Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:26, 6 December 2011

December 2011

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 01:26, 6 December 2011 .

USS Arizona (BB-39)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) and The ed17

Completed during World War I, the ship did not actively participate in the war. She was used for a vacation by President Herbert Hoover and spent most of the 1930s assigned to the Pacific Fleet. She was berthed in Battleship Row in Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and suffered the greatest loss of life during the attack when her forward magazines detonated and she sank at her moorings. The iconic Arizona Memorial was built over her remains in the 1960s and she has come to symbolize the attack. We're a little late, but we believe that if we can get prompt reviews we can whip this into shape in time for a WP:TFA appearance on the main page on 7 December, the 70th anniversary of her sinking. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for now. Sorry Sturmvogel, but this is currently well below the standard of recent battleship FAs - including the many you've brought up to this standard. My concerns are:
  • The lead isn't well structured, with the first paragraph dwelling mainly on dates and relatively minor details about the ship's construction and the subsequent paras not covering her inter-war service (which comprised most of her history, even if it was unremarkable) and being relatively short.
    • I also wasn't happy when I saw things like what kind of turbines she had in the first paragraph, but Sturm and I have a running disagreement over how fast to introduce details. "Boss" and "copyeditor" are two completely inconsistent jobs, so I have to sit back and let others argue about general structure and some usage and readability preferences. I think, for ships in particular, we need more reviewers at FAC to iron out all these questions. - Dank (push to talk)
      • WP:MOSBEGIN recommends that the first paragraph should provide a definition and overview of the topic of the article. In this case, that would be something like a very short summary of the ship's characteristics and career. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • My personal preference is not to put any of that in the lede as it's very hard to summarize that sort of info. I've reworked the lede, how does it read now?
          • Better, though I don't think that the date Arizona became a state is needed - this adds some scope for confusion for no benefit. Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) should be linked, and the years seem unnecessary in this context. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Agreed and I forgot to link Greco-Turkish War earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Arizona sank with the loss of 1,177 lives during the attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II on 7 December 1941, and the United States immediately declared war on Japan." - this implies that the sinking of this ship alone led to war.
    • That was my language; I've put it back almost the way it was. I'm not taking a position on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
      • The new wording is a slight improvement, though it still implies that the sinking of Arizona alone led to war. I don't think that you need to mention the fact that the attack on Pearl Harbor started the war between Japan and the US in the lead as this is very well known. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not as sanguine about the state of historical knowledge among the general populace as you seem to be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The statement that "Arizona retains the right, in perpetuity, to fly the United States flag as if she were an active, commissioned naval vessel" in the lead doesn't appear again in the text of the article
    • I'm thinking that it's better off in the main body; I'll move it there once I source it.
      • Done.
  • "was significantly larger than her predecessors of the Nevada class." - this implies she was a one-off rather than the second ship in a new class
    • Reworded.
  • How could the ship carry more oil than she was designed to carry?
    • Reworded.
  • What's the relevance of the launch taking 42 seconds? Was this much faster than normal?
    • Deleted, TMI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Though this traditionally involved smashing a bottle of wine over the bow of the ship being launched, Arizona's state government had banned alcohol, so the state's governor decided that two bottles would be used: one full of champagne from Ohio, and another filled with water from the Roosevelt Dam." - this is a bit confusing given that champagne is obviously both a form of wine and alcohol
    • Most people don't think of champagne as a form of wine. But I've reworded it slightly to satisfy the oenophiles among the readership.
      • The 'so' part is confusing: was this a protest against prohibition, or some kind of adaption to it? Given that wine was still involved, it was hardly in keeping with the ban. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Note that Arizona was a "dry" state, and this was a compromise between the traditional practice and Arizona's ban on alcohol.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I understand that. My point is that the current wording doesn't help readers to understand it. Why not word it as something like "To acknowledge the ban on alcohol which had been imposed by the Arizona state government, the state's governor decided that two bottles would be used: one full of champagne from Ohio, and another filled with water from the Roosevelt Dam" - this makes it a bit clearer to readers, though the governor seems to have not really acted in accordance with the letter of the law here ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Life for Arizona's crew was not all practice, though. In July 1918, the race-boat team from Arizona was able to win the Battenberg Cup by taking a three-length lead over their closest competitor, the team from Nevada, and holding it until the end of the three-mile race." - a sporting competition doesn't really justify being called "not all practice" as this implies that the ship saw some kind of service. Rowing competitions are a form of practice for rowing as well.
    • That's a pretty subtle distinction to draw. I read it as something that didn't involve preparing to kill people, or enabling those who do so.
      • Fast rowing was a core skill for sailors in the pre-outboard motor era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • True, but it was regarded more as a sport than as realistic training for both the USN and RN based on memoirs and stuff that I've read. Remember that the rest of the crew didn't have to work while watching the races, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • My concern is really the use of the phrase "Life for Arizona's crew was not all practice, though." in association with this. When I read this at the end of a paragraph about the ship only engaging in training I expected it would describe some kind of operational deployment. Instead it discusses a sports event. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • • I'm still not really sure what to do here; I've rewritten and combined the sentences to mitigate any thoughts about a deployment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Why was the ship sent to Europe after World War I ended?
    • I think I remember the text saying that the ship was escorting President Wilson. - Dank (push to talk)
      • This still isn't really addressed - the escort was obviously an honorific only given that it lasted for a day and battleships would have been useless against any rouge German submarines. The fact that all the ships sailed for home after Wilson reaches France indicates that it wasn't a serious military deployment. Why did the US Government see fit to expand its battleship force in European waters after the peace, including sending at least this ship which was considered difficult to supply in the area? Was it a diplomatic maneuver or some kind of training cruise? Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Probably more the former, but we're getting outside the remit of the article here.
          • I don't agree - the article discusses why the ship wasn't sent to European Waters during World War I, so it should also describe why she was deployed after the war. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • I believe she was deployed to protect American citizens and interests during the Grecian-Turkish War. If I remember right, there was a bit of speculation in one of Stillwell's interviews that she was deployed to protect Standard Oil's facilities, but there was nothing scholarly on that point. Also note that the oil shortage was due to problems supplying oil to the UK (a) during a war (b) over a route frequented by submarines and (c) when more useful items could be shipped. I believe all that eased with the war's end. Ed  03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
              • I was referring to the 1918 deployment to France rather than the 1919 deployment. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
                • Ah, my bad. It says why in the next sentence; essentially it was a diplomatic show of force. Ed  10:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Grecian' should probably be replaced with 'Greek'
    • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "İstanbul (then known as Constantinople)" - use Constantinople
    • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Was the ship really 'idle' in the 1920s? - this seems a bit dramatic for what actually sounds like a fairly conventional peacetime training schedule.
    • Idle when anchored, mostly. How would you suggest rewording that bit?
      • Replace "For the rest of the 1920s, Arizona's service was filled with training and idleness" with something like "For the rest of the 1920s, Arizona only put to sea for routine training exercises". Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The photo caption which reads "Arizona displays her new tripod masts, following her modernization during the 1930s." is a bit odd - she's actually sailing through a fairly heavy sea, and so isn't just being shown to a photographer, and the tripod masts aren't very clear from that angle.
    • True, the offending bit has been excised.
  • "During this time, the ship was more often anchored to save fuel than at sea." - this wording is a bit awkward
    • How does it read now?
      • Worse, to be frank. I'd suggest changing it to something like "The ship did not often put to sea during this period as a result of the Navy's limited supplies of fuel". Even modern warships generally spend more time in harbour than at sea, and this was particularly the case for ships of Arizona's era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Supplies of fuel were not limited, per se, only the money to purchase them. I suspect that the normal cruising to anchored ratio before the Depression was on the order of 1:1, but these numbers show 1:2. Unfortunately, there's no handy tally anywhere to make the comparison with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • OK, but the sentence's wording is still a bit awkward. I'd suggest changing it to something like "Due to the Navy's limited budget, the ship spent most of this period in port as a fuel-saving measure". Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It should be noted why the Pacific Fleet moved to Pearl Harbor in 1940
    • Agreed, let me find a source as to why.
      • Samuel Morison's official history would be a great source. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Found one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The paragraph which begins 'The preliminary report' seems overly complex - why not describe what the actual hits on the ship were rather than describing what successive assessments found?
    • Because some less than careful historians have repeated the statements from the preliminary report, especially that bit about a bomb going down the stack. I remember reading that as a kid.
      • A straightforward account of the damage would also act to debunk the mistaken accounts and would be much easier to read. You could add a footnote discussing the confusion over the reports if this is notable enough to cover as it's not really necessary in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • • Done, how does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Looks good to me Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The two-sentence 'Japanese credit for sinking' section and single para 'Awards and recognition' section should be merged into other sections
    • I've deleted the Japanese bit as unimportant, but I've reworked the awards and recognition section a bit. How does it read now?
      • Looks OK to me. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What's meant by "The US Navy still retains the title"? Does this mean that the 'USS' part of the ship's name is still valid or that the Navy still owns the wreck (or both)?
    • Probably just the latter, but I'm just repeating the verbiage from the sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The footnote needs a citation Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • • Deleted.
    • Thanks for taking the time to enumerate these issues. I agree that it was a bit rushed and I'll start addressing them tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now sufficiently addressed, and I think that this now meets the FA criteria. Great work Sturmvogel. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC) "the only known color photograph from the attack" - source?

