentioned Moresby, so the "again" needs context or rewording.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A question for you: Do you think we need the medal of honor citation at the bottom (or somewhere else), or is the picture of the plaque good enough? The plaque is no longer readable with the images shrunk. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if it were "my" article, I'd include the citation (without Rank & Organisation, and especially without the medal image -- but you figured that!) at the point he was awarded it. To go with the extra size I'd gained on that section, I'd enlarge the plaque image by say half as much again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if it were "my" article, I'd include the citation (without Rank & Organisation, and especially without the medal image -- but you figured that!) at the point he was awarded it. To go with the extra size I'd gained on that section, I'd enlarge the plaque image by say half as much again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I don't think the Relief section adequately summarises the subject. President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur seems more even-handed in its treatment. I have several good book sources I can perhaps use to help support a more NPOV wording here but at present I am afraid this will not do. --John (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur as well, so I have all of its source books and articles here. Bearing in mind that a summary is all that can be included in this article, what additional points should it cover? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that this section is, as you say, a summary, I don't think the two long quotations are essential. They could be summarised and shortened. I don't like the whole paragraph that begins That day...; I think it could be rewritten to flow better. Finally and most importantly it reads like it is trying extra hard to avoid criticism of the subject; there should be no place for The relief of the famous general by the unpopular politician led to a constitutional crisis and a storm of public controversy.[256]; the adjectives are out of place in a neutral depiction of this episode. I'm immediately thinking of Dan van der Vat and Martin Gilbert who have both written quite good critical accounts of MacArthur's relief. --John (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The quotations are from two of his most famous speeches, containing his most famous phrases. There would be no point in summarizing them. The adjectives are neutral and objective and are necessary to explain why the relief caused a public controversy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten this section to address the objections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that this section is, as you say, a summary, I don't think the two long quotations are essential. They could be summarised and shortened. I don't like the whole paragraph that begins That day...; I think it could be rewritten to flow better. Finally and most importantly it reads like it is trying extra hard to avoid criticism of the subject; there should be no place for The relief of the famous general by the unpopular politician led to a constitutional crisis and a storm of public controversy.[256]; the adjectives are out of place in a neutral depiction of this episode. I'm immediately thinking of Dan van der Vat and Martin Gilbert who have both written quite good critical accounts of MacArthur's relief. --John (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Legacy section needs work as well, per section 1b. There should be no prejudice against including a proportional measure of sourced negative commentary here. I especially don't like "ironically".--John (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "ironically" is used correctly. macArthur did not advocate using nuclear weapons; but many people think that he did. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have general concerns about the completeness of coverage. I have made a more detailed comment and proposed a critical source at Talk:Douglas MacArthur. I also have qualms about how we cover the nuclear weapons in Korea issue. Did he or didn't he lobby for their use or the threat thereof? It is easy to find sources saying that he did. If he didn't, as our article currently says, we need a more comprehensive discussion about the controversy. --John (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is an important point.
- A more comprehensive discussion of such a minor aspect would be WP:UNDUE; it already has a section, and is covered in greater depth in the subarticle President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is an important point.
- I still have general concerns about the completeness of coverage. I have made a more detailed comment and proposed a critical source at Talk:Douglas MacArthur. I also have qualms about how we cover the nuclear weapons in Korea issue. Did he or didn't he lobby for their use or the threat thereof? It is easy to find sources saying that he did. If he didn't, as our article currently says, we need a more comprehensive discussion about the controversy. --John (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing at all much about his private life? --John (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I amended this because I see mention of his two marriages and one mistress. Weren't there more? Wasn't he also a famed drinker? Where is the man MacArthur in this account? I am not seeing it, I just see a very favourable military history. I need to see more detail and more balance. --John (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, MacArthur seldom drank. Despite his corn-cob pipe image, he didn't smoke that much either, especially in his later years. He was only married twice, and only had the one mistress. I have added some more personal details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare with other featured military biographies, it has a great deal about his personal life. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. --John (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prosewise, there are too many sentences like "Anticipating that the Japanese would strike at Port Moresby again, the garrison was strengthened." The whole thing needs a going-over to tighten the prose. I'd say right now I oppose for completeness and prose quality. --John (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As of this date I still very strongly oppose based on the over-favourable coverage of especially the later part of the subject's career. I believe it doesn't currently even meet GA standards in this regard. --John (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC) A read of Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Nuclear threats in Korea; did he or didn't he? and the following section will show some interesting discussion outlining some of the obvious problems this article has. Until they are addressed this cannot be promoted. --John (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- John, as a matter of protocol I'd suggest you unbold the "oppose" immediately above as you've already placed one earlier -- I'd do it myself if I was wearing my delegate hat in this FAC, but I've recused myself so I can review. I'd also suggest to you that whether your oppose sways other delegates or not will depend on how they see your arguments, rather than rhetoric such as your last sentence above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We must have very different understandings of the word rhetoric! In case anyone else is confused, this article currently fails on criteria 1b (completeness of coverage) and 1d (NPOV).--John (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But it does have a scholarly section on it, which satisfies completeness of coverage and NPOV. Even in James's 2,000 page bio of MacArthur he spends only a two or three pages on it, as opposed to a few hundred pages on the occupation of Japan. It seems about right to give it as much space as the George Washington article devotes to the cherry tree anecdote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It don't doubt that it seems about right to you. NPOV however would dictate a more even-handed and comprehensive approach. I am happy to work with you to help make this a more balanced article. If you are interested I will see you in article talk. --John (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NPOV does not mean equal weight. The fact that it was proven Mac never stated, in an explicit manner, that he will use nuclear weapon against China during December 1950, and the fact that the nuclear controversy was start by Truman's gaffe, should not be buried in endless analysis on Mac' intentions. Jim101 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NPOV does not have to mean equal weight but neither should it mean zero weight. This is just a sample of what is wrong with the article at the moment. --John (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NPOV does not mean equal weight. The fact that it was proven Mac never stated, in an explicit manner, that he will use nuclear weapon against China during December 1950, and the fact that the nuclear controversy was start by Truman's gaffe, should not be buried in endless analysis on Mac' intentions. Jim101 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It don't doubt that it seems about right to you. NPOV however would dictate a more even-handed and comprehensive approach. I am happy to work with you to help make this a more balanced article. If you are interested I will see you in article talk. --John (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But it does have a scholarly section on it, which satisfies completeness of coverage and NPOV. Even in James's 2,000 page bio of MacArthur he spends only a two or three pages on it, as opposed to a few hundred pages on the occupation of Japan. It seems about right to give it as much space as the George Washington article devotes to the cherry tree anecdote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We must have very different understandings of the word rhetoric! In case anyone else is confused, this article currently fails on criteria 1b (completeness of coverage) and 1d (NPOV).--John (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I'm probably not going to have enough time to review further, but I do have a few nit-picks in various areas...
Don't think McArthur's first name needs to be repeated in the second paragraph. I don't see any other family names provided earlier in the lead that could cause the confusion needed for repetition.- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still see it in there. Not sure if you forgot to save the edit, but that's one possibility.Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Perhaps you meant the second paragraph of the lead instead of the body. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the rationale for using the international style of date formatting (## Month Year) instead of the typical American style (Month ##, Year) for an American subject. Not the biggest deal in the world, but I am curious.- I can jump in here... US military uses day-month-year. At MilHist we decided that for US military articles, either format was acceptable as long as applied consistently. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Junior officer: Somewhat strange that California isn't linked, but Texas is. Personally I wouldn't link either; there are already long stretches of blue in this section, and more probably isn't desirable.- Personally I don't link states when they appear simply as context for a linked city or other location, only when they're 'stand-alone'. Generally I'm not that fussed either way, but presentation should be consistent, and I tend to agree that erring on the side of less blue is reasonable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I don't link states when they appear simply as context for a linked city or other location, only when they're 'stand-alone'. Generally I'm not that fussed either way, but presentation should be consistent, and I tend to agree that erring on the side of less blue is reasonable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Saint-Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne Offensive: "moving to the Argonne section where it relieved the 1st Division there on the night of 11 October." The word "there" strikes me as a redundancy; it adds next to nothing to the prose, and removing it doesn't seem likely to change the meaning; in fact, it would be an improvement.- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"on the night of 4/5 November 1918." The en dash style of formatting seen earlier in this section is more MoS-friendly than using a slash, from what I understand.- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Field Marshal of the Philippine Army: "Over the next two years, the MacArthur and Jean were frequently seen together." Second "the" needs to be removed since it's fouling up the sentence.- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I did some minor tweaks this morning, but I believe this article meets our FA criteria. One thing I wasn't certain about, though was the formatting of Note #314 as opposed to the other web sites that are cited. Compare "Retrieved 7 May 2010." with "retrieved 24 February 2010". There are also slight differences in terms of "at" and the use of a full stop, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the full stops and capitals, but cannot do anything about the "at"; it is part of the template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you're using {{IMDb name}} for that one; perhaps simply using {{cite web}} with the IMDB page's URL, rather than the former template's use of an identifier found within it, would help with consistency. The end result is largely the same—the same for the casual reader but the latter template is both easier to work with and would alleviate this problem entirely. GRAPPLE X 13:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fixed that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you're using {{IMDb name}} for that one; perhaps simply using {{cite web}} with the IMDB page's URL, rather than the former template's use of an identifier found within it, would help with consistency. The end result is largely the same—the same for the casual reader but the latter template is both easier to work with and would alleviate this problem entirely. GRAPPLE X 13:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the full stops and capitals, but cannot do anything about the "at"; it is part of the template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I commented but (I now see) did not vote last time. Meets the standards, & I'm less concerned about length. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment: Has Ian Rose's comment above been addressed? (See: "Hawkeye, returning to this review, I don't think the above point re. 'bloodiest and most strategically useless battle' has been actioned (the second is moot now as the quote's been removed)". Graham Colm (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It has now. The quote has been removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2012 (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 Ian Rose 12:08, 6 July 2012 [13].
- Nominator(s): Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This autobiographical account of Tony Blair's years in Downing Street was promoted to GA in January 2011, but a shot at FAC the following month was unsuccessful. I created the article in August 2010, but didn't take part in the promotion process. More recently I've returned to it following my last FAC, and submitted it for peer review. It has received an extensive peer review by both The Rambling Man and Daniel Case. Daniel has also done a significant copy edit. I now believe it meets the standard required so am putting it forward for its second FAC. As always any assistance with images, graphics, etc, would be very helpful. Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Images:
File:Princess diana bristol 1987 01.jpg - I'd crop this to focus on her head, like this.RemovedFile:Bush 43 10-19-04 Stpete.jpg - I'm not sure the copyright holder is the uploader. We have many free images of Bush, so replacing this will be easy.Replaced with official portrait. (PD)File:Tony Blaire's Visit to Dublin - 4th. September 2010.jpg - This falls afoul of the freedom of panorama laws inRemovedBritainIreland, as it is not a "permanent" fixture. Should be removed. I'll be nominating it for deletion.
- Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk.
- K, I'm leaning support but would like to see a bit more feedback from editors familiar with British politics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Biased support I worked extensively on the article around Christmas 2010, took it through the GA process and unsuccessfully nominated it for FA. I haven't been active here for about a year because of exams and other such things, but I am happy to see an article which Paul MacDermott first created being taken through FAC again. I have read through the article again and am satisfied that I did not leave any errors and Paul has brought it up from GA standard to FA standard. wackywace 18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is generally accepted that a Prime Minister does not discuss details of conversations he has with the Sovereign." - source? Although I think this is self-evident from "The Queen reportedly felt . . ." and hence the Note is unnecessary. Also, why are the reviews restricted to the US and UK? And why is an entire paragraph devoted to Zakaria's review, while British reviewers only get one sentence?—indopug (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref added for "It is generally acccepted".
- Shrunk NYT quote and merged with previous paragraph.