• • It's sourced already.
• Be consistent in whether short citations are linked
  • Done.
• Formatting for Gardiner & Gray (both footnote and reference entry), Wright and Wallin don't match others
  • I think that this has been cleared up.
• No citations to Hone or Jones
  • Moved.
• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • There is no requirement that an article have one or the other. However, in this article, there's an issue with periods versus commas in citations, and I will address that next time I am at a computer. Ed  19:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • They should be consistent now. Ed  03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• FN 27: linking
  • Done.
• FN 23: italicization
  • Done.
• Be consistent in which journal formatting you use
  • Done.
• Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
  • Not sure what you're referring to here. If it's USS, we're replicating the usage in the source documents.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• FN 58: formatting, missing date
  • Not sure what you're referring to here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Combine duplicate refs like FNs 63 and 64
  • Done.
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Hard to beat a picture of the anchor with the ship's name emblazoned as a source.
• Further reading should use same formatting as References
  • Done.
• Barber: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Thanks for the quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Did Arizona participate in all the Fleet Problems, and over what span of years?
  • A cursory look over her chronology says that she participated in just about all when she wasn't being modernized. Why?
    • See next reply. - Dank (push to talk)
• "A highlight of the years came on 27 July 1923, when she participated in ...": Readers will assume you're only covering the important bits, so you can omit the "highlight" bit, unless we're talking about some kind of special honor.
  • I was thinking more about from the crew's POV.
    • "Fleet Problems as the highlight" is more or less equivalent to "the best part was the Fleet Problems" ... best in what way and from whose POV? What do the sources say about the crew's reactions or expectations? - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• "The battleship's last training was ...": Is a word missing?
  • Yes, evolution.
    • Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• "wrought devastation on the Battle Line": I don't know why "Battle Line" is a proper noun here.
  • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Guys, I'll be happy to support this one on prose after my final pass, after other reviewers' issues get resolved. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Looks to me like Nick is almost happy, and everyone else is supporting. I did more tweaking; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Spotcheck clear 4/7 sources, 8/64 citations clear and supporting. I did not check content coverage or weight, only sources supporting their assertions as indicated below. One citation fixit. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 20e DANFS (MIL sources are not propagating to Australia correctly tonight, cached copy used) clear and supports
  • 49 Friedman clear and supports
  • 39 Wohlstetter clear and supports
  • 56 Stillwell clear and supports
  • 25 NYT clear and supports
  • 48 NHHC clear and supports; this is despite the complex opinion being made, the[REDACTED] article accurately reflects the complexity of the military opinion (well done)
  • 62 clear and supports. Miscited: cite the lowest level organisation responsible for production in a bureaucracy; in this case the student's union.
    • I don't think that the Student's union wrote or published that page; it's just in that section of the University's website.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 63 is clear and supports. (and uses the right bit of that god awful source: the reliable bit that was edited, wow... I never thought I'd pass a source like this, but the editors correctly use only the reliable section, and the editors of the reliable section are experts at roadside attractions by dint of publishing)
    • If there hadn't been a photo I don't think I'd have used it at all. Thanks for looking it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments: a made a few tweaks as I saw them, but I also have the following suggestions (feel free to ignore anything you disagree with):
  • "and a full naval review by Secretary of the Navy Daniels". Per WP:SURNAME it can probably just be "Daniels" here;
    • Pretty sure I'm going to stet this, but I've asked at WT:MOS#WP:SURNAME just to be sure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries, you know what goes at FAC better than I. It seems this point gets raised in most Milhist ACRs, though, so I'm a bit confused. Nevertheless, its a relatively minor point. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "seven total battleships, eighteen destroyers and support ships". What's a "total battleship"? Would the fleet consist of "partial battleships"?
    • "In company with many of the ships of the fleet (seven total battleships, eighteen destroyers and support ships)," changed to "In company with six battleships and eighteen destroyers,". I don't know how many "many" is; I guess if it's "most", it wouldn't hurt to add that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • inconsistencies: "the navy" and "the Navy". In most cases, I think it should probably be "the Navy" as it is being used as a substitute for a proper noun, i.e. the United States Navy;
    • Most US style guides recommend lowercasing it, but there's some support for uppercasing, and it's uppercased more often than not on Misplaced Pages. I'm happy either way as long as it's consistent.
      • All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • inconsistent presentation: "before 8:00 am" and "08:00" and "07:55";
    • Fixed.
  • this seems a bit awkward to me: "Arizona was hit four times, plus three near misses". Perhaps try: "Arizona was hit four times; in addition she experienced three near misses";
    • "Near miss" is a really difficult phrase; it would be great if no one ever said it, since sometimes it means nearby or minor damage was done and sometimes it means the opposite, i.e. no harm done. In this case, you get a sense of what was meant by the sentence that follows this one. I went with: "The bombers scored four hits and three near misses on and around Arizona."
  • there is some repetition here: "The explosion killed 1,177 of the..." followed by "The explosion touched off fierce";
    • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this: "This theory is attractive because..." The theory is attractive, or is it "plausible"?
    • Fixed.
  • "The problem is that smokeless powder is..." The problem with what? Do you mean: "This theory is problematic, however, because smokeless powder is relatively insensitive to fire and the 14-inch powder bags would have required a black powder pad to ignite the powder, making this theory improbable. As such, it seems unlikely..."
    • I changed "the problem is that" to "however".
  • Passive voice: "Acts of heroism on the part of Arizona's officers and men were many". Maybe try: "There were many acts of heroism performed by Arizona's officers and men during the attack."
    • That's not passive voice. Since it's the topic sentence for the paragraph, and since the paragraph is about acts of heroism, it works for me to lead with that phrase, though your suggestion is fine too.
      • I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I really don't think it works, but that's just my opinion and we don't have to agree on everything. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I like Rupert's wording better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems tantalising to a layman like myself: "The latter battery fired its guns for the first and last time in August 1945". As a reader it makes me wonder at the circumstances: did they fire at a Japanese ship, or was it just in practice? If the sources are specific, may be you might consider adding a footnote explaining this (would only need a short sentence or two)?
    • Anyone?
      • Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • this seems a bit flowery: "men of her crew lost that December morning in 1941". Perhaps just: "men of her crew lost at Pearl Harbor";
    • I think it's fine for two reasons: the phrase itself is not flowery (though it may sound that way in context), and this is the topic sentence of a section dealing with the memorial; a tiny amount of emotion is not out of place, I think.
      • Fair enough, again you have more experience with what's acceptable here. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Navy, in conjunction with the National Park Service, has..." The wikilink here for "National Park Service" probably should be moved to the mention in the previous section (link on first mention). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries. Thanks for making those changes, Dank. Good work as usual. I've added my support above. I would like to see a note about the battery firing its guns, but it's not a warstoper for me if it's not put in. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Are all the links in Further Reading really necessary? And couldn't you just cite Conway? NO DANFS?
  • I might be able to fit a reference to Conway's in somewhere, but I really don't see any necessity to do so. Your reference to DANFS is confusing as it's the third ref in the references section.
    • Whoops - read this one too fast...if you can't tell I'm not a fan of Further Reading sections.
• Similarly, the first 4 links in External Links don't seem necessary (you could cite #1 but I don't think that source is credible enough and note #57 has the relevant info). The 5th link I would cite; the 6th is unnecessary, the 7th is unprofessional but have a semblence of citations and interesting photos, I'd cite 8 and drop 9. That leaves you with one external link which may not be worthy a section.
  • You have a higher standard for the external links than I do. I've kept a couple which offer pictures or something useful.
    • Pretty good I guess.
• Merge one sentence paragraph in the Awards section.
  • Done.
• I would expand citation 7 to specify which facts (number of rounds, 5" guns which were wet) came from which page. Same for 6. I suspect I would find more of these but I'm out of time, sorry! Kirk (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Friedman doesn't specify which 5-inch guns were wet, but uses a blanket statement that they were considered wet. I bundle page numbers together when citing from a single source as much as possible and see no need to break them out. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I understand that's the way you do things but just to be clear page 116 of Freidman is in Google Books so my spotcheck revealed it says the Penn. class in general had "wet anti-torpedo batteries." (Which reads: guns for shooting torpedoes...does anyone edit these books?). I don't know what's on page 440 - if its duplicated, I would switch to #3, but if not I would switch #7 to just page 116 and put another #3 on the previous sentence. Its a minor detail.
      • That might be anti-torpedo boat batteries. Sturm, I think they were all wet to some degree, no? Ed  06:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Overall, its very good. Kirk (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Image review—all images are from the US Navy, and as part of the US federal government, they're all in the public domain. All captions meet the appropriate criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia:

1. On the first occurrence of "the annual Fleet Problems", we have to click to see what those are-- can't we somehow define that here (fleet exercises or something)?

   Done.

2. Is "Unlike many of the other ships sunk or damaged ... could not be fully salvaged" supported by sources? It couldn't be salavaged or the Navy decided not to salvage it? What do sources say?

   Stillwell says, "The Arizona was considered to be so badly damaged that she would not be suitable for further service even if her remains could be salvaged. At that time the priority was to salvage ships that could be used in the war effort. In addition, the harbor bottom around the hull was so porous that Navy salvage experts didn't consider it feasible to build a cofferdam so that the hull could be pumped out and bodies recovered."

3. Organization: Ship preservation is a subsection of Attack on Pearl Harbor-- that's not intuitive, and suggests article organization may need attention. How about combining Ship preervation with Memorial and honors?

   Reworked.

4. Description: are the water-tube boilers oil fired? We later encounter mention of fuel oil, which leads us to believe so-- clarify in text? I've seen other ship articles mention that some coal-fired ships had oil added.

   If a ship uses mixed firing, I always mention it. Generally I don't specifically state if the boilers are oil fired or coal-fired, as I let the fuel storage answer that.

5. Construction and trials: "The builders set a goal ... " and so on. I got all balled up in the chronology and long sentences here. Might you say, "... but the ship was only half done after 12 months, and not launched until 19 June 1915. Then the next thought about the naming should be a separate sentence.

   How does it read now?

6. Construction and trials: "After acclimating the ship's magnetic compass ... ": do you think acclimating is the correct term for the adjustment of the ship's compass? Is that the term the source uses? How about "compensating" instead? Link to magnetic deviation for compensating.

   Good catch, my eyes had slid right over that. The term is actually declination.

7. "She towed targets for Pennsylavania while outside ... " what's going on here? Why was she towing targets? For example, "she towed targets for Pennsylvania's training exercises ... or whatever it was. In other words, why does the reader need to know this?

   Deleted.

8. The turbine could not be fixed --> repaired maybe better ?

   Agreed.

9. the yard workers were forced to cut holes ... were forced to is redundant, they cut holes.

   Reworded.

10. "World War I": "... the wreck was sometimes used as a target for the 14-inch guns." The reader doesn't know that the wreck refers to the San Marcus (we don't know it's a wreck). "She rarely ventured into the ocean", then we don't know is the Arizona (fix both at once).

    Done.

11. "... easier to supply coal ... " wouldn't "obtain" coal be better here? Would the reader understand better if you point out that the ships that were sent were coal-burning? Is that what you mean to say?

    Good idea.

12. The war did not end on 11 November-- the fighting did.

    True

13. "1920s": "interspersed with a liberty visit" ... strange to use the word "interspersed" for one event ... seems to imply more than one thing going on.
14. "... Greek ground forces arrived in transports and landed troops" ... the forces didn't land troops ... how about "were landed"?

    Rewrote the whole sentence.

15. "Modernization": "... thickness of STS ... " do you think you should tell the reader what STS is so they don't have to click out?

    Done.

16. "Attack on Pearl Harbor": To say that the Japanese struck, and that there were then two ensuing attack waves, is confusing. Why is that -- ... -- even needed? Especially since the Arizona was sunk in the first wave.

    Rephrased.

17. "Ammunition magazine explosion": "Ironically, the blast ... ", why ironically, I'm missing the irony, sentence is fine without it.

    Few people expect a massive explosion to put out fires rather than create them.

    Changed to "Fortunately,". - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

18. "Ship preservation", see above, why is it part of "Attack on Pearl Harbor", and the last paragraph of the section discusses the National Park Service, which really begs to be in the enxt section.

    I've restructured these sections along the lines that you suggest.

19. "Memorial and honors": "The wreck of ... ", three uses of the word "memorial" in one para-- suggest others like "commemorate".

    Agreed.

20. The whole sentence, "As of 2011, 70 years after ... " is awkward. Suggest: Seventy years after ... oil leaking from the hull still rises to the surface of the water. The as of 2011 is implied.