- Re:UK and US reviews. They're the two countries where Blair has had the greatest influence. Will look for other reviews though: Perhaps The Australian, Straits Times, Irish Times, etc. Other suggestions welcome. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There don't appear to be many reviews outside Britain and the US, but I've found a few - from The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), The Globe and Mail (Canada) and The Hindu (India). Shall I add them? Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If those references have anything relevant to say then, yes, they should be included. If the "Reception" section is getting too long, then consider splitting out some content to create a "Style/Themes/Genre" section with the content that is descriptive of those elements. There are several comments in the Reception section that cover the wrting style/tone and how Blair approached the memoir genre. Though, nothing quite communicates the writing style/tone like a short passage quote directly from the book. maclean (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. There's certainly enough material in the article to do something like that. I'll look into it. Also I found one or two more international reviews, but they only seem to report the content rather than actually commenting on it. I'm quite surprised not to have found more about it on the international scene, particularly as Blair is a key player on the world stage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have been working on this offline for a couple of days so apologies for the delayed response. I've slimmed the reception section down a bit, and split the political reaction from it as I feel that is a separate issue. Also taken out a couple of reviews in favour of balance. What is left now are those I see as the most important. Also added the international section, but can remove this again if people don't think it adds anything to the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. There's certainly enough material in the article to do something like that. I'll look into it. Also I found one or two more international reviews, but they only seem to report the content rather than actually commenting on it. I'm quite surprised not to have found more about it on the international scene, particularly as Blair is a key player on the world stage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If those references have anything relevant to say then, yes, they should be included. If the "Reception" section is getting too long, then consider splitting out some content to create a "Style/Themes/Genre" section with the content that is descriptive of those elements. There are several comments in the Reception section that cover the wrting style/tone and how Blair approached the memoir genre. Though, nothing quite communicates the writing style/tone like a short passage quote directly from the book. maclean (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport -having a look-through now. Will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadevertently change the meaning) and place queries below.Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say I find reading the synopsis of a biography in the present tense weird, but if that is consensus then so be it....
Morgan said it had been purely his imagination- whose imagination - Blair's or his own....- His own
- It is a shame there is no more detailed analysis of how it contrasts with other memoirs of the same time - e.g. Mandelson's The Third Man: Life at the Heart of New Labour...if any of tehse could be found with this or any other memoirs I think that would greatly enhance the article.
- This article from Prospect Magazine briefly touches on this, though it is mainly concerned with how Blair is described by Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell in their memoirs, compared with how he portrayed himself. I'll see what else is about.
- Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I meant. Nice find. It provides some nice contrasts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, I've got five, four of which I think have potential. Of those, however, the Lancaster University source requires access to Palgrave Journals so in reality there's actually three. I'll post some of the best quotes on the talk page and put something together from it.
- ok, have written a draft section from information I've gathered together which can be found on the talk page. Let me know what you think.
- Information added. I've also tweaked the lead slightly to account for the extra details.
- ok, have written a draft section from information I've gathered together which can be found on the talk page. Let me know what you think.
- Great, I've got five, four of which I think have potential. Of those, however, the Lancaster University source requires access to Palgrave Journals so in reality there's actually three. I'll post some of the best quotes on the talk page and put something together from it.
- Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I meant. Nice find. It provides some nice contrasts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article from Prospect Magazine briefly touches on this, though it is mainly concerned with how Blair is described by Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell in their memoirs, compared with how he portrayed himself. I'll see what else is about.
- prose in the first para of the history section is a little stilted, but I appreciate adherence to sources and can't honestly see any way of massaging it.....
- It is a shame there is no more detailed analysis of how it contrasts with other memoirs of the same time - e.g. Mandelson's The Third Man: Life at the Heart of New Labour...if any of tehse could be found with this or any other memoirs I think that would greatly enhance the article.
Overall, within striking distance of FA over the line on comprehensiveness and prose. I can help if there are any political analyses in journals with fulltext available though JSTOR Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If they have some that would be very helpful. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 12:08, 6 July 2012 [14].
- Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cave Story, the indie platformer that took the internet by storm, is ready to be a featured article. It just passed GA, a process which embiggened several sections of the article. I believe the article succinctly captures what makes this game special, so come at me, reviewers! :) Axem Titanium (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Transcluded at this timestamp. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to review this article. I played this game a few months ago and loved it. L1ght5h0w (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've only reviewed one other article so far, so I'm still trying to find a good way to get my comments written down so they are in a nice and easy to read format, so please bear with me. I think I'm going to go by section.
- Plot
- Storyline
1. The following sentence is a bit long, if you ask me: "Two of the Doctor's servants, Misery and Balrog, are looking for Sue Sakamoto, a girl who had been transformed into a Mimiga, but mistakenly abduct Toroko, another Mimiga, instead."- Split the sentence. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Also, I believe abduct should be abducted.- Plot sections are in the present tense. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Following this sentence, the article states the player finds Sue in the the Egg Corridor, but makes no mention of the player going to look for Sue, or why the player looks for her.- It's not so much that you go looking for her, so much as that the Egg Corridor is the only place to go and you happen to find her there. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. In that same part, it mentions she finds an egg of a Sky Dragon that could allow her to escape the island. It just seems to me like part of the story is missing there.- Clarified backstory. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, but could you specify where/how you clarified the problem?L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- In the Setting section, I mention that the research team has become stranded on the floating island, hence the need for a Sky Dragon to escape. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see now. Thank you for clarifying. L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Setting section, I mention that the research team has become stranded on the floating island, hence the need for a Sky Dragon to escape. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified backstory. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. It goes on to say that Sue attempts to rescue her brother. Who is her brother? Why is he on the island? And when did Toroko get kidnapped?- Clarified backstory. Also, Toroko got kidnapped when it says she was abducted. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely missed the part that said Toroko got kidnapped. However, after you split that sentence and I read it again, it was much easier to find. L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified backstory. Also, Toroko got kidnapped when it says she was abducted. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Balrog steals the key to the storehouse where the red flowers are kept from Jenka." It seems like another bit of the story is missing between where Jenka tells the player they are a "surface warrior" and this sentence, like how we find out about the red flowers being in the storehouse, and the existence of the storehouse/key.- Fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see "More comments" below. L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. "... and that they were not the killer robots who slaughtered Mimigas in the past." Where/how did we learn about the killer robots? They have not been mentioned before.- Clarified backstory. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reception
8. "EGM stated that ..." I believe you need to spell out Electronic Gaming Monthly, and then optionally have (EGM) following it, like this: "Electronic Gaming Monthly (EGM)".- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Storyline
- Other things
I found multiple wikilinks to the following:- Metroid
- Castlevania
- Nintendo Power
In the case of the Nintendo Power, there is one in the lead section and two in the Reception section. I believe according to the MoS it is acceptable to have one link to something in the lead, and then one more link to it somewhere else in the article.- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct me on anything if I'm wrong. L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, finals period snuck up on me. I'll be free to work on the article in a few days. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem L1ght5h0w (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the changes you asked. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem L1ght5h0w (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comments by L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After re-reading this section:
- "Booster sends the player to the Sand Zone to destroy the red flowers before the Doctor can find them. While there, the player meets Curly Brace, a female robot who also has no memories of her past, and Jenka, an old witch who is Misery's mother and guardian of the red flowers. Jenka calls the player character a "soldier from the surface", one of many who were sent to the island to slaughter the Mimigas. Balrog steals the key to the storehouse where the red flowers are kept from Jenka. The Doctor forces Toroko to eat a red flower as a test, but King arrives to try to stop him and is killed in the process. The player is forced to kill Toroko, who has gone into a murderous rage as a result of the flowers."
- A few things are hard for me to determine:
If Jenka is the guardian of the red flowers, why are "the red flowers [kept] from Jenka"? It seems like if Jenka is the guardian, she should have access to them. But the way the sentence reads, it seems the flowers are locked away from Jenka, and not that Jenka locked them away to "guard" them.
- Oh man, clauses are confusing. Fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the storehouse again, does the player just figure out that the flowers are in them? Or does someone tell them? Not necessarily suggesting a change here, I just would like to know.
- I think Jenka tells you at some point but the player's moment-to-moment motivations aren't super important, imo, since he doesn't speak. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How did King die?
- It's not clear if Misery or the Doctor fired the lightning bolt so I left it vague. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did the Doctor recover any of the red flowers? Or did the player destroy them?
- Clarified. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying these things. Now, how do I support this... L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It should be noted that I have only checked for copy editing mistakes and some confusion pertaining to the story line. I have read the entire article and have found no more items needing copy edit attention. With that said, some may still exist that I did not catch.
- Going back and checking the criteria, I believe the article meets all criteria
except possibly 1(c).I could be wrong though. Also, I apologize for editing this page 10 thousand (and 2) times. L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for the support. What aspect do you feel is missing with respect to 1c? Is there a section which is weak on referencing? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The story part, but after thinking about it, there really may not be a better way to reference it than quotes from the game itself (which you have done). L1ght5h0w (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. Thanks for clarifying. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The story part, but after thinking about it, there really may not be a better way to reference it than quotes from the game itself (which you have done). L1ght5h0w (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. What aspect do you feel is missing with respect to 1c? Is there a section which is weak on referencing? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Great work so far, but a few things:
- From lede: "After its initial release on the Internet, Cave Story slowly gained popularity as an indie game." Awkwardly worded - this could be interpreted as: the game, despite not being an indie game, gained popularity as one, or, It gained popularity because it was an indie game. You should just categorise it as an indie game, and then say it gained in popularity - not "as an indie game".
- From Gameplay: "pressing down on the control pad." Overly specific? You don't give specific controls for other abilities (i.e., weapon-use). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both fixed, I think. How do you feel about the wording now? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Improved. Good luck with the nomination. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images: File:Cavestory.png has a rather weak rationale. It's not quite clear what element of gameplay needs to be illustrated, as such. It's not like there's extensive discussion of the healthbars or anything, while the graphics are well-indicated by the lead image. Unless there's a stronger reason for this to be there, I think it should probably be removed. If it is kept, a size reduction would probably be useful. The other two images are fine. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced the image with a more interesting/illustrative one. The new one depicts more gameplay systems. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, better. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links need to be addressed
- The peer review tool didn't find any. Which ones are you referring to? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still one tagged as such, so if it's fixed the tag should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed it since it didn't add much and I couldn't find an archivelink. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still one tagged as such, so if it's fixed the tag should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The peer review tool didn't find any. Which ones are you referring to? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This?
- Destructoid author is Jonathan Holmes, an associate editor on the site and therefore subject to editorial review, unlike the user-blogs on that site.. 2nd source was an archive of the original but I found a better archive on archive.org. 3rd was removed. I replaced one GoNintendo ref with Tiny Cartridge and the other two are primary sources (a press release and an interview). Siliconera is an interview, which is fine per WP:VG/S. Tiny Cartridge is also interviews. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is Destructoid's process for editorial review? VG/S doesn't provide any evidence in support of Siliconera. What makes Tiny Cartridge reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per discussion at WT:VG/S, Destructoid staff writers are reliable for their own opinions and interviews are primary sources, so unless there is doubt about whether the interview happened or not, they can be accepted as such. This rationale also applies to Siliconera (mentioned in the notes under situational sources at VG/S) and Tiny Cartridge. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is Destructoid's process for editorial review? VG/S doesn't provide any evidence in support of Siliconera. What makes Tiny Cartridge reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Destructoid author is Jonathan Holmes, an associate editor on the site and therefore subject to editorial review, unlike the user-blogs on that site.. 2nd source was an archive of the original but I found a better archive on archive.org. 3rd was removed. I replaced one GoNintendo ref with Tiny Cartridge and the other two are primary sources (a press release and an interview). Siliconera is an interview, which is fine per WP:VG/S. Tiny Cartridge is also interviews. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some titles use hyphens where they should use dashes
- I'm afraid I don't know what the difference is. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A hyphen is shorter than an endash: Hyphen ( - ), endash ( – ). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, so when is the proper time to use each? Should all titles contain only endashes instead of hyphens? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the details of dash use are kind of complex, MOS:HYPHEN & MOS:DASH have all the details. I just fixed the ones in this article with a script though. Also, User talk:GregU/dashes.js and User:Cameltrader/Advisor can automatically fix a number of dash and hyphen issues, definitely worth installing. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome, thanks for that. Now I know. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the details of dash use are kind of complex, MOS:HYPHEN & MOS:DASH have all the details. I just fixed the ones in this article with a script though. Also, User talk:GregU/dashes.js and User:Cameltrader/Advisor can automatically fix a number of dash and hyphen issues, definitely worth installing. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, so when is the proper time to use each? Should all titles contain only endashes instead of hyphens? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A hyphen is shorter than an endash: Hyphen ( - ), endash ( – ). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't know what the difference is. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN23: publisher?
- Removed. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check wikilinking for consistency
- I assume you mean in the publisher field of citations. Removed all wikilinks. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Publications should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator: Nikkimaria has stated that all sourcing issues have been resolved to her satisfaction. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not comprehensive. The reception section does not offer any response on Cave Story+. I would remove Gamerankings from the review box (it's largely the same as metacritic), and include a metacritic line for Cave Story+. I would append some thoughts on Cave Story+ after the PC reception paragraph.