    I like that phrasing better. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's all from here-- I'll ping Raul to look in here per potential Dec 7 TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

All good (and fast!). I found one wayward "that", and I suspect that Special Treatment Steel needs to be all uppercase, per The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia entry on Armor, which means that article needs to be moved. It's a shame that, if we run this article on Dec 7, readers will (hopefully) click through to USS Arizona Memorial, and find ... ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mucked with a couple of these without seeing this here, but I think you'll be okay with anything I did. On the flip side, I did capitalize Special Treatment Steel. Now I'm going back to writing my paper because it's my 21st birthday and I'm going out tonight come hell or high water. ;-) Ed  09:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

Persoonia levis

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This plant is amazing to see in the Sydney bushland - like someone coloured in its leaves with green fluoro marker - and this was the one I'd meant to buff up to FA but got mental block so did another one instead. Am now unblocked mentally and reckon it's over the line. If not, should be easy to fix. I figure by writing about it I can actually germinate and grow the damn plant (magical thinking). Anyway, have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

PS, this is a wikicu...oh wait, never mind.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Note, permission for second nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Include both authors for Wrigley citations?

not sure how to do that with sfn template - will read up on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations

was one book. got it now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

tricky one as the first of the periods is an abbreviation in the publisher ("co." for "company"), and the second one is a routine period. Theoretically it'd look better to only have one there but does one period do two jobs...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The cite book template documentation recommends leaving out "corporate designation such as "Ltd" or "Inc".", which solves the problem of double periods, so I did that here. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, 1 overlink fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Images are great; File:Persoonia levis bark nowra email.jpg could do with an information template (any reason there's "email" in the title? If you took the photo, there shouldn't be a problem). J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I cropped it and just gave it the rename on my computer and forgot to change as I uploaded. I'm not an admin on commons so can't rename there and never bothered getting round to ask one. Am happy for anyone to do so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. A few thoughts-

• "coined the name Persoonia salicina in describing it in his 1805 work Synopsis Plantarum," Clunky

declunked Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Linkia levis" or "Linkia lævis"?

Cavanilles used "levis" in his original text, but some subsequent authors would sometimes say "lævis" (like "encyclopædia") and it is seen as an alternate spelling, however the use is dying out. I was just thrilled to be able to use "æ" in an article...a folly of mine which I will extinguish now....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• What does "geebung" mean? That's an odd word

it's a local aboriginal word which has been applied to the whole genus in eastern Australia.Was wondering whether to includ terminology on speices pages but your curiosity suggests yes... added now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Persoonia levis has seven chromosomes, as do most other members of the genus, and they are large compared to those of other Proteaceae." The chromosones of the genus are large or the chromosones of the species are large?

of the genus. will think how to unambiguify had a go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "and hybrids with P. acerosa, P. lanceolata, P. linearis, P. mollis subsp. ledifolia, P. myrtilloides subsp. myrtilloides (in the Upper Blue Mountains, these plants resemble P. lanceolata), P. oxycoccoides, and P. stradbrokensis" This seems incomplete; or are you using "hybrids" as a verb?

woops, + have been recorded Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The large green leaves measure 6 to 14 cm (2.2–5.5 in) in length, and 1.3 to 8 cm (0.5–3.2 in) wide, and oblong or sickle-shaped (falcate)." and are?

yup.added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The central style is surrounded by the anther and which splits into four segments, which curl back and resemble a cross when viewed from above." Rephrase?

rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's evergreen, I assume? Is this worth mentioning explicitly?

interesting question - just about all species here are, with only a few notable exceptions. None of my guidebooks calls it such..and evergreen also has a connotation with conifers colloquially (?) Need to think about this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Weighing 1700 mg, the fruit are adapted to be eaten by vertebrates, such as kangaroos and possums, as well as currawongs and other large birds." Presumably, then, the plant benefits from its fruit being eaten?

I can't find anything specific for this plant - for lanceolata, analysis showed these animals excreted the seed intact (and the stomach contents somehow help the damn things germinate - I actuyally have some seed I will try to germinate and am thinking of how to facilitate this - they otherwise take up to 2 years to do so (!!!!)) whereas rats chewed the seed up and excreted fragments. That reference doesn't elaborate, but the implication is that generally fleshy berry-sized things are designed to be plucked by vertebrates and carried off or eaten.. Casliber (talk · contribs)

• "P. levis is the food plant of the larvae of the weevil species Eurhynchus laevior." Feels a little tacked on. Not sure what to do with it, but letting you know anyway.

Yeah I know, that was frustrating to figure out where to go - how about this rearrangement? Not optimal but a bit better flow-wise maybe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I also gave it some light copyediting, feel free to revert if you disagree. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at your fixes, and it's looking better. I'm going to hold off support for now to see if anyone else raises anything. J Milburn (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I uploaded a few more photos which I took today onto commons (in the species category) too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. No other problems have been forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Support now. The comments have been addressed satisfactorily, and the article is a great read. Any remaining issues should be extremely minor and non-detrimental to this article's much-deserved FA status, so I am happy to support. Great work! Auree ★ 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment article should use a consistent citation method throughout (WP:CITEVAR), so you should use short citations and place full citations in a separate section (example), as you did for Wrigley's work, or place all full citations in footnotes. — Z 14:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Given there were only three pages reffed in the book anyway, tweaked to single ref now Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just created this template to fix the lack of navbox, you can use that if you'd like, but the problem is red links, which usually should not be used in navboxes. — Z 21:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(chuckles evilly) but zey von't be redlinks for long.....mwahahahahahaaaa. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Well done. — Z 08:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks (and ditto for two supports below)! Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support and comments. Just two niggles, otherwise fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• I thought we didn't link continents and countries now.
• At its first occurrence, 5 m converts to 16 ft, at the second it's become 17 ft... very disorientating Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

oops. unit conversion fixed and continent/country de-linked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments – In the interests of efficiency, I took the liberty of making several copyedits that I would usually bring up here and make you do ;) Please revert anything you don't like. I'm close to supporting, but have some minor issue first: Sasata (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"'look ok Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• the Westen 1995 source is over 50 pages, and I think it needs to be cited to individual pages to help the reader who wants to verify the claims

was the chapter on the genus - extracted the four pages specific to the species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• the wiki Commons link in the references section prevent the refs from being two columns... nothing major, but it bugs me

tried rejigging - commonslink in cultivation segment now. 23:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• It also bugs me that the Dist & Habitat header is pushed right by the image in the preceding section... perhaps move to the right?

I chose a flatter more horizontal image so it wouldn't jut down so much - does that help? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think some of those old Latin texts cited in Taxonomy are available at Biodiversity Heritage Library, and directs links to the cited pages would be a nice touch

The cavanilles one was in some spanish website which I can't find now (frustratingly), but is on google books. I'm keeping looking. The botanicus.org site has Persoon (1805) and Brown (1810), but I can't link to page directly, however clicking on the page in the left-hand column links to the correct page there (so is two steps). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the direct links (you can copy the link given under the page listing when that page is being displayed). Sasata (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha thanks, I'll remember that next time....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• broad-leaved geebung, broad leaved geebung. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

?...oh redlinks Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• WP:SEASON (again :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Added months to lead (must be a blind spot of mine...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

The Entombment (Bouts)

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Truthkeeper88

Mid 1450s (probably) highly emotive but utterly bleak and sorrowful linen cloth painting by Dirk Bouts. I saw it during a visit to London last April and it has haunted me since. Sourcing the page has been difficult to say the least but I hope ok-ish. Thanks esp to Amandajm for much needed guidance, insight and expertise. Very helpful PR from Brianboulton here. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support (following the comments and discussion below). Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Several comments, mostly minor. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Lead says "glue tempera" (first sentence) and the image caption (and the last paragraph of the lead section) says "Glue size". Even if technically correct, this could be confusing. The NG page for example says "The muted and translucent colours are due to the use of a glue medium applied directly to the sized linen. The effect would always have been far less brilliant than egg tempera or oils over a chalk ground on panel." But our tempera article talks mostly about egg tempera, so is glue size a form of tempera or what? Update: Since I wrote the preceding, these edits have been made to the article - but that doesn't clear up the confusion - the article now refers in various places to 'glue tempera', 'glue-size medium', 'Glue size tempera' and 'glue size'. The confusion arises from 'tempera' sometimes being used interchangeably with 'egg tempera', and our article on tempera doesn't really help clear up such confusion. I would work out a clear way of handling this and stick to it throughout the article. Also, the source cited says 'Glue tempera on linen', but only on the key facts page. The front page actually cited only says 'glue medium'. Updated at 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• The cloth on which the painting was painted was treated with an animal based glue to prevent the paint from seeping through - it was sized with glue. The paint used was water soluble tempera. The technique, referred to in German as tűchlein, is glue-sized, because the sizing allows the tempera to be used, but this does need some clarification. Am thinking about how to word it properly and am working my way through a more technical source to be used, which refers to it as a glue-based medium. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Update: apparently the medium (paint) was mixed with glue (binder) and the cloth treated (sized) with glue. From what I've seen the terminology appears to differ, but from the source I have regarding technique, I belief that our description is correct. It is confusing. Will leave it to Ceoil to clarify more if necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think we need a seperate article on glue-sizing, I have enough sources, might have a stab later. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• article not posted, but the terminology is more standardisted now and the lead descriptor reads "soft tempera" which is at least mentioned in the tempera article. I do think though, that this article cannot be held accountable for confusion in linked articles. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• we have worked up a (much deliberated) section on technique which we think is fairly clear. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• It has improved, but I'm not striking this point as the piped link of soft tempera to distemper (paint) threw me a bit (actually a lot). I know this article can't be judged on other articles, but you are linking to them and I fear readers will first read the distemper article (which says "The National Gallery, London distinguishes between the techniques of glue, glue size, or glue-tempera, which is how they describe their three Andrea Mantegnas in the medium, and distemper, which is how they describe their Dirk Bouts and two Edouard Vuillards.") and then they will read this article (which talks about glue sizing and tempera) and they will get confused (I know I still am). I don't have any good suggestions, but hopefully someone will.

  Though on re-reading the distemper article and the technical section in this article, I think I see one further point that might need explaining. At the distemper article, it says "Distemper is an early form of whitewash, also used as a medium for artistic painting, usually made from powdered chalk or lime and size (a gelatinous substance). Alternatives to chalk include the toxic substance, white lead." In this article it says "The whites are mainly chalk mixed with lead white", but it also says (later on) "there is an underlayer of white chalk mixed with white lead" (some of which was "left exposed in some areas" to form some of the white areas). So my question now is whether the entire linen sheet (after some poor sod spent ages weaving it) was: (i) treated with glue; and then (ii) covered entirely with this underlayer of white chalk mixed with white lead; and then (iii) the paint pigments mixed with a glue binder were then applied over this underlayer (leaving white bits exposed or adding more white if needed)? If so (and please don't assume I've got it right), there must be an easier way to say that in plain English. At the least, if there was a complete underlayer applied, the technique section needs to mention this - currently it only mentions an 'under-paint' without explaining that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have this, and can expand. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm happy to remove the link to distemper if it's causing confusion because most of the sources refer to the paint as tempera. That said, I have found sources that are more technical and describe the paint as distemper. I've sent these on the Ceoil, and he can decide how to proceed. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. The new article on glue-size helps a lot. I hope someone will at some point try and make all these articles consistent, but that is more than enough for this FAC. Possibly removing or reducing the number of links later on, from this article to sizing, would help guide readers towards the glue-size article instead. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• The link in the lead section to an image is slightly jarring (I see it was added following a comment made at the peer review) - I'm of the view that this use of an external link tends to surprise readers and that is usually a bad thing. I would personally put a link to the image in a footnote, or direct readers to the image in the gallery at the end of the article, rather than sending them off to an image page on Commons. (actioned)

• Not pushed either way, but seeing that the work is reporduced in the gallery, in this instance the ext link should prob go. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Venetian and patron are common enough to not really need linking, certainly not in the lead (and in the next sentence, Milan is not linked, so the linking is inconsistent). Linking purely to allow people to find out that a Venetian is from Venice isn't really a good use of a link either). (actioned)

• Removed patron; left Venetian and Milan. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The bit about "muted colours" in the lead seems to jar with "Its colours are now far duller than they once would have been." Does "muted colours" refer to the original colours or the present colours? (actioned)

• Clarified. The colours of the figures would have been opaque and "dry" origionally but have since darkened from the accumulated films of dirt. The muted equally refers to the restrained conveyance of the figure's expressions, and that idea is reflected in the dour, spare colourisation. If this is not clear I can expand. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The paint seems to have been thinly applied on the Z-spun and tabby linen thread support" - this is a bit jargon-heavy. Is it possible to explain a bit within the article what this means, rather than relying on links? The selvage, stretcher and warp and weft links in this paragraph are similarly daunting if the reader is not familiar with these terms. I suspect the majority of readers here will either skip past this without really understanding it, or will spend lots of time clicking back-and-forth to other articles to try and understand it, which will disrupt the flow of the article for those readers (the colours paragraph, in contrast, is easier to skim as from the context it is obvious that these are colours). (seems OK now)

• I've reworked this section and trimmed a bit. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been quite an amount of deliberation about this, with people mind who have clue about it (TK and Amanda); wheather it was too technical and eye glazing or not. The end result is a sub section with the more obscure bits and pieces now in the notes. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• The first mention of Campbell is a bit abrupt. What I'd do here is introduce Campbell first as "art historian" or whatever Campbell's role as commentator here is. You do this later for "art historian Susan Jones", and you also do it later for Campbell when you say "Art historian Lorne Campbell". (actioned)

• Moved the first introduction to Campbell. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Lamentation of Christ image caption makes a claim that should be sourced and/or mentioned in the main body of the article. (n/a - now removed)

Its obvious but claim removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The work had been lined and restretched" - it's not clear what "lined" means here. (deferring on this)

• Clarified I hope. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm still not entirely clear. When a linen painting is "lined", is this the process of adding an inner (or underlying) lining as you do with a garment such as a coat, as described at lining (sewing), or is this something different? Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• All the sources I have access to simply use the word lined or lining without elaboration. Presumably this was done because of paint seepage through the linen. Am happy to link to lining (sewing) if that would make it more clear, although I doubt it was done to cover or hide seams as is the reason for lining a garment. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I found this paper (from the Tate) on what lining means in this case. It seems it was a way of reinforcing/restoring the existing canvas. It sounds fascinating, but like the stuff about the medium, not really something to worry about too much. I think a link to the 'lining (sewing)' article would be wrong in this case, as it looks like this is something different. Maybe someone will write lining (painting) at some point? Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are there sources that tell us what Adoration of the Kings shows? (fair enough)

Yes, the Koch journal entry covers it in detail, but it might be off topic here. I could give an easter egg to Adoration of the Magi in the painting title, but dont really want to. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is obvious really (that is what I had guessed). It is something I'd explain in a footnote, only because there is no picture of it (unlike the other two), but it's up to you. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• There is one instance of the spelling "centre" and a few of the spelling "center". (actioned)

• Have made this consistent. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• This bit: "The influence of the Miraflores Altarpiece can be seen in the representation of Christ's dead body, while a relief in the architecture of van der Weyden's center panel informed the positioning of Bouts' mourners." appears to repeat this bit: "The figuration and pose in The Entombment is probably informed by a relief seen in the arch of the central panel of van der Weyden's Miraflores Altarpiece." (actioned)

• Removed one of the sentences. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The article says the Miraflores Altarpiece is 1440s, while the gallery caption says "c 1440", which is not the same thing. Similarly, for Altar of Holy Sacrament the article says "c. 1464–67", while the gallery caption says "1464–67". The Transfiguration of Christ gallery caption is missing the year. (actioned)

• Yeah, and the important fact was that it was 'after' 1440. Fixed re altarpiece, Transfiguration of Christ removed. Ceoil (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Missed one. The lead still says: "Bouts' 1464–6 Altar of the Holy Sacrament". That not only misses out the "circa" but also gives a different end year for the range (and is not consistent either - it should be '1464-67' or '1464-66'). Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• On this last point, I made this edit, and am noting here so that the nominators can correct it if that is wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• When you say "The Guicciardi collection contained at least three other similar works", does this refer to the earlier bit where Eastlake is "made aware of three companion pieces"? In the earlier section, you name these companion pieces, but in the later section you are more vague, which confused me as it is not clear if you are talking about something different here, or the same thing. (taking this to the article talk page)