- You also need to tidy up the reviews table. Why include the Edge score if you never actually refer to that review in the prose? You reference two IGN reviews in the prose, yet only show one score in the review box. That score does not indicate which version it is for, neither do any of the others. They should make it clear, as they're not always the same. - hahnchen 22:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if this is an actionable objection. Cave Story Plus, as noted in the article, is basically a PC/Mac port of the WiiWare version (with one new level) and was not reviewed by any of the major game review websites or magazines as a separate game. Metacritic only lists 6 reviews for it which is hardly a "critical consensus", compared to the 25+ reviews for the WiiWare and 3DS versions. Also, the PC Gamer (the only notable review site of the six, as far as I can tell) review seems to have dropped off the face of the internet. That said, I added dual reviews for all listed websites into the review table to illustrate the difference in score the sites gave to each version. I included the Edge review to provide a proper balance of US/European reviews and print/online reviews, but I can't expand upon it since I don't have access to the physical magazine in question. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand why you didn't want to include a Metacritic score with only 6 components. I don't know the scope of the extra level, so didn't know how big of a deal it was - sometimes people use level and chapter interchangeably. You do have access to the Edge review as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Edge, User:X201 & User:Steve should have that issue. I know for a fact that I have it, but I won't have access to my collection for at least 2 weeks. I generally don't think you should list reviews in the box which you don't reference elsewhere - but that's not a dealbreaker. The biggest issue though regarding balance, is that this is a Japanese game through and through, and you have no Japanese reception. - hahnchen 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was looking around for Famitsu scores and I realized something: Cave Story 3D hasn't come out yet in Japan. The indie game scene in Japan is completely different from America/Europe in that it's mostly dōjin soft, which has dubious copyright status, hence why most game review magazines and websites in Japan won't review dojin games as a general rule. That's why you won't find any WP:RS reviews of the original indie PC release. Cave Story 3D is the first "buy it in a brick and mortar store" retail release of the game, so it will most likely get a Famitsu/Dengeki/etc. score which I will find as soon as it is available. I will contact X201 and/or Steve about Edge. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's note: I believe I've addressed Hahnchen's objection but the user has not edited consistently since May 27. I will continue to try getting a response. The Edge review has been incorporated, btw. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was looking around for Famitsu scores and I realized something: Cave Story 3D hasn't come out yet in Japan. The indie game scene in Japan is completely different from America/Europe in that it's mostly dōjin soft, which has dubious copyright status, hence why most game review magazines and websites in Japan won't review dojin games as a general rule. That's why you won't find any WP:RS reviews of the original indie PC release. Cave Story 3D is the first "buy it in a brick and mortar store" retail release of the game, so it will most likely get a Famitsu/Dengeki/etc. score which I will find as soon as it is available. I will contact X201 and/or Steve about Edge. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand why you didn't want to include a Metacritic score with only 6 components. I don't know the scope of the extra level, so didn't know how big of a deal it was - sometimes people use level and chapter interchangeably. You do have access to the Edge review as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Edge, User:X201 & User:Steve should have that issue. I know for a fact that I have it, but I won't have access to my collection for at least 2 weeks. I generally don't think you should list reviews in the box which you don't reference elsewhere - but that's not a dealbreaker. The biggest issue though regarding balance, is that this is a Japanese game through and through, and you have no Japanese reception. - hahnchen 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if this is an actionable objection. Cave Story Plus, as noted in the article, is basically a PC/Mac port of the WiiWare version (with one new level) and was not reviewed by any of the major game review websites or magazines as a separate game. Metacritic only lists 6 reviews for it which is hardly a "critical consensus", compared to the 25+ reviews for the WiiWare and 3DS versions. Also, the PC Gamer (the only notable review site of the six, as far as I can tell) review seems to have dropped off the face of the internet. That said, I added dual reviews for all listed websites into the review table to illustrate the difference in score the sites gave to each version. I included the Edge review to provide a proper balance of US/European reviews and print/online reviews, but I can't expand upon it since I don't have access to the physical magazine in question. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @hahnchen: Generally both the Metacritic and the Gamerankings are left in because they use two different metrics and can occasionally come up with two very different results. Removing Gamerankings would put this article out of step with most other video game articles. This is also Sven Manguard 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In this particular case, I think almost every review listed by GR is also in the MC aggregate, and the very few that aren't are NN publications anyway. Do you have any comments about the rest of the article/prose/etc.? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I don't. This is also Sven Manguard 18:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, would you consider supporting the article in that case? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I don't. This is also Sven Manguard 18:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In this particular case, I think almost every review listed by GR is also in the MC aggregate, and the very few that aren't are NN publications anyway. Do you have any comments about the rest of the article/prose/etc.? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A great article, and as the issues above were adressed, I give it my Support. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments (prose only) from Noleander -
- "The player character awakens in a cave with no memory ..." - does the player character ever get a name or not? If not, should probably say so.
- The PC's name is discussed later in the section. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambiguous: "If the player saved Curly Brace earlier, the player may find an item to restore her memories..." - Who is "her" referring to? The player or CB?
- CB is clearly called female earlier in the section. Pronouns are never used to refer to "the player" in order to maintain gender neutrality. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Name? - Isn't "balrog" the name of the monster in the Lord of the Rings movie? Why is that name used in this game?
- Yes it is, and I have no idea why that name was chosen for this character. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: "worked with Amaya to bring the game to Nintendo's WiiWare service .." - What is the WiiWare service? is it a game that is on DVD that play on the Wii? etc. Reader shouldn't have to click on the link to figure out what WiiWare is. Does the WiiWare version run on Wiis or PCs or ??
- Clarified. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Terminology: "Amaya quit his day job as a salaryman to become director of Cave Story 3D." - Many readers may not know what "salaryman" means; and "day job" is too informal for an encyclopedia. Change to "quit his job as a software developer to become ..." Also, his new job, if he is working 9-5 and commuting etc may still be a "salaryman".
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Also: Has a link to Ikachan, but that is already linked in the article body.
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: "At a Game Developers Conference project post-mortem, he emphasized the role of pragmatic design in shaping the game." - That sounds interesting ... can you give more details on what "pragmatic design" means in this context?
- Rearranged section to make it more obvious what "pragmatic" is referring to. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambiguous: "This version contains several .." - Which version? Prior sentences refer to both "original" and "WiiWare" versions.
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Acronym: " GBA" - needs to be spelled out the first time it is used.
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Define: "After its initial indie release, ..." - Define "indie" where first used. In general, the article should be understandable (without having to click on too many wikilinks) to readers who have minimal understanding of gaming.
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobox: says "Version 1.0.0.7" - What is that referring to? Arent there multiple versions out there? Freeware? WiiWare? 3DS? Do they all share a single version numbering sequence? Or do they all have independent version numbers?
- Not important. Removed. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall: the article is fine, and doesn't seem to have any big issues. It is a rather focused topic, with few sources, so it is unlikely to have POV or coverage problems. So, prose is the primary thing to address. Leaning towards Support once the above items are addressed.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Made a bunch of changes. What do you think? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Support (prose only). No opinion about comprehensiveness. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and support. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Support (prose only). No opinion about comprehensiveness. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 02:51, 6 July 2012 [15].
- Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC), User:Agricolae[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because after extensive work and revamping, I feel this is the best article possible for the subject. Everyone should know about William the Conqueror - his invasion of England in 1066 is one of "those dates" that even Yanks can remember. But there is a lot more to William than his invasion of England, and this article tries to put him in context of his entire life. After numerous copyedits, an extensive peer review process and lots and lots of work (including the most excellent family tree charts by Agricolae, who has no idea I just co-nom'd him for this... surprise!) This is what it looked like when I began work this January. It's doubled in size and the sourcing has been greatly improved as I've done a complete reread of the two main biographies of William to update the sourcing. I've also incorporated a number of other works on the Conquest and the time period, but the major sources remain the scholarly biographies of William. This is a wikicup nomination for me, but it's been a labour of love for myself as well as all my wonderful helpers. I present - William the Bastard who became William the Conqueror, a rather dour but extremely important historical figure. (As a bit of trivia - this is my 51st FAC... scary thought!) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As a bit more trivia, I make it your 53rd. Scarier still... Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- You're good down to William the Conqueror#Troubles in England and the Continent, where I stopped in the Peer Review. Starting from there. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I finished up. Work like this makes me proud to be a Wikipedian. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a great article and I have checked it for prose quality. There is one minor reservation I have which is currently being discussed in article talk. I am confident I will be able to support once that issue is resolved. --John (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless for now I oppose; it's a procedural fail per criterion 2 at present unless it makes an effort to comply with SEASON which is part of MoS. --John (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've replied on the talk page - WP:SEASON is not as categorical as its being presented here. As a note, editors besides myself have weighed in on the talk page of the article, and so far all agree. Note also that I did compromise on one section where complying with SEASON didn't alter the meaning of the sources too much. The sources do not allow me to get more precise than a season nor is the season unimportant - we're discussing military campaigns with these three contested points and using "early in the year" instead of "spring" does alter meaning of the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per discussion on the article talk page, a brief explanatory note re. the sources' employment of seasonal references has been added by Ealdgyth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've replied on the talk page - WP:SEASON is not as categorical as its being presented here. As a note, editors besides myself have weighed in on the talk page of the article, and so far all agree. Note also that I did compromise on one section where complying with SEASON didn't alter the meaning of the sources too much. The sources do not allow me to get more precise than a season nor is the season unimportant - we're discussing military campaigns with these three contested points and using "early in the year" instead of "spring" does alter meaning of the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Johnbod
- Pretty much there, though I had to add a lot of links, but:
- "...his personal piety was universally praised by contemporaries". Hmmm! I doubt most of the English felt this way, and the legends surrounding his visit to Durham suggest that the then-powerful voice of St Cuthbert-from-beyond-the-grave agreed. The English view of William only survives in a few comments in the ASC etc, & later remarks and legends, but it is most unlikely that even the English clergy felt like praising William for anything much.
- Bates, in the ODNB, states "William's personal piety was consistently praised by his contemporaries." I can only follow my sources - he doesn't qualify this by nationality - in fact Bates then states that Gregory VII praised William. There's no doubting that the English didn't much like William - but its worth noting that Wulfstan of Worcest, later a saint, continued to serve William after the Conquest. If you have some secondary source that shows that a contemporary condemned William's personal piety, Im more than happy to include it, but I haven't turned this up. Note this is personal piety - not his political actions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Later English sources stated that Harold had been elected as king by the clergy and magnates of England." I see modern historians rather turn up their noses at the term Witenagemot, but if ever there is a moment to use or at least link it, it is surely here?
- This is why I've avoided using Witangemot - neither of my main sources uses the term, nor does the ODNB article on Harold use the term. As you point out, most recent historians do not use the term, so I've avoided it likewise. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a reason to avoid a piped link. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If my sources don't use a term, why should I link to it? General sense is that the "witan" was not really a "institution" rather something more like the curia regis which replaced it - a term used to refer to the various councillors that the king could call upon for advice. Our article is a bit out of date on scholarship - still relying on a lot on older sources. Note that Maddicott's work on the origins of the English parliament basically does not use the term Witan throughout - he feels that it gives the wrong impression of some sort of formal institution. Thus, this is why I've avoided the term or avoided linking to it. If our article didn't spend so much time on 100 year old views, I might be less bothered to link to it, but ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the article we have on the topic, whatever its title, and the more modern view is fully expressed via John Maddicott and others, though I agree the article is not internally consistent in this respect. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If my sources don't use a term, why should I link to it? General sense is that the "witan" was not really a "institution" rather something more like the curia regis which replaced it - a term used to refer to the various councillors that the king could call upon for advice. Our article is a bit out of date on scholarship - still relying on a lot on older sources. Note that Maddicott's work on the origins of the English parliament basically does not use the term Witan throughout - he feels that it gives the wrong impression of some sort of formal institution. Thus, this is why I've avoided the term or avoided linking to it. If our article didn't spend so much time on 100 year old views, I might be less bothered to link to it, but ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a reason to avoid a piped link. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hastings... where he built a castle as a base of operations". Isn't what he did better described and located as say re-occupy & dig a ditch round the existing Roman fort at Pevensey Castle, no doubt reinforcing & gating it in wood? If there was a castle at Hastings it must have been a very temporary structure in wood, which probably should be said.
- Oh. Gods. Can we avoid the vexed question of what exactly William built at Hastings and whether he brought it over with him or built it fresh or what? My source doesn't say anything beyond the basic "he built a castle" and the debate is probably best covered at Pevensey Castle's article... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- caption to death of Harold pic: "although whether this is an accurate depiction is unclear"; isn't it more that "which of the two wounded figures is meant to represent Harold is unclear". To be pedantic, it is not a "tapestry" (main text), not being woven, but an "embroidered hanging" say. "but that may be a later reworking of the tapestry to conform to 12th-century stories in which Harold was slain by an arrow wound to the head" - really? Huscroft suggests that the arrow in eye figure was reworked? All sorts of strange suggestions get made about the piece; does this have decent art historian references? What sources I have seen say is that both figures are original but the identity of Harold is unclear - he may be intended to be the figure felled by the knight.
- I've just replaced the pic with a generic one depicting combat at Hastings - easier than getting into the minutiae of which person is Harold and did they arrow get added later and all that - this would be better covered in either the tapestry's article or in Harolds - (I do plan to rework Harold's article soon).
- The new one is an especially poor quality image though. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just replaced the pic with a generic one depicting combat at Hastings - easier than getting into the minutiae of which person is Harold and did they arrow get added later and all that - this would be better covered in either the tapestry's article or in Harolds - (I do plan to rework Harold's article soon).
- Prose points seem to crop up after 1070. This sentence could surely be improved, perhaps by splitting: " While William was in Normandy, Edgar the Ætheling returned to Scotland from Flanders, and the French king, seeking a focus for those opposed to William's power, proposed that Edgar be given the castle of Montreuil-sur-Mer on the English Channel, which would have given Edgar a strategic advantage against William,[45] but he was forced to submit to William shortly thereafter, and returned to William's court."
- I've broken the sentence up into two... let me know if my break point works for you or if we need to do more radical surgery. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revolt of the earls. This rather confused narrative doesn't bring out the ethnic dimension very well. "Ralph was originally from Brittany and still held lands there" - except that he seems have been born in Hereford, & is probably better described as "Anglo-Breton". Whereas Roger was a Norman who had come with William, & Waltheof one of the few remaining English lords in place. Better to say that clearly than all the detail of the fighting.
- But ... we don't know that Ralph was born in Hereford. The ODNB here states that he was at least part Breton - his mother was Breton, and that he spent most of his life before 1066 in Brittany. Our article on him is based on the old DNB, and can't be relied on. I have, however, added a bit on Ralph and Roger and Waltheof's backgrounds to help bring this out. The fuller details of their motivations and backgrounds would be best in their own articles or in the Revolt of the Earls article ... the main reason for the details is that William was secure enough to stay in Normandy while the revolt was supressed and only arrived later to deal with the Danes and then go back to deal with Ralph. Again, I'm following my sources ... which don't bring out the "ethnic" element that much... although we have no contemporary motivation ascribed to the rebels, most historians seem to think it was the loss of their father's authority that motivated them - at least Ralph and Roger. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although Orderic Vitalis describes it as starting with a quarrel between Robert and his two younger brothers, William and Henry, including a story that the quarrel was started when William and Henry threw water at Robert, it is much more likely that Robert was feeling powerless." Are these mutually exclusive?
- The impression I got (which is just that, an impression) from the sources is that they dont' believe the quarrel story. Orderic wasn't above embellishing his narrative with stories to liven it up... this may be a point here. Bates definitely "poo-poos" the story of the quarrel between the brothers (mainly because of the inclusion of Henry into it, he was quite young at the time) but does think that the details of Robert rebelling are mostly correct. This is why I phrased things this way, do you have a suggestion for a better way to make it clear that the quarrel story (which is moderately famous) is likely embelished? I'm open to better phrasings. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar: "William also visited Wales during 1081, although the English and the Welsh sources differ on the exact purpose of the visit. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that it was a military campaign, but Welsh sources record it as a pilgrimage to St Davids in honour of Saint David." It would surely be entirely typical for it have been both, combining business with piety in the usual way, as at Durham. "main/original purpose" perhaps.
- I've added a bit here. Bates is the only biographer who really touches on this little episode, but he sees it as more military in character - taking advantage of shifting power bases amongst the Welsh. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "most of the native Anglo-Saxon aristocracy had been replaced by Norman and other continental magnates." - a considerable understatement, surely. "Almost all" would be more like it.
- Depends on how you define aristocracy - it appears that many of the thegns (who after all were the majority of the "nobles" even if not quite as high of status) were not dispossesed. They remained, but were pushed down the social scale. Many of them appear to have intermarried with the incoming Normans over time ... a lot of work has been done recently on this subject - which is covered a bit more in the Norman conquest of England article. I've tried to keep the high points of the effects of the conquest here in William's article, but effects that he was not directly involved in (such as intermarriage or the like) are better covered in the conquest article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "His seal, of which 6 impressions still survive, stressed his role as king but separately mentioned his role as Duke, and was made for him after he conquered England" - to be pedantic, I imagine this is his final seal; he must have had an earlier one before 1066.
- You are correct. I have emended accordingly. (I do not think we have any examples of his Norman seal... but I couldn't say that for certain...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Administration. Nowhere is the fundamental change of the replacement of Old English by Norman French as the language of administration and justice mentioned; this should be here and in the lead. The feudal system is not my thing, but did not William impose a fully continental version on the more tentative A-S one? All personal landholdings were now held from the king, which not been the case before, no? Or has Michael Wood been bullshitting all these years?
- Again, this is where scholarship has changed somewhat. Now there isn't as much emphasis on "imposing a continental version of feudalism" on England - in fact, there is a significant school of historians that now sees the whole concept of "feudalism" as it was formerly taught as a late medieval invention. Much of this is covered in the Norman Conquest article - it appears that William's administration originally used Old English for a while and that it was only later that it yielded to Norman French. I've been somewhat influenced in what to cover here and what to place in the Norman conquest article by what Bates covers in his biography of William in the ODNB - Bates never mentions the change in language once in William's article. Bates says of the whole "feudalism thing" the following: "Until very modern times, it was generally argued that William's power in the English kingdom (and as a result the strength of the kingship that he passed on to his successors) was based on the systematic introduction of what was too facilely termed ‘feudalism’; the quotas of knight-service agreed between William and his tenants-in-chief and the bishoprics and chief monasteries of the kingdom were seen as the basis for a new kind of feudalized kingship which allowed the king to bind his chief subjects to him by oath and service and to exact so-called feudal incidents, such as reliefs, wardship, and aids. Although the introduction of service quotas and the collection of reliefs and the like were undoubtedly a feature of post-1066 kingship, the core of William's authority resided in the monarchical legacy of his Anglo-Saxon predecessors, and, in particular, in the numerous rights and revenues he had inherited from them, in the all-encompassing power of the king's peace, and in the extensive jurisdictional powers he held." Current historical thought sees William as much as a continuer of English government as a replacer of it. I have added a "main" template to the "consequences" section of the Norman conquest article to help direct folks to the fuller explication. One thing I've been trying to avoid is going well over 11,000 words. We're already well north of 10,000 - trying to avoid stuffing too much that was not directly related to William's life into his article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "some such as Richard Southern claiming that the Conquest was the single most radical change in European history between the Fall of Rome and the 20th century" - not some minority claim by Southern, as implied, but pretty much the traditional view of English historians for centuries.
- Most English historians would say that it was the most profound change in English history, yes, but in European? That would be quite a stretch - there are a lot of "important dates" in European history... that's what Southern is arguing that it's the most radical change in European history, not just English history. Personally, I'd have to go with the French Revolution, myself... talk about about-faces! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, Archbishop Matthew Parker saw the Conquest as having corrupted a purer English Church, which Parker attempted to restore." - Not sure this point from the world of Reformation polemic is worth mentioning.
- It crops up repeatedly in all my sources - thus I mentioned it. It's not my personal concern but ... if so many folks mention it, we probably should also. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps we should also say that modern church historians don't take this view seriously. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It crops up repeatedly in all my sources - thus I mentioned it. It's not my personal concern but ... if so many folks mention it, we probably should also. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not bothered by the WP:SEASONS point. At all.
- Overall, I have to say I was rather disappointed by this; there's a lot of wood but some of the trees are missing. It's rather a dry read that is somewhat short of the bigger picture, and the drama of his career. Until I added a link to a note there was no mention of the wider context of Norman expansionism, in Italy at the same time, and very soon after in the Crusades. The magnitude of the change brought by the invasion to English life and culture is under-played. The endless military campaigns rather predominate, but perhaps it felt like that. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is partly because I've tried to keep the overarching meta impact of the conquest in the conquest article - not in William's article. It's a biography and we should cover his life. And he spent most of his life on military campaigns. Yes, the Norman conquest of England article is also being scheduled for FAC - I plan to work on Harold's article also when I can find the time. As for William's impact on the norman conquest of Sicily - he was a minor and fighting for his duchy during the main events in Sicily - he had little concern or impact on them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a case of "William's impact" but of William as a part or example of a wider historical trend, the wider picture that is rather missing here. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is partly because I've tried to keep the overarching meta impact of the conquest in the conquest article - not in William's article. It's a biography and we should cover his life. And he spent most of his life on military campaigns. Yes, the Norman conquest of England article is also being scheduled for FAC - I plan to work on Harold's article also when I can find the time. As for William's impact on the norman conquest of Sicily - he was a minor and fighting for his duchy during the main events in Sicily - he had little concern or impact on them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review, I always appreciate your attention to detail and ability to make me look at things with fresh eyes. I'm not dogmatic on anything above - if you can thing of ways to meet my concerns while also satisfying yours I'll be thrilled. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not entirely content on some points above, but certainly a very thorough & well-sourced piece. Looking forward to Harold & the Conquest! Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:Bayeux_Tapestry_WillelmDux.jpg needs US PD tag
- File:Williams_dominions_1087.jpg needs US PD tag
- File:Norman_Conquest_1066.gif: what's the source of this image?
- File:Acrdwnch.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I thought I'd do is pretend I was one of those spot-checkers (good on source quality, facts accurate to source, no paraphrase, no copyvio). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All ODNB sources except Bates "William I (known as William the Conqueror)" spotchecked, (ie: Barlow "Edward (St Edward; known as Edward the Confessor) (1003x5–1066)"; Williams "Godwine , earl of Wessex (d. 1053)"; Thompson "Robert, duke of Normandy (b. in or after 1050, d. 1134)" ; van Houts Adelida (Adeliza) (d. before 1113)"). Barlow good. Williams good. Thompson good. van Houts good. Checked for accurate description, paraphrase, copyvio, source quality. Source quality in general is fantastic.
- Minor: is footnote [58]a mispositioned? It appears to support the entirety of that sentence. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the other source also supported that info - the weirdness was likely a function of my way of building an article - which is to read a bit of source material, paraphrase, and insert where it belongs in the article. This can mean that things are sourced to one source when they can often be sourced to other sources ... I've moved it since it was rather ugly. Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport on prose and comprehensiveness groundsreading through now...queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Physical appearance and character- I'd say "Physical" is redundant here - what other type of appearance is there? And succinct headings are good.....- Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- '
'it is much more likely that Robert was feeling powerless. - "powerless" to me means "weak" - I think a word like "frustrated" is better here as he wanted (but did not have) lands etc.- Bates (and Douglas) both argue in terms of Robert's power .. not frustration. I think I'd rather stick with powerless here... but I'm not that bothered if you insist. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting context/usage I guess - ultimately I am a neophyte in the area, so am happy to leave it given the specific context. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bates (and Douglas) both argue in terms of Robert's power .. not frustration. I think I'd rather stick with powerless here... but I'm not that bothered if you insist. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately I've only found very minor quibbles - no deal-breakers I can see. Nice read. Prose flowed well enough that I forgot I was copyediting....and just read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Great article, Ealdgyth, though I'm not sure I can trust myself to support anything without having passed FAC at least once myself. I found one detail a bit confusing: I suppose footnote "a" means that "He was known as 'the Bastard' only in non-Norman sources" rather than "He was known only as 'the Bastard' in non-Norman sources"? Waltham, The Duke of 10:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can trust you to support things at FAC ... where you been? - Dank (push to talk) 12:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied at your talk page. Waltham, The Duke of 01:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the wording to "He was only described as "the Bastard" in sources written by non-Normans." which should be clearer. Thanks for looking it over! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clearer, thanks; a professional pedant would claim that the grammatical ambiguity remains, but one has to be looking for it to find it. Waltham, The Duke of 01:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can trust you to support things at FAC ... where you been? - Dank (push to talk) 12:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - well written and comprehensive. Even the footnotes are fascinating; having read through the article there's nothing I can comment upon - well done, good to see such a thorough article on such an important figure in English history. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - covers the literature well and is nicely written. Enjoyed it. As a *very* minor point, the bit that goes " Edwin (of Mercia), Morcar (of Northumbria), and Waltheof (of Northampton)" might read better without the multiple brackets (e.g. "Edwin of Mercia, Morcar of Northumbria..."). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supporet I peer reviewed this and find it meets the FAC criteria. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:02, 2 July 2012 (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 Ian Rose 02:51, 6 July 2012 [16].
- Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has imporved since its last FAC and I now feel it gives a good summarization of the species. I would like to thank User:Axl and User:Rumiton for their help and User:Sasata for suggestions. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks to me like a generally well-written and interesting article. Since I know nothing of the subject, I'll have to wait for more comments before I can consider a declaration; meanwhile here are a few issues I picked up in my read-through:-
- I would clarify that by "range" you mean geographical range, if indeed that is the case.
- I would expect to see in the lead or main article some indication of the total numbers of the species extant. Is it possible to do this?
- "It was first described in 1817 by the French naturalist Anselme Gaëtan Desmarest, who named it for where it was found—an island he knew as Ile Eugene in the Nuyts Archipelago off South Australia". You should clarify that this naming refers to the binomial name, not to the common name ("tammar") generally used in this article.
- The "Phylogeny" chart presumably means something to zoologists and biologists, but is impossible for someone (e.g. me) without specialist knowledge to interpret. A more informative caption would help.
- The identification of page numbers by superscript characters is not a good idea, since many readers won't understand this convention. In the thousands of WP articles I must have read up to now I've not encountered it before. Why not put the page identification in the reference, as per normal?
- Ref 30 links to an abstract; it looks as though login is required - if so, this should be noted.
- The toolbox is showing a dead link. Check this out - it may be misinformation.
Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed points 1 & 3. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2: Unfortunately, none of the sources available actually gives the exact population number, not even the IUCN.
- 4: Better?
- 5: I felt citing it this way is nicer as it keeps the reference section looks cleaner and because I'm mostly relying on papers. I did the same for the giraffe article. I do however plan to use your method in the future.
- 6: Ref 30 links to the Ph. D dissertation abstract and you can download the article there. No login is required to do this.
- 7: The toolbox works fine for me. I can't find any deadlinks.
LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images are OK from a copyright perspective, but File:Phylogeny of Macropodidae.png should really be replaced with Template:Cladogram. This provides added linkability, and (I believe) fewer accessibility issues. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, with my view settings, I can't actually see any lines on the cladogram. I left a note about it here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Noleander
- Missing connection: "The island's French name was given in honour of Eugene Hamelin, commander of the ship Naturaliste." - Clarify that the word "Eugene" is significant here because it is the source of the scientific name of the animal.
- Better?
- The sentence is a bit convoluted now ... can it be split into two? - " It was first described in 1817 by the French naturalist Anselme Gaëtan Desmarest, who gave it the name eugenii based on where it was found; an island he knew as Ile Eugene—in honour of Eugene Hamelin, commander of the ship Naturaliste— in the Nuyts Archipelago off South Australia which is now known as St Peter Island." --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
- The sentence is a bit convoluted now ... can it be split into two? - " It was first described in 1817 by the French naturalist Anselme Gaëtan Desmarest, who gave it the name eugenii based on where it was found; an island he knew as Ile Eugene—in honour of Eugene Hamelin, commander of the ship Naturaliste— in the Nuyts Archipelago off South Australia which is now known as St Peter Island." --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Better?
- Restate subject: "Its common name is derived from the ..." - I presume "Its" here refers to the wallaby, which was last mentioned 4 sentences earlier; several nouns have interceded. Rename the wallaby here.
- Fixed.
- Basic facts first: Population section starts with "Since European occupation, tammar wallaby populations on both mainland Australia and some of the islands have been greatly reduced or even eradicated. " - Yet the InfoBox indicates that there is no (or little) population problem. If the latter is correct, that should probably be stated in the first sentence of the section. Maybe move final paragraph up to top of section.
- Moved last paragraph.
- Clarify: "... and its peripheral testosterone is more concentrated. " - Concentrated in what? the blood? What does peripheral mean in this context?
- Removed mention of peripheral testosterone.
- I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just clarify. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know but it causes less trouble.
- I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just clarify. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed mention of peripheral testosterone.
- Clarify: " may face aggression from other males, which can delay ejaculations." - If you're going to include a sentence like that, you'll need to explain it :-) Why is the ej delayed? Mental stress from the other agressors? Or physical pushing matches?
- Removed "which can delay ejaculations".
- I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just clarify. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know but it causes less trouble.
- I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just clarify. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed "which can delay ejaculations".
- Define: "... reproductive success by mate-guarding. During the estrous period,... " - What is mate-guarding. Does the following sentence define mate-guarding, or is it an independent observation?
- Yes, the following sentence describes mate-guarding.
- Confusing timeline: "It is a seasonal breeder and births largely occur during late January and early February ...The female tammar conceives again a few hours after giving birth, and suckles her young in her pouch for the next seven months... Gestation in the tammar lasts 26.5 days.. " - I'm very confused at this point: If the gestation is about a month; and if they give birth annually in January, that means they mate 1 month earlier, in Dec. But then it says they conceive immediately after giving birth, which would be Feb/March, meaning 11 months of gestation. If the fetus/embryo is dormant for several months, shouldn't the gestation be > 6 months? Suggest reword so other readers don't get similarly confused. Spell out that timeline more clearly. Readers shouldn't have to struggle to work out the timeline.
- Fixed.
- A sentence appears to be mixed up: "The female tammar conceives again a few hours after giving birth. and suckles her young for up to 350 days. " It is not just the period: the two parts do not relate to each other. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
- A sentence appears to be mixed up: "The female tammar conceives again a few hours after giving birth. and suckles her young for up to 350 days. " It is not just the period: the two parts do not relate to each other. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
- Full story? "Tammars used for scientific study are housed in outdoor areas with access to water and shelter, which is closer to their natural habitat than a laboratory." - Is that entirely true? Are there no animal rights groups that protest over treatment of wallabys in labs? Were they mistreated in the past and things have gotten better lately? Even if they are kept outdoors, are their any animal rights concerns over their use in experiments, etc?
- Removed the last sentence.
- I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just add more material, if available. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On couldn't find any material on animal rights groups or anything.
- I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just add more material, if available. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the last sentence.
- Smell? "Tammars appear to respond more to the sight than the sound of predators. " - Not smell? the article earlier talks about using smell to find the pouch.
- Added in information on smell.
- Alt text for images: - Consider adding "alt" text for images. See WP:ALT. Use the "alt text" button in corner of this page to display alt text. Probably not required for FA, but it is useful for seeing-impaired readers of WP.
- I don't really understand this.
- Read WP:ALT ... it is a simple matter of adding the "alt" keyword into the image descriptors within the article. Something like: ...|thumb|alt=A grey-brown furry mammal with big ears chewing on a leaf|right|... --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand this.
- Subspecies? "Skull differences distinguish tammars from Western Australia, Kangaroo Island and mainland South Australia. " - Is there a scientific word for these different groups? Subspecies? Population groups?
- Fixed.
- Red vs green in map: What is the significance of the red vs green regions in the InfoBox map? Explain color key in the map caption (even if colors explained in map WP page, reader shouldn't have to click-through to read it).
- Fixed.
- Unneeded word: "However, tammars from these areas were introduced to Kawau Island in New Zealand by colonial.." - Eliminate "however" here ... it is almost never useful.
- Removed.
- Footnote #1 missing period at end.
- Fixed.
- Caldogram: Maybe it is just me, but I find cladograms to be super informative, so it is a bit annoying that I cannot read the text in this one. Also, when I click on this image, the font quality is pretty poor: jagged. Recommend improving the font in the cladogram, and also enlarging it in the main article so readers can read the words without clicking. This is more of a suggestion than a requirement.
- Agreed. I removed the image.
- I didn't mean for you to remove it, just improve it. Another reviewer above suggests using {{cladogram}} template. Can you try that out (even though it may not work well with your particular configuration). I'll let you know how it looks on my platform. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to make a cladgram. Maybe I'll ask Graham Colm when he gets back.
- I created a cladogram and put it in the article. Can you change the plain text species like M. parma into links M. rufus but instead link to the actual article, for each branch in the cladogram. For example: [[Red kangaroo|M. rufus]] Do that for all the species in the cladogram. That will make it super useful. --Noleander (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Is there any way we can make the cladgram appear on the left side?
- I moved it to the left side by adding "align=left". For future reference, the way I figured that out was to go to the cladogram template page {{cladogram}} and read the documentation. It lists the handful of tweaks you can make to the illustration. --Noleander (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Is there any way we can make the cladgram appear on the left side?
- I created a cladogram and put it in the article. Can you change the plain text species like M. parma into links M. rufus but instead link to the actual article, for each branch in the cladogram. For example: [[Red kangaroo|M. rufus]] Do that for all the species in the cladogram. That will make it super useful. --Noleander (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to make a cladgram. Maybe I'll ask Graham Colm when he gets back.
- I didn't mean for you to remove it, just improve it. Another reviewer above suggests using {{cladogram}} template. Can you try that out (even though it may not work well with your particular configuration). I'll let you know how it looks on my platform. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I removed the image.
- Poison: The Evolution section has over 50% of it devoted to resistance a particular poison. That seems a bit odd: evolution would encompass all sorts of traits: size, color, immune system, eyesight, intelligence, etc etc etc. Singling out this one poison for emphasis is peculiar.
- Moved information on posion resistance.
- Overall a great article, very close to FA status. In particular, the prose is FA quality and does not suffer from some problems that are common in FACs. Leaning to Support once the above items are addressed.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. LittleJerry (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the improvements you are making. You may want to focus more on quality than speed. Ask yourself how each edit can make the article better for the reader, rather than just satisfying the whims of the reviewers :-) --Noleander (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the improvements you are making. You may want to focus more on quality than speed. Ask yourself how each edit can make the article better for the reader, rather than just satisfying the whims of the reviewers :-) --Noleander (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. LittleJerry (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:LJ: Would you mind interspersing your replies between the original comments ... just indent them with a colon or two. That way I can see which goes to which :-) --Noleander (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments from Noleander:
- Quote? - "Sequencing of the tammar genome found "innovation in reproductive and lactational genes, rapid evolution of germ cell genes, and incomplete, locus-specific X inactivation"." - Why quote the source there? why not paraphrase?
- I have a tough time paraphrasing stuff on genetics.
- Okay, I'll see if I can work on it when I have some time. A couple of other quotes that need to be paraphrased:
- "its wide distribution,.."
- "high levels of effective inbreeding ..."
- ""very plentiful in many parts of t ..."
- I mention these quotes because I'm pretty sure they would be a show-stopper at FAC. Articles should use quotes sparingly, only when it is a notable/famous remark; or when the statement is highly opinionated; or when the statement cannot be paraphrased for some reason; or in a few other rare situations. If you're not comfortable paraphrasing them, I'll do it soon. --Noleander (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paraphrased the other qoutes.
- Okay, I'll see if I can work on it when I have some time. A couple of other quotes that need to be paraphrased:
- I have a tough time paraphrasing stuff on genetics.
- Caption: "Cladogram of the Tammar wallaby[2]" - reviewer above wants the caption expanded to explain what the meaning of the chart is.
- I don't understand this.
- Define: " tammars in the Eyre Peninsula and around Adelaide were decimated by battues " - No reader will know what a battue is; define or explain here.
- Replaced.
- Diet: should say if herbivore; carnivore, etc.
- Fixed
- Give reader a sense of size in lead: "The tammar is among the smallest of the wallabies, with females being smaller than males..." - Add "about the size of a large cat" [assuming that is true, I read is in a source] so reader can visualize the scale of the pics in the article. Until I read that source, I thought they were much larger, 4' tall or so.
- Fixed.
- More precise: " .. making them distinct populations groups." - Why not say "subspecies"? that carries more meaning.
- Added more.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again. LittleJerry (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "Support" based on recent improvements. See comment below in sourcing: one source needs to be supplemented. --Noleander (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again. LittleJerry (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review by Noleander
- FN #5
- article: Male tammars may live for around 11 years, while females live for 14 years.
- source: Lifespan is approximately 11 years for males and 14 years for females.
- FN #10
- article: Tammars from these areas were introduced to Kawau Island in New Zealand by colonial administrator Sir George Grey in 1870
- source: When colonial administrator Sir George Grey released a handful of tammar wallabies onto New Zealand’s Kawau Island in 1870, he may have inadvertently
- FN #15
- article: Four releases have been made, and a stable wild population of 100–120 animals now exists.
- source: "The breeding program's been really successful. It started back in 2003 and we've done four releases now down to Innes National Park [on Yorke Peninsula in South Australia] ... maybe about 100 to 120 animals down in the wild," he said.