• Yes, it is referring to the same thing. I've tried to tweak the wording without repeating the earlier sentence and introducing more repetition. Hopefully it's more clear now. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Still not clear. I think you need to name the three pieces again further down to make it clearer. There is also inconsistency in that the earlier section says 'He was made aware of three companion pieces, but told they were not on the market and so was not allowed to view them' versus 'Their tone and size were similar to The Entombment, suggesting that they were most likely pieces that would have formed part of the larger polyptych'. The first sentence seems to say they definitely were the companion piece, while the second sentence equivocates with the terms 'suggesting' and 'most likely'. You seem to have one source saying these are the companion pieces, and another source being less sure about it. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Another slight problem, but not really necessary to drag this point out at FAC - taking to article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• The external link to "Other works on permanent display in room 63 at the NG" seems gratuitous - readers can reach that page with one click from the more relevant link you already provide. It is fine to have just one external link. If you do keep it, you need to expand or explain the NG abbreviation. (actioned, and now removed in any case)

• I included as I though the other painting in the room gave context, but have removed for now, undecided. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• In the further reading section, the "Roy, Ashok. National Gallery Technical Bulletin. Volume 8, 1984" entry is a bit opaque. What is it within that bulletin that you are suggesting readers look at? The whole bulletin? Does the article by Ashok not have a title or did he write the whole bulletin? (removed)

• Removed for now. Ashok was the editor at the time, the article appears in the biblo of a source I'd been using and looked interesting though I dont have a copy of it, I though it might be handy in the further reading section at least. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• OK, though I see now that you have something there instead from 2 years later. My view on further reading is that it is best really to have read, accessed, or at least flipped through the work you are pointing readers towards, as otherwise you risk sending them to something that doesn't exist (if you give the wrong reference) or something that is not very good. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fair point. I can stand over the two that are in the section now. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• You have a reference to "van Veen, 297", but the work appears to be Borchert, unless you are referring to another work that is not given in the bibliographic listing (you later cite "Borchert, 203"). Also, one of your sources is: "Johnson, Charles. The Language of Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1949", but this is not used for any of the inline cites. Also, is there no author or article title information for "National Gallery technical bulletin, Volume 18, 1997. 25"? (partially done)

• I've fixed almost all of these. Can't find an author for the Technical Bulletin, but will leave it to Ceoil to confirm. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• One bit not done here. Only a minor matter, but flagging it up here anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To finish, I'd like to echo Brian's comment at the PR: "I enjoy paintings articles, and always like to review them when I can find time". This article was a pleasure and a joy to read. Will check back in a few days and likely add my support then. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Very good comments - thank you. Will take a couple of days to get through these. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed what I can - those I haven't responded to need sources that Ceoil has, so am waiting for his feedback. Thanks again for the review. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth thanks for the detailed review, very helpful and very welcome. Sorry for the tardy responce, something came up at work and I haven't been able to give the article any attention during the week. I do appreciate the time you spent. Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope what I've struck and replied to above is clear. I'll check back at the end of the weekend, and apologies for taking so long to get back to this one. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Noting here (and above) that based on the comments and discussion, am happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. More importantly, thanks for the time and giving us an in-depth review, which has resulted in a substantially improved article. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• "the majority extant today were executed on wood using oil or egg tempera." - source?
• "This low framing protected a portion of the canvas from deterioration and allows us to see some of the colours as they would have appeared originally." - source?
• Missing bibliographic info for van Veen
• Full bibliographic info for Davies appears three times, and is notated differently on each appearance
• No citations to Johnson
• Is the Davies source in French? Should note this
• Use a consistent punctuation for retrieval dates
• Be consistent in whether or not your provide publisher locations
• Be consistent in whether volumes are notated in Roman or Arabic numerals
• National Gallery technical bulletin or National Gallery Technical Bulletin or The National Gallery Technical Bulletin? Check for consistency
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Nikkimaria. Working through these. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Except for the two uncited sentences, I've fixed these. I think the uncited sentence are probably referenced in the next cite, but will wait for Ceoil to confirm. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

All sorted now,. Though I admit I'm confused as to how to format pub locs for journals and might need guidance and a hand. Ceoil (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to add: I don't normally add locations for journal articles, only the title of publication, unless you want them for consistency? Am a little confused myself on this one. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

They are mostly from the Nat gall so mostly London, I'd b happier without. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether you include them or not, so long as you do it consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Found one that hadn't been removed and fixed. Should be consistent now. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: I gave this a detailed peer review; the issues I raised there have been adequately addressed, with further improvements as a result of the points raised in this FAC. Maybe further fine tuning would benefit, but I am satisfied that as of now the article meets the FA criteria and I am happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, your review was of enormous help in the process. The remianing issues being discussed on the talk. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Brian. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Support - with a few minor issues:

• I saw "dates it to between 1450-55", I think the en dash should be "and".
• There are two occurrences of "the the". (one "the The" and one "the the").
• I saw "an usual".
• Should this be dirt, "Note the layer of dirth across the midground"?
• There is a "Bouts's" in the sources, whereas "Bouts'" is used in the text. But perhaps, we can't do anything about this.

Thanks for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta Graham, fixed all but two; 1450-55 vs 1450 and 1455 reads better to me; and I'd say the source using "Bouts's" are fairly dated. The others were typos introduced yesterday; TK usually watches my back on these. Thanks again the look is appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

But there is "completed between 1440 and 1455" in the Lead, which is correct; and "between 1450–55" further down, which is not. The Manual of Style says, "Do not mix en dashes with prepositions like between and from". I agree with this because to me it reads between 1450 to 55, which sounds odd to my ears. Graham Colm (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed to "between 1440 and 1455" because I prefer it that way, and per MoS and your suggestion. Ceoil is overruled here. Thanks btw for reading, the comments and the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm anally retentive. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That would make two of us. I'll go through and make it as consistent as possible because now it's a little off. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Lots of improvement, and impressive work so far...Modernist (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Modernist for reading and for the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Modernist for the support and edits. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The article still needs an image review. Ucucha (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha. They're all centuries old; I'll leave it to Ceoil to find an image reviewer. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

8 images, none post 1500. All pd:old and pd:art, all attribute source, holding gallery etc. No deritives, or showing frame etc. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead mentions it was purchased for the National Gallery by Eastland, but a reader digging in to the text at this point doesn't find any mention of the National Gallery:

• Charles Eastlake purchased the painting for just over £120 in 1860 in Milan. During a period of aggressive acquisition intended to establish the international prestige of Britain's collection, it was acquired along with a number of other Netherlandish works from the Guicciardi family.

which makes that part hard to follow until one remembers (from the lead) that it was purchased for the National Gallery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There's an inconsistency in hyphenation of glue-size, not accounted for by whether it's modifying a noun. IN the lead we find "It is one of the few surviving 15th-century paintings created using glue-size, an ... ", but later in the text we found it used similarly without a hyphen-- pls review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting. Fixed both of these. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

Battle of Kaiapit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A minor but important action from the New Guinea campaign of 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• FN 5: is this one source or two?
• Kelly: you've included the volume name, but omitted the title of the complete work
• Given that the Kelly source is self-published, what are Kelly's qualifications? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• No citations to Willoughby or Coulthard-Clark. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