- FN #20
- article: As it lands, the energy of the jump is converted into strain energy made when its leg tendons are stretched. As it leaps back off the ground, the tammar can recover much of this energy for reuse though elastic recoil.
- source: "In these gaits, the kinetic and potential energy that is lost when the animal lands is stored and subsequently recovered from the recoil of spring-like elements in its limbs and trunk, reducing the amount of work that the muscles must perform to reaccelerate the animal’s body during each stride.
- FN #25
- Tammars appear to have some colour vision: its eyes have only blue sensitive and green sensitive photoreceptor cones, allowing it to see colour in the blue-green band of the colour spectrum, but not the higher wavelengths in the red-yellow band. Nevertheless, in the band where it can see colour, it can differentiate between two monochromatic colours with wavelengths as close as 20 nm (2.0×10−8 m)
- Source: not avilable
- FN #30
- article: The syndrome is known as tammar sudden death syndrome and the pathogen is an orbivirus of the family Reoviridae. It does not occur south of Sydney. Captive populations of tammar wallabies in New South Wales have subsequently suffered infections in summer months.
- source: Source is good on this, but does not contain the phrase "tammar sudden death syndrome" … need another source for that name.
- FN #35
- article: They can also use their acute sense of smell to detect a predator.
- source: Not available.
- FN #40:
- article: For the first half of the year, the presence of the joey in the pouch prevents the blastocyst from developing and experiments have shown that removing the joey within this first half will stimulate the blastocyst's development. However, after this the blastocyst remains dormant even after the joey has left. It begins to develop by the summer solstice in the end of December and the female gives birth around one month later.
- source: not available.
- FN #45
- article: .. and the full genome was sequenced in 2011
- source: [publ in 2011] We present the genome sequence of the tammar wallaby, Macropus eugenii, which is a member of the kangaroo family and the first representative of the iconic hopping mammals that symbolize Australia to be sequenced.
Summary of source review: The article appears to accurately represent the sources. One minor issue is: Source does not contain the phrase "tammar sudden death syndrome"; need another source for that name. End source review. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another source which calls it by that name. LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, can you check WP:ALT one more time ... all you have to do is include a "alt=A grey furry mammal, chewing a leaf" etc to the images. --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the need for these. LittleJerry (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The need is for seeing-impaired readers, including blind users of WP. They often have software tools that read out loud the text of web pages they are visiting. When there is a picture with a caption, their software will generally read the caption, but they have no idea what is in the photo. The purpose of "alt" text is to provide text that their software tools can read out loud, so the user can get a feeling for what is displayed in the picture. WP:ALT explains that the "alt" text should not replicate the caption, but instead should paint a picture - using words - of what is in the illustration. --Noleander (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the need for these. LittleJerry (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, can you check WP:ALT one more time ... all you have to do is include a "alt=A grey furry mammal, chewing a leaf" etc to the images. --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another source which calls it by that name. LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent article, thanks to Noleander for the good reviewing and source checking. I made v. minor copyedits. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport - on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Looks much more polished than when I looked at it last. Well done.beginning a read through now. I will jot questions below.Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- Hi Jerry, I could't see in the main body of the article where you clearly cited the assertion in the lead (which I trimmed slightly) that "It may have been the first macropod seen by a European". It looks to me like its first sightings by Europeans are described and sourced, but not the fact that it was the first of its kind to be seen. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2012 (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 Ian Rose 16:19, 4 July 2012 [17].
- Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aries is more well known as a sign of the zodiac than a constellation. Even though it is small and dim, it still has a lot going for it, including some beautiful deep-sky objects and of course, a rich mythology. This mythology is due to the fact that Aries was the location of the vernal equinox in ancient times, when astronomy was just becoming more than a twinkle in human civilization's collective eye. As far as I can tell, this is the most comprehensive article on Aries available anywhere. I hope you enjoy reading and raking it over the coals offering helpful suggestions! ;) Keilana|Parlez ici 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support now....Comments from PumpkinSky OR raking over the coals as you asked...
- Image check The image in the infobox is listed as coming from a magazine, which is generally copyrighted, but it's licensed as CC. Can you explain this?
- Yes, all of the IAU/Sky and Telescope images were released under a CC license, which is definitely unusual. This is made clear on the IAU copyright page. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- definitely rare, wish more did that! PumpkinSky talk 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ariesurania.jpg seems clearly PD. While probably not required, could you format it properly and move to Commons? I'm even willing to move to commons for you if you format it more like the infobox one is.
- Sure, what do you mean by "format properly"? I'm no good with images. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do it in a few minutes, no biggie, just compare the differences. PumpkinSky talk 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Much appreciated. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First I moved it to Commons with a bot. Compare this original moved version, with this final version. The en wiki version is tagged for deletion because it's no longer needed. PumpkinSky talk 22:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much! I deleted the image so some other poor admin wouldn't have to. Is there anything else I need to do with this image shenanigans? Keilana|Parlez ici 22:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "by a dragon.[10][2] The Golden Fleece..." the refs should be in numerical sequence
- Fixed there and in one other location I found. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 2, 10, 12 are broken, pls fix
- Ref 50 should be pp not p
- More later, this has definite potential, good start. PumpkinSky talk 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! I'm looking forward to hearing more. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ranges should use endashes per WP:DASH
- Standardized.
- FN23: pages?
- Added the page number. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
- Should be fixed now. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how you notate multi-author works
- They should all be with last1/last2/etc. parameters. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rey ref formatting doesn't match others
- Fixed it. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you provide publisher location for books
- Removed it where it existed. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No citations to Ridpath 2007.
- Removed. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my first comment at an FAC, so take it with as much salt as you like, but I don't see any major issues here. Looks good to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much! Keilana|Parlez ici 22:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – My concerns were addressed. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It's decent overall and probably close to FA ready. I'm a little concerned about the redundant language ("also" and "another") and the occasional, overly brief sentence. I spotted a few spelling errors, so the text should be run through a good spell checker. The first paragraph in the "Stars" section is much too long, making for tedious reading.A few more observations:
- Thanks for your review! I rewrote what I think to be the vast majority of the redundancies and couldn't find any more spelling errors. How does the language look now? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Stars within 10.00 pc (32.62 ly)": we need a way to confirm this list. Either the specific stars should be listed in a footnote or else a reference provided to confirm the count.- Well, this database lists TZ Arietis and Teegarden's Star, but I can't find any others in Aries. I'll look for another source; do you know of anywhere that may list that? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. The List of stars in Aries article usually lists the distances, so that's a starting point (although it's not a reliable source). It's possible that van Leeuwen (2007) may have parallax values for many of the stars.[18] RJH (talk)
- Hrmm, I could get parallax values through VIZIER just like I could through SIMBAD, but I can't figure out how to get it to list by constellation or to list within certain coordinates. Any ideas? (For what it's worth, it's very late here and my critical thinking skills go down the toilet late at night.) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as the source allows you to look up all of the stars, you could just list the stars in the footnote and provide the single reference. People who need to confirm the membership should be able to perform look ups using the online data link to VizieR from the Bibcode's url. Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of my concern with using the list of stars is that it doesn't have a lot of the ridiculously dim but close stars so the number would not be terribly accurate. If I just look at the list, then yes, 4 stars within 10 pc is accurate. I did try to parse van Leeuwen's data but I really have no idea where to start. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I'm okay with just citing the ones we know about. In the footnote you could always just say something like, "The following stars in Aries are known to lie within 10 parsecs", which would be true. I don't think we can hope to be utterly accurate since new stars are still being discovered. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good with me too; I don't see another solution. The nearby stars I could find are Teegarden's star and TZ Arietis; I've put in a footnote. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I'm okay with just citing the ones we know about. In the footnote you could always just say something like, "The following stars in Aries are known to lie within 10 parsecs", which would be true. I don't think we can hope to be utterly accurate since new stars are still being discovered. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of my concern with using the list of stars is that it doesn't have a lot of the ridiculously dim but close stars so the number would not be terribly accurate. If I just look at the list, then yes, 4 stars within 10 pc is accurate. I did try to parse van Leeuwen's data but I really have no idea where to start. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as the source allows you to look up all of the stars, you could just list the stars in the footnote and provide the single reference. People who need to confirm the membership should be able to perform look ups using the online data link to VizieR from the Bibcode's url. Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrmm, I could get parallax values through VIZIER just like I could through SIMBAD, but I can't figure out how to get it to list by constellation or to list within certain coordinates. Any ideas? (For what it's worth, it's very late here and my critical thinking skills go down the toilet late at night.) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. The List of stars in Aries article usually lists the distances, so that's a starting point (although it's not a reliable source). It's possible that van Leeuwen (2007) may have parallax values for many of the stars.[18] RJH (talk)
- Well, this database lists TZ Arietis and Teegarden's Star, but I can't find any others in Aries. I'll look for another source; do you know of anywhere that may list that? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the hatnote is needed, per WP:NAMB.- Good point. Removed. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first use of absolute magnitude needs to be linked.The first paragraph in the "Stars" section is much too long, making for tedious reading.- I broke it up into one paragraph for each of the three prominent stars. What do you think? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"NGC 821 is an E6 elliptical galaxy, a type that is fairly rare because it suggests potential early spiral structure": This statement doesn't seem quite correct; E6 only suggests an elliptical (rather than spherical) shape. The suggestion of an early spiral structure is unique to just this E-type galaxy,[19] as this feature is normally found later in a lenticular galaxy.- My bad, should have made that clearer. That portion now reads "NGC 821 is an E6 elliptical galaxy. It is unusual because it has hints of an early spiral structure, which is normally only found in lenticular galaxies." How does that look? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strictly speaking, "...which is normally only found in lenticular galaxies" is incorrect. I'd suggest something like "...lenticular and spiral galaxies". Regards, RJH (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would make sense... Fixed, thanks. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strictly speaking, "...which is normally only found in lenticular galaxies" is incorrect. I'd suggest something like "...lenticular and spiral galaxies". Regards, RJH (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, should have made that clearer. That portion now reads "NGC 821 is an E6 elliptical galaxy. It is unusual because it has hints of an early spiral structure, which is normally only found in lenticular galaxies." How does that look? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...they are often observed in the radio spectrum": "often" is both vague and ambiguous. Perhaps just explain that this is the technique used to observe the meteors.- I removed "often"; does that clarify it enough or does it need a further rewrite? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, RJH (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds - I reviewed this for GA and gave it a grilling. My only minor quibble is the In non-Western astronomy is a little bit choppy but given the nature of the information, I have no idea how to rejig it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't know what to do with it either, maybe organize the second half (non-Chinese) into one larger paragraph? Keilana|Parlez ici 05:10, 26 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 16:09, 4 July 2012 [20].
- Nominator(s): SynergyStar (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved significantly over the past year, attaining GA (along with the related, and now FA-class, Boeing 767 article) and most recently A-Class status. During the recent ACR, this article was given a detailed copy-edit by a member of the Guild of Copy-Editors, and reviewers subsequently made the recommendation to proceed to FAC. I look forward to everyone's constructive input, and aim to advance this article to FA status. Thanks in advance for your consideration and advice!
Please note that when sibling article Boeing 767 passed its FAC earlier this year, previous FA delegate User:SandyGeorgia noted the successful completion of source spotchecks with this edit, and at the same time requested my mention of having already undergone such checks in my next FAC. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for the Aviation Project's A-class review, and made a few tweaks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support and copy-editing assistance! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- FN69: missing author
- FN133 and similar should use dash in title, not hyphen
- You have no citations to several Bibliography entries - should either cite these or split them to a Further reading section. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Formatted. Periods checked, FN69 author restored, FN133 and like use dashes, and non-cited works moved to Further reading. Thanks for the source review! SynergyStar (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a well written and very comprehensive article - great work. I have quite a few comments, but most of them should be easy fixes:
- "The 757 has since been commonly used for domestic and transcontinental flights" - this is vague. A flight from (say) London to Manchester is 'domestic', but so is a flight from (say) Boston to San Diego, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Likewise, a 'transcontinental' flight can be very long range (Sydney to Houston, for instance) or pretty short.
- "As of 2011, 898 of the narrow-body twinjets are in airline service, and Delta Air Lines is the largest operator, with 185 aircraft" - can this be updated? If not, the tense should be changed
- "featuring aerospace materials and propulsion advances" - awkward wording
- "New features included ... under-wing engines" - this is a bit confusing given that the 727 had under-wing engines (as did many other aircraft, of course)
- "On August 31, 1978, the 7N7 received its first airline commitments when Eastern Air Lines and British Airways announced launch orders totaling 40 aircraft" - this implies that this was the first Boeing had heard of the orders, which is unlikely. Presumably the companies had completed their initial negotiations prior to this date.
- "while higher weights for improved takeoff performance in hot and high climates were optional." - can you please clarify what this means? I think I get it, but lots of readers won't.
- "cargo capacity needs and passenger preference for wide-body aircraft were both regarded as limited on the shorter routes targeted for the 757" - the use of the word 'limited' here is vague, and 'the shorter routes targeted for the 757' is a bit passive.
- "British Airways and Rolls-Royce unsuccessfully lobbied the British aircraft industry to manufacture 757 wings" - how would this have worked? Surely Boeing had responsibility for choosing its subcontractors, and would have told British companies to go jump if they couldn't meet its requirements at a competitive price.
- "Production ramp-up for the 757 coincided with the winding-down of 727 assembly, allowing the Renton factory to sustain productivity levels." - This is really unlikely. Surely there was some loss of productivity as the plant tooled up to produce 757s and retrained its workers and the new supply lines and production processes were put in place (I'm pretty sure that Boeing openly acknowledges a productivity curve on new designs, and actually factors this into its planning and costings).
- An interesting fact about the 757, and as is alluded to in the article, is that it never gained a great number of sales outside the US and (to a lesser extent, I think) Europe. For instance no Japanese carriers are listed at List of Boeing 757 operators, relatively few other Asian carriers are identified as operating these aircraft, and the type is rarely seen here in Australia (while I'm no plane spotter or frequent flyer, the only 757s I've seen at Australian airports are RNZAF and USAF aircraft). Material explaining why this was the case would be useful - at present the article focused on what the 757 is good at, but a description of where it's not suitable for would help even things out. Presumably the aircraft isn't commercially optimal for the shortish range and high passenger volume flights common in Asia or the long range flights needed to reach Australia from just about anywhere.
- "Each wing features a supercritical cross-section and is equipped with five-panel leading edge slats" - can you please translate this into plain(er) English, or at least link to definitions?
- "a cruising speed of Mach 0.8 (533 mph or 858 km/h)" - is this the same for all variants of the 757?
- "which together reduce overall weight by 1,490 pounds (680 kg) versus preceding aircraft." - this comparison is really difficult to understand. What aircraft is the 757 being compared to here? The weights of earlier aircraft obviously differed considerably (eg, this aircraft obviously weights more than a DC-3, but less than a 747!).
- "In the 1980s, other narrow-body Boeing aircraft, including the 737, adopted the 757's interior" - this implies that these aircraft made this change themselves! I'd suggest tweaking this to something like "In the 1980s, Boeing altered the interior designs of its other narrow-body aircraft to be similar to that of the 757".
- "Intended as a replacement for the 727, the type offered improved efficiency, increased capacity, and longer range" - the article has already mentioned this at least once.
- All the figures for the numbers of different variants in service are as at July 2011. Can this be updated?
- "The first operator to use the 757 as an official transport" - had any operator been using it as an 'unofficial transport' before this?
- You should probably note that Iron Maiden nick-named their plane "Ed Force One". I'd also suggest including one of the photos of this aircraft available on Commons as it's probably the most unusual markings ever applied to this rather dull type of aircraft!
- Reference 18 ("Boeing 757: introducing the big-fan narrowbody") is to eight pages, which is much too broad to allow readers to easily verify facts. Please replace this with references to the individual page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes made. Thanks for the detailed comments! Adjustments in response are as follows:
- Please note that a "transcontinental" flight (Boston to San Diego) is not an "intercontinental" flight (Sydney to Houston). The lead now specifies: "used for short and medium range domestic flights, as well as transcontinental U.S. services". A second correction: the 727 has no under-wing engines at all (it has a "clean wing design"). The phrase "tail-mounted" has been added to clarify.
- Reworded: "new materials and propulsion advances in the civil aerospace industry"; "On August 31, 1978, Eastern Air Lines and British Airways became the first carriers to publicly commit to the 7N7 when they announced launch orders totaling 40 aircraft"; and "while a wider fuselage had been considered, Boeing's market research on short-haul airline routes found low cargo capacity needs and reduced passenger preference for wide-body aircraft." The "Boeing altered the interior designs..." suggestion has been added verbatim.
- An explanation of "hot and high" MTOWs has been added. A new ref clarifies that Boeing, BA, and RR lobbied British industry. The Renton factory statement now says that the 727/757 transition was merely timely. Leading edge slats has been linked again, and Mach 0.8 referenced to all variants. The weight savings is stated as an overall reduction and not a comparison. The repetitive 727 replacement statement is removed, and "official transport" is now "government operator."
- All July 2011 census mentions have been adjusted to past tense; the next Flight census is likely in August 2012. Refs have been added on the 757's difficulties in Asia (mainly not big enough). There are also other mentions that the 757 was seen elsewhere as too big for a narrow-body aircraft.
- The Velupillai (1982) citations are now split by page number. "Ed Force One" is mentioned; not sure how to fit in another govt/private photo into the article though. Originally there were two photos (C-32 and RNZAF), it was a challenge to fit the Argentinian presidential one after a drive-by editor added it. I'm open to suggestions if a fourth pic is to enter the section. Thanks for the comments and suggestions! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my comments have now - very quickly! - been addressed. Great work. In regards to the "Ed Force One" photo, I'd suggest taking out the photo of the Argentine Government aircraft - the "Air Force Two" use of the Boeing 757 is highly notable, the photo of the RNZAF aircraft in Antarctica is fascinating, but this Argentine aircraft isn't all that interesting or well known. I'm pretty sure that Iron Maiden put out a book on their tour which had a significant focus on "Ed Force One", and the aircraft is mildly famous. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions, and your support! The photo has been replaced as you suggested, and now it fits with one gov't, one military, and one private photo. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
"The maximum take-off weight (MTOW) was set at 220,000 pounds (99,800 kg), which was five tons more than the 727." It would be better to avoid mixing units and to express the additional take-off weight in pounds/kilos. The use of 'tons' is also problematic as they can be short (2,000 lb) or long (2,240 lb). Aa77zz (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Converted. Short tons was linked with the number, but it's now 10,000 pounds (4,540 kg) which is better. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As GA reviewer, I was notified when this article was nominated for FA. The editors here have done a very great job on this article. It passed GA with flying colors and has only gotten better. I will leave a more in depth comment later, until then keep up the good work! Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your initial comments! Just to note; the article has returned to being fairly quiet, and this evaluation currently awaits an image licensing review and further contributors. Several past A-class reviewers have been busy. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've listed it for an image check at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your initial comments! Just to note; the article has returned to being fairly quiet, and this evaluation currently awaits an image licensing review and further contributors. Several past A-class reviewers have been busy. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for posting the image check request! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image check below; just to note, a request was posted for the Nathan to add further comment, he seems to be quite busy. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I left the FAC open for the best part of a day following this note, in case of further comment, but I think there's been enough time now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image check below; just to note, a request was posted for the Nathan to add further comment, he seems to be quite busy. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.
Maybe mention the role of two 757s in the september 11 attacks, in the lede? There is an unlinked reference to "fuselage plugs" under the 757-300 variant, and i'm not sure the reader would know what these are.Otherwise, I'm a support, though haven't checked sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! Searching for "fuselage plug" didn't come up with any Wiki explanation, so it's been adjusted to "extending the fuselage before and after the wings." As for the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lede now has a related summary: "The airliner has recorded eight hull-loss accidents, including seven fatal crashes, as of June 2012." 9/11 could be mentioned directly, provided that fellow editors deem it necessary. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. On the one hand, the sept 11 attacks are the most famous case of aircraft-based terrorism; on the other hand, the fact that they involved 757s was really incidental to the nature of the attacks. So I'm happy with that. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! Searching for "fuselage plug" didn't come up with any Wiki explanation, so it's been adjusted to "extending the fuselage before and after the wings." As for the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lede now has a related summary: "The airliner has recorded eight hull-loss accidents, including seven fatal crashes, as of June 2012." 9/11 could be mentioned directly, provided that fellow editors deem it necessary. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support and comments! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review I've just checked all the images, and they're fine: all are either covered by an ORTS ticket, have been checked after being uploaded from Flickr or are PD-US Government. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Nick. Synergy, apart from a couple of minor tweaks to prose, just one minor structural/formatting point from me: the subheader "Related lists" under "See also" seems redundant when there's nothing but lists there anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian, usage on "mid " vs. "mid-" is changing. Google ngrams tend to strongly favor the space these days; see for instance mid-1979 vs. mid 1979. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Nick-D for the image review, it's much appreciated! Thanks also to Ian Rose for the prose enhancements. I've removed the "Related lists" subheader as it does seem redundant. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, Dan, hyphens aren't a particular barrow of mine, I just try to follow common usage -- if the usage is changing (and if the change doesn't look like a fad!) then I don't have an issue with losing the hyphen in this instance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I've been playing around with Google's ngrams, and they don't seem to be accurately reflecting hyphen usage ... not sure what's up with that. The dictionaries support losing the hyphen, but I'll have to keep looking for a proper corpus. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, Dan, hyphens aren't a particular barrow of mine, I just try to follow common usage -- if the usage is changing (and if the change doesn't look like a fad!) then I don't have an issue with losing the hyphen in this instance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Nick-D for the image review, it's much appreciated! Thanks also to Ian Rose for the prose enhancements. I've removed the "Related lists" subheader as it does seem redundant. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (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 Ian Rose 23:43, 1 July 2012 [21].
- Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC), Hesperian (talk · contribs)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I felt the need to "complete" it and make it the best account of the species available. I feel it is of the standard of the other 20 banksia Featured Articles, or if not can be brought up to speed pretty quickly. So have at it. (Thanks to J Milburn for yet another thorough GA review...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Be consistent in whether you include locations for books, and if so when you include state
- got 'em Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- got 'em Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how you notate multi-author works
- got 'em aligned now Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Use a consistent date format
- got 'em conformed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's with the single bulleted ref at the bottom of the footnotes? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- commented out ref for the time being until we can figure out what it inlines....a relic of pre-inlining days? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article, as always. Partial comments (more later)
- Lead
- Sentence 3: "encountered" - wouldn't it have that form regardless of whether someone encounters it or not? (Tree falls in the forest...)
aawww spoilsportno problem, removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 3: "habit" might be confusing to the casual reader. Growth form maybe?
- one linked, one removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- sentence 5: "change to red tinged" - "become red tinged" might be a better way of saying this since they go yellow-pink-red according to the 'Description"
- reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 5: "...with maturity, which acts..." feels a little clumsy. "...with maturity; this acts..." avoids this (somewhat)
- reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 2, sentence 2: "Unlike its close relatives" - which do what? (This could either be read to say that other species don't resprout after fires, or that they resprout from other tissues).
- reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Description
- Sentence 1: "fairly variable" - fairly is just filler, it doesn't add any precision
- removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 3: "Margaret River region" - I'm really none the wiser for having read this. Is this a small part of SW WA, is it a large part of the species range? And although looking back I can tell that this must be WA, I wouldn't have remembered that without looking back.
- Yet again the need arises to rejig other articles....the Margaret River Region is well known, yet nothing on wikipedia serves as a good link - we have Margaret River, Western Australia (town only), Margaret River (the measly river), and Margaret River (wine region) - I'm thinking the best would be to broaden the last article to Margaret River Region or Margaret River (region) or somesuch and will open discussion on it anon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 2, sentence 2: lose the comma
- removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 4: "arranged" -> "and are arranged" (or something like that) to make it clear that you are talking about the leaves, not the branches
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 7: " petioles 0.3–1 cm in length" - missing inches
- added Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 11: " grow outwards from node where the flower head grows from" - a. "the node"; b. ends with "from" (this is especially noticeable since "from" appears twice in the sentence).
- reworded x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 2, last sentence: " followed by the appearance of one to three follicles" - it may not be clear to all readers that the follicles area fruit that develop from the flowers
- tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 3 lacks conversions to imperial
- added Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 3, sentence 3: what is an auricle?
- linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 4, sentence 1: New para, so "it" should be named
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 4, sentence 1: before "however" you need at least a semi-colon, if not a new sentence.
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More.
- Taxonomy
- Para 3, sentence 3: "Incorrectly" published..."corrected" - has this synonymy been verified through molecular or common garden studies, or is this synonym merely George's conclusion, based on examination of specimens? I'm not suggesting that placing them in synonymy is in any way incorrect, I'm just troubled by the strength of the assertion .
- yeah good point - rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 2 seems to run on a bit.