1. One source.
2. Template issues. Corrected.
3. He was there. Kelly was an RAAF Dakota pilot during World War II, and later served in Malaya and Vietnam. His three volume (so far) history compiles documents from the AWM, NAA and NACP. I regard it highly, and find it completely reliable, but if there is a problem, there are only two references, so I can replace them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

   I have removed Kelly from the sources. I still regard him as highly reliable as a historian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Left Chris' book out. Added a reference to Willoughby. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Images are all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Toolbox checks

• Alt text: Some images have it, some not -- should be consistent
• External links: The New Guinea Offensives link seems to just go to the main Official Histories page at AWM rather than the book itself -- probably an old URL
• Citation bot: Not checked -- timed out on me
• Dab links, redirects, and ref links: No issues reported

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Suggestions
  • time format: "1230" - probably should be "12:30" per WP:MOSTIME;
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • title format in References: "A Report on War Crimes against Australians committed by individual members of the Armed Forces of the Enemy" - maybe "A Report on War Crimes against Australians Committed by Individual Members of the Armed Forces of the Enemy", per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "Against". - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • possibly redundant: "the lead plane was Captain Frank C. Church, who was considered one of the wing's "hottest" troop carrier pilots. King flew in Church's lead plane." (specifically the second "lead" - perhaps delete it and just say "plane");
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Captain King assembled his troops..." - possibly just "King" per WP:SURNAME;
  • possibly a typo: "The company reached Ragitumkiap, a village with striking distance of Kaiapit" (should it be "within striking")?;
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • possibly incorrect caps: "guessed that Maxwell's Section" (probably should be "Maxwell's section");
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "50 minutes at a time and then rested for ten" (should "ten" be "10" for consistency?)
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Australians suffered 2 killed and 7 wounded" (should these be "two killed and seven wounded" per WP:ORDINAL?);
    • Done.
  • there is some repetition in this image caption: "Japanese dead at Kaiapit. Some 214 Japanese dead were counted after the battle." Perhaps reword. Something like this might work: "Japanese dead at Kaiapit. After the battle 214 Japanese bodies were counted by the Australians around their positions." AustralianRupert (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Heh, Rupert, I noticed the repetition too but for some reason no improvement came to me and I left it -- your wording works well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
        • All my comments have been addressed. I'm pleased to see this battle get some attention. When I first joined the Army, before I crossed to the dark side and became an officer, I went through Kapooka in 12 Platoon, Bravo Coy. The platoon were known as the "Purple Devils" and had an association with the 2/6th Independent Company. Two veterans of Kaiapit, Bill and Eric, used to come to the base and talk to us during our training, and it was then that I first heard about this battle. Anyway, to cut a long story short, good work and thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support -- Referencing, structure, detail and supporting materials look good. Minor copyedit but prose generally seems fine. A few suggestions:

• Situation
  • That subheading doesn't do much for me for some reason. I know "Military situation" might sound a bit obvious but it reads better to me, or perhaps there's something better still -- just a thought...
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk)
  • "airborne engineer aviation battalion" -- Seems an awful lot of adjectives, even for the military. Is there really such an animal? Can either "airborne" or "aviation" be dropped without hurting the meaning?
    • Yes, there was. The engineer aviation battalions were specially trained and equipped for building airbases, much like the RAAF's airbase construction squadrons. Of course other engineer units like construction battalions and general service regiments also built airbases, but these guys were the specialists. The airborne engineer aviation battalion was a special variant that was air portable for supporting airborne operations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Prelude -- Not a nitpick this time, just wanted to say that I found the description of the independent company's characteristics succinct and useful -- that sort of context always helps.
• Battle -- "new 208 radios" doesn't mean a lot, and passers-by might even think you meant 208 new radios, so I think I'd drop "208"; either that or make it clear that's it's a model, and better still briefly mantion what made them different from standard or older radios...
  • Small wireless set. AWA made them. I'll see if I can dig up something on them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Red linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Aftermath -- Not trying to downplay the victory it but I wonder whether something like "significant" works better; failing that, perhaps "spectacular" (or the source's equivalent) could be quoted/attributed.

Anyway, well done -- I'd never heard of this action till now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Lieutenant General Sir Edmund Herring, commander of I Corps, Major General George Alan Vasey, commander of the 7th Division, and Major General Ennis Whitehead, commander of the Advanced Echelon, Fifth Air Force, and Allied air commander in New Guinea, met at Whitehead's headquarters.": It's possible reviewers will object and ask for parentheses around "commander of I Corps", etc., in order to keep one comma per element in the series. I don't think it's confusing ... until you get to the last bit. Would it work to write "Advanced Echelon of Fifth Air Force and"? - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Deleted "and Allied air commander in New Guinea," Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• "aptly named Finisterre Range": why aptly named?
  • You think it is not? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Which meaning of "Finisterre"? Finisterre–Huon languages? - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
      • It says and links the Finisterre Range Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Not following. Since neither this article nor that article explains where the name comes from, how can the reader know if it's apt? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
          • From the Misplaced Pages: "The name Finistère derives from the Latin Finis Terræ, meaning end of the earth," Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
            • Ah, of course. Still ... I've met some of our readers, and that's asking a bit much ;) - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• "It opened the gate ...": Since there are no commas in that sentence, it would use commas rather than semicolons in AmEng; I don't know about AusEng, but I expect commas are more common.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, all of my concerns have been addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Comments Nice read! Needs some work on fit and finish. Some issues with prose, linking, and MoS are outlined below.

• "capture of Lae" in the lead hyperlinks to "Landing and Lae" which makes no mention of any capture. Low-value link. Why hyperlink Lae later in the lead but not Nadzab?
  • The Landing at Lae article is on my work list. It's a stub at the moment, but will be expanded to a featured article. Nadzab was not linked because the article did not exist when this article was written. added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• "The Australian 2/6th Independent Company flew in ... in a special flight" sounds redundant.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unclear language: First para of "Military situation", second and third sentences. Avoid beginning sentences with nebulous "this" and "it". Unclear what these are referring to. This problem occurs in several places throughout the article. Another example in Aftermath: "This was still a difficult approach, as aircraft had to land upwind while avoiding Mission Hill."
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Linking strategy overall needs revisiting. I see at least three different links to "Ramu", all done in different ways.
  • Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (talk)
• What is the reason for having the Geography section where it is? It seems to interrupt the narrative you begin in "Military situation". You are reading a story, and then you are reading about geography, and then you are reading a story again.
  • Still wondering about this. I'm not necessarily asking for it to be changed—but I am wondering if there is a consensus order for military battle articles and if there is a rationale behind this order. --Laser brain (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The geography section was something that I invented. I isn't required, although some other editors have adopted it. The alternative would be to merge it with the situation section, if you think that would read better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't an alternative to be to place it before the Situation section and then start the narrative after you describe the geography? I just think it interrupts the flow of the article. If you disagree, I'm willing to hash it out. --Laser brain (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, I have moved the geography section to the top. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Prelude": What is a "warning order"? Explain or link jargon.
  • Just passing by... Yes, the old WARNORD -- sort of a heads-up in militarise. How would "advance order(s)" sound? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I actually love the term, but I'm concerned readers won't get it. Advance orders sounds good as well. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Prefer warning order. Don't think it would confuse anyone because it is in accord with the non-militarese use of the word. Added a bit though to make it clearer what the warning order said. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• "To make the company self-supporting, it had its own engineer, signals, transport, and quartermaster sections." Needs rewriting.
  • Could you be more explicit? Reads okay to me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe "To be self-supporting, the company had its own engineer ..." or even "The company was self-supporting, with its own engineer ..." What do you think? --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• "On 17 September 1943, it finally took off for Leron in a special flight of 13 Dakotas of the US 374th Troop Carrier Group." Clunky. Why not "On 17 September 1943, a special flight of 13 Dakotas from the US 374th Troop Carrier Group finally took off for Leron."
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• MoS work needed: I fixed one instance of a period being outside a complete-sentence quotation—there are others.
  • Only one. Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Support (Disclaimer) Interesting read, looks good to me. Please see the media review below though, as some things need tweaking. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Media Review A few minor things. First File:Markham Valley.jpg really should have a description of exactly what is going on somewhere, if not in the article, on the file description page. Second, I was going to ask you to put File:Bulldozer arrives on plane at Kaiapit strip 1943.jpg in a Template:Information template, but I decided to do that one myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following what you are asking for. What sort of description is required? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Red lines are who? Black lines are who? Who won what and when? Sven Manguard Wha? 13:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have expanded the caption and the alt text to add this. I guess I am too used to military maps. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Spot check clear 6/10 sources 20/40 citations Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Willoughby (1/40 citations): I'm unable to find the concept of mistaken Japanese impressions in Willoughby at 224? Please advise.
  • Ooops. Wrong quote. I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Kenney (1/40 citations): I'm unable to find the concept of good flying weather on the 22 September 1943 in this source, is this obvious? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I know what happened here! I replaced a reference with Kenney and did not notice it didn't cover the weather too. No worries; Dexter does, so added another reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: (I'm going to have to read Dexter I think before I'll sign off) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Mellor (1/40 citations): excellent.
• Kuzuhara (1/40 citations): has no page 123!!! It is 12 pages long!
  • Not so; it is p. 123 on the hard copy version. I had not realised that the online chapters did not have the same page numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Horner (1/40 citations) can't review, snippet view not working. Its a general SITREP style sequence of sentences that broadly set the ground, this is unlikely to be a) incorrect, b) poorly cited.
• Craven & Cate (1/40 citations): First of all, this is miscited. But otherwise it is clear. You actually mean to cite: Richard L. Watson "Huon Gulf and Peninsula" in Craven & Cate
  • Yes. Changed to Watson. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • As each chapter of each volume of the USAAF official histories was written by a different combination of authors for simplicity most historians reference these books as 'Craven and Cate (editors)' or similar, so the original citation was also OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Bradley passes 3 randomised snippet searches for no plagiarism and correctly supporting statements
  • Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Dexter issues (12/40 citations) fn1 clear; fn3 clear; fn12 clear; fn17 clear; fn23 clear; fn25 clear; fn27 clear; fn29 clear; fn35 correct; fn38 correct Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • fn18c should be at p419;
  • fn22 What bunching? What Owen guns? The source actually says, "With bayonettes and grenades" re a MG post. In fact grenades seem to be the key part of the action after 7am.
• Please consider the above depth of spot checking and get back to me about if you need to go over the sources I couldn't check Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have rewritten the description of the battle. All issues should be resolved now. It would have been nice to have used Dexter's map of the action, but it doesn't become public domain until 1 January 2012. :( Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That is a shame, still, it is more fun than the annual "cabinet minutes" blah blah blah from the "archives" "journalists" on new years day. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Support A very, very nice article. I got here very late and it seems that the other editors have already addressed all concerning issues. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Only comment would be that Allies needs a link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support As a disclaimer, I started this article in 2008 but haven't had all that much to do with it since. I think that this article is now of FA class, though I do have the following comments and suggestions:
  • You are still the second largest contributor though, with a whopping ten edits. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Saying that independent companies were "Somewhat larger than a conventional infantry company" is an understatement - they were about twice the size
    • "More than somewhat larger". Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "As it came in to land, King spotted Papuan patrols in the area" - it's a bit unclear if you're referring to the PIB or local Papuans here. I'd suggest tweaking it to "As it came in to land, King spotted patrols from the Papuan Infantry Battalion in the area" to avoid any confusion.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "As the company advanced it came under light-machine-gun fire from foxholes on the edge of the village. A 2-inch mortar knocked out the machine gun." - the first sentence implies that there were more than one machine gun (through use of "foxholes") while the second sentence states that there was only a single machine gun - this should be clarified.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The account of the main clash between the Australian and Japanese forces seems a bit brief, though it is a good summary of the action. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I find it very difficult to write about small unit actions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Although some equipment was able to make the trek overland, ... Can equipment be "able to trek", or is that someting an individual does? WP:NBSP review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed to "Although some equipment was carried on the trek overland,". FWIW, I just reminded people today in my weekly FAC update at WT:MHC that invisible codes in the edit screen are something I don't check for per my standard disclaimer, and gave them Ohconfucius's script that checks those. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Probably, since a trek is "a long arduous journey, especially one made on foot" but I much prefer your version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

Walking Liberty half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. This is the ninth and final article on the Great Coin Redesign of 1907-1921 (there may have to be an additional overall article to gain the Featured Topic designation) The Walking Liberty half dollar. Undoubtedly beautiful, but it caused the Mint a lot of grief for thirty years. This turned out to be one of the articles where an unexpected person runs away with the article, in this case Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam M. Joyce, who did not like all the new coins, and they were a terrible pain to produce, but he went to bat to have the new coin struck as close to the artist's conception as possible. I hope you enjoy it. It is a beautiful coin and the "heads" side has graced the American Silver Eagle for the past quarter century. Second nom posted with permission of Ucucha. A special thank you to BrandonBigheart for the beautiful infobox images.Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Can footnotes be in columns?
• FN 50: publisher?
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods and dashed ISBNs
• Be consistent in whether publishers/locations are included for journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work through these.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I like to use this for references: {{Reflist|colwidth=20em}}. I'll circle back later for a full review when i get the time. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll insert it. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That is done. I do not include locations when it is clear from the periodical title, but I see I was not consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: More comments:

• In "Background and inception", you start of two consecutive sentences with "The Barber coinage..." Maybe the second could be "The coins..."
• ...and that's the only flaw I could find. Great article! I've enjoyed this recoinage series. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• OK, one more: do you think linking to Palladium coin might be useful in the last section? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch! I had no idea there was such a link. I will make the changes shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are done. Thanks for the praise btw. It's been a fun series.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you on both counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Support, one suggestion Nice work. Personally, I'd prefer preoccupied to intensely busy, but no big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to overuse that intensely busy phrase. I don't like preoccupied, that implies a mental state to me, rather than the physical manufacturing activities of the Mint. I'll work on an alternative phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Weinman's design of a Liberty striding towards the Sun proved difficult to perfect". Don't think the "a" adds anything here.
• Background and inception: "and on February 23 met with Woolley in New York to make presentations of their work answer his questions." Seems like it's missing an "and" before "answer his questions".
• Design: Try to avoid having a repetition from one sentence to another, like in "designed by Weinman. Weinman...".
• Don't think another Walter Breen link is needed here after the one late in the previous section.
• Preparation: "This permitted him to extend LIberty's head almost to the top of the coin". The I in Liberty shouldn't be capitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work through these this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Overlooked doing it, I'm afraid. They are done now. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Lovely, as is the norm with this series. Everything looks up to scratch. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the reviews and supports.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:1916_United_States_Assay_Commission.png: page number?
• File:Walkinglibertyhalfdollar2.jpg: need copyright/licensing info for the coin as well as the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Those things are done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Support Can the image of the plaquette of Joyce be moved? Currently it causes an unsightly large gap in the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be difficult. As this is Joyce's moment in the sun, so to speak, I'd like the plaquette there. So I made the captions less wordy. That should do the trick. Thank you for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• There is info about clamor for a redesign before the minimum timeframe for a coin design, but no clear info on what that minimum timeframe is.

The second sentence of the article mentions the 25 year restriction; the body of the article leads off with the law which gives the 25 years (and also allows the Mint to hire private artists). That explains to the reader