- reworded/trimmed a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 3: "quite variable" - again, quite is just filler, it doesn't convey additional information
- agreed/removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 4, sentence 1 - rather long, might split it at the semi-colon
- agreed/done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 2: "Kuntze's challenge failed" - sounds a little like a cage match; might want to clarify "to gain acceptance" or something
- agreed/reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Infrageneric placement
- Sentence 1: "The group Isostylis" - adding "unranked" would be helpful
- added Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 1: arrangement of or by Meissner, Bentham? (I think "by" is more idiomatic)
- hmmm, "of" sounds more natural to my ears...I'll see what others think.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 3: "the two other species are rare and threatened" - is there an article on Australian definitions of "threatened" to link to? If not, why not? :)
- Sentence 5: "though" or "although"?
- changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Distribution and habitat
- Para 2 + 3 are rather short and fit together, so it might be good to combine them
- accidental split that, re-combined.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 4 - what, no articles on Australian vegetation types?
- yeah, an area of WP lacking is ecological communities - Banksia ilicifolia woodland I've not seen much literature on, but Banksia woodland I certainly have for coastal WA, so...yet more chores.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 3 - "understory" is American usage, "understorey" is BE. I think it's Australian usage as well - worth checking.
- changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ecology
- Para 3, sentence 1: found...found
- removed first one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 4, sentence 1: reduced...reduced
- reduced a reduced Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 6, sentence 2: too long, too many ands.
- split. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 4: "more closely tied...unlike" - either "more closely tied...than" or "closely tied...unlike"
- I'll take the first option.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 5: "as well as" -> "combined with" would improve the flow of the sentence
- changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Para 7: moving "like many WA banksias" to the start of the sentence would improve flow
- changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cultivation
- The tone of the writing changes here. It's not a problem, but it does feel like it was written by someone else. A more consistent style would improve the overall quality.
- hmmm, not sure how to address this one. Am looking at it and not seeing anything jump out at me... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence 3: "plus prominently..." - "plus" is a bit colloquial. "Combined with" or "in combination with" would be better.
- changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Guettarda (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now...Comments from PumpkinSky
- prose has had a good proofing, it looks good
- IMAGES -- are all "own work" so I see no problem there
- "rank.[16][14][17]" ... refs should be in numerical order
- got 'em ordered now Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Brown ref, currently number 9, no page number? Or is more of a generic ref?
- good point - page and url for prodromus added Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks but for some reason it's showing as a bare url and I haven't figured out why yet.PumpkinSky talk 14:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the linking of the the title that breaks it. I'll see if I can get it to work with both.PumpkinSky talk 15:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks but for some reason it's showing as a bare url and I haven't figured out why yet.PumpkinSky talk 14:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- good point - page and url for prodromus added Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Banksia ilicifolia1 orig.JPG...I changed "Albany WA" to Albany, Western Australia because another of the images has it spelled out and it threw me at first as I thought it was meaning "Albany, Washington' (dumb me). Revert if you like.
- nah, that's fine Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- another great banksia article.PumpkinSky talk 11:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- thx Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Found something else, your 2-digit page numbering seems fine, but on the 3-digit ones, some are ###-### and some are ###-##. PumpkinSky talk 15:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found two, the others are where the hundreds digit has 'clocked' up one or two as it were. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally prefer ###-### format, but that's not what's important here. What is important is consistency and you've made it consistent.PumpkinSky talk 22:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Commentsfrom Jim Just a few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- tree in the plant Proteaceae family—I don't think we need to be told that a tree is a plant, but if you think it's necessary it would be better before "family" anyway.
- dang, how'd that get left there?? removed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 10 metres (33 ft) high (also later) —I'd prefer "tall" to "high", here and later. To me, "high" refers more to location, but not a big deal.
- good point actually - changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- English Holly—either lose the "English" or change the link to Ilex aquifolium.
- good point - changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- red-tinged with maturity this acts as—semicolon after "maturity"?
- dang, how'd that get left out?? added now Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Prolific botanist—I'm not clear why his prolixity is relevant here.
- removed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- although some leaves have all or mostly entire margins—I think I know what you mean, but "smooth" or something similar might be clearer.
- smooth isn't quite right either, lacking teeth is what it means - actaully that is quite a simple fix.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the "See also" Taxonomy of Banksia, shouldn't it be Taxonomy of Banksia ?
- range from convex or concave—should it be "to"?
- changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- publication of the species—species description?
- reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Twenty-eight Parrot —if you change the link to point to the "Subspecies" section, it might be clearer why the name here is different to the linked article title.
- linked there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- acari... coleoptera... hymenoptera... thysanoptera—taxa above species level should be capitalised.
- capped. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No more problems, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / query. Good article, which I lean to support. Found it fairly technical in places.
In "Infrageneric placement", i wasn't even able to guess at the meaning of "circumscription" in this context (whereas other relatively technical passages I was often able to infer the meanings). Can this be reworded or explained?The term "subtribe" is used only once without explanation or wikilink. Given the many different terms used to describe different groupings / classifications / levels of grouping, this isn't really satisfactory.My more general remark is that, for an encyclopedia article about an organism, there seems perhaps too much detail and discussion of classificatory schema. Is this a Banksia thing? Has it been debated previously? Happy to hear if others think it's fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I found that I could just remove the 'subtribe' reference - and this level of detail is consistent with the other banksia FAs - giving enough to give context but not superfluous.
I'll have a think and look-over again though.I've trimmed a bit which is not immediately pertinent to B. ilicifolia - bit tricky as I've read it many times. If you see anything else you feel is extraneous I'll have a look and prune if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I found that I could just remove the 'subtribe' reference - and this level of detail is consistent with the other banksia FAs - giving enough to give context but not superfluous.
- Thanks Cas for addressing my specific points. I don't think i could reliably trim this without stuffing it up. If it is consistent with other banksia FAs, then I'm a 'support'. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Spitz 2005, pp. 200: Booking them in Hamburg in 1960, 243: "Williams had never formally served as the Beatles manager". sfn error: no target: CITEREFSpitz2005 (help)
- ^ Miles 2001, pp. 23–24. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMiles2001 (help)
- ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 21–25: Hamburg, 31: the Cavern Club. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help)
- ^ Miles 1997, p. 74: McCartney: "Nobody wants to play bass, or nobody did in those days". harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMiles1997 (help); Gould 2007, pp. 89: On McCartney playing bass when Sutcliff was indisposed., 94: "Sutcliff gradually began to withdraw from active participation in the Beatles, ceding his role as the group's bassist to Paul McCartney". harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help)
- ^ Spitz 2005, pp. 249–251. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSpitz2005 (help)
- ^ Miles 1997, pp. 84–88. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMiles1997 (help)
- ^ Spitz 2005, p. 330. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSpitz2005 (help)
- ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 59: "Love Me Do", 75: Replacing Best with Starr., 88–94: "Beatlemania" in the UK., 136–140: "Beatlemania" in the US harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help); Miles 1997, p. 470: the cute Beatle harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMiles1997 (help).
- ^ a b Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help)
- ^ For song authorship see: Harry 2002, pp. 90: "Can't Buy Me Love", 439: "I Saw Her Standing There" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHarry2002 (help); Harry 2000a, pp. 561–562: "I Want to Hold Your Hand" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHarry2000a (help); and MacDonald 2005, pp. 66–68: "I Saw Her Standing There", 83–85: "She Loves You", 99–103: "I Want to Hold Your Hand", 104–107: "Can't Buy Me Love", 171–172: "We Can Work It Out" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMacDonald2005 (help); For release dates, US and UK peak chart positions of the preceding songs see: Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help).
- ^ Buk 1996, p. 51: Their first recording that involved only a single band member harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBuk1996 (help); Gould 2007, p. 278: The group's first recorded use of classical music elements in their music harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help); Lewisohn 1992, p. 180: MBE harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help).
- ^ MacDonald 2005, pp. 157–158: "Yesterday" as the most covered song in history. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMacDonald2005 (help)
- ^ MacDonald 2005, p. 172. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMacDonald2005 (help)
- ^ Levy 2005, p. 18: Rubber Soul is described by critics as an advancement of the band's music harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLevy2005 (help); Brown & Gaines 2002, pp. 181-82: As they explored facets of romance and philosophy in their lyrics harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrownGaines2002 (help).
- ^ Spitz 2005, p. 587. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSpitz2005 (help)
- ^ Harry 2000b, p. 780. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarry2000b (help)
- ^ Gould 2007, p. 348. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help)
- ^ Gould 2007, pp. 325: "a satire of pop ambition" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help); Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351: Revolver', s release was preceded by "Paperback Writer" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help).
- ^ Gould 2007, p. 350: "neoclassical tour de force", 402: "a true hybrid". sfn error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help)
- ^ Harry 2002, pp. 313–316. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarry2002 (help)
- ^ Gould 2007, p. 347: 1,400 live performances internationally harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help); Lewisohn 1992, p. 230: final commercial concert harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help)
- ^ Blaney 2007, p. 8. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBlaney2007 (help)
- ^ MacDonald 2005, p. 254. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMacDonald2005 (help)
- ^ Miles 1997, p. 303: McCartney was inspired to create a new identity for the Beatles harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMiles1997 (help); Harry 2000a, p. 970: Rock's first concept album harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHarry2000a (help).
- ^ Miles 1997, p. 303. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMiles1997 (help)
- ^ Lewisohn 1992, p. 232. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help)
- ^ Miles 1997, p. 333: On McCartney's design for the Sgt. Pepper cover (primary source) harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMiles1997 (help); Sounes 2010, p. 168: On McCartney's design for the Sgt. Pepper cover (secondary source) harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSounes2010 (help).
- ^ Wenner & George-Warren 2000, pp. 24–25. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWennerGeorge-Warren2000 (help)
- ^ a b Benitez 2010, pp. 8–9. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBenitez2010 (help)
- ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 238–239. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help)
- ^ Gould 2007, pp. 455–456. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help)
- ^ Harry 2000a, p. 699. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarry2000a (help)
- ^ Gould 2007, pp. 487: Critical response harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help); Lewisohn 1992, pp. 278: Filming of the promotional trailer, 304: Yellow Submarine soundtrack release harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help).
- ^ Gould 2007, p. 470: Apple Corps formed as part of Epstein's business plan harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help); Lewisohn 1992, p. 278: The beatles first Apple Records LP release harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help).
- ^ Brown & Gaines 2002, p. 299: "We've been very negative since Mr. Epstein passed away" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrownGaines2002 (help); Lewisohn 1992, pp. 276–304: the White Album, 304–314: Let It Be harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help).
- ^ Sounes 2010, pp. 171–172: Paul and Linda's first meeting., 245–248: On their wedding., 261: On the birth of their first child Mary. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSounes2010 (help)
- ^ a b Gould 2007, p. 563. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help)
- ^ Gould 2007, pp. 593–594. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help)
- ^ Lewisohn 1992, p. 349: McCartney's departure from the Beatles (secondary source) harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help); Miles 1998, pp. 314–316: McCartney's departure from the Beatles (primary source) harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMiles1998 (help); Spitz 2005, pp. 243: Lennon's personal appointment of Klein, 819–821, 832–833: McCartney's disagreement with Lennon, Harrison and Starr over Klein's management of the Beatles harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSpitz2005 (help).
- ^ Harry 2002, p. 753. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarry2002 (help)
- ^ Roberts 2005, p. 54. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRoberts2005 (help)
- ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351: US and UK singles and album release dates with peak chart positions harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help); Gould 2007, pp. 8–9: "one of the greatest phenomena in the history of mass entertainment", "widely regarded as the greatest concentration of singing, songwriting, and all-around musical talent that the rock'n'roll era has produced" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGould2007 (help); Spitz 2005, p. 856: "not anything like anything else ... [a] vastness of talent ... of genius, incomprehensible". harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSpitz2005 (help)
- ^ Harry 2000a, pp. 1–3: Abbey Road, 107–109: The Beatles, 916–917: Revolver, 969–979: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHarry2000a (help); Levy 2005, pp. 8–11: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, 14–15: Revolver, 18–19: Rubber Soul, 28–29: The Beatles, 33: Abbey Road harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLevy2005 (help).
- ^ Bronson 1992, p. 247: "the band's most successful single" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBronson1992 (help); For song authorship see: Harry 2002, pp. 358–359: "Get Back", 410–411: "Hello, Goodbye", 415–416: "Hey Jude", 508: "Let it Be", 533: "The Long and Winding Road" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHarry2002 (help); For release dates, US and UK peak chart positions of the preceding songs see: Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisohn1992 (help).
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Douglas230
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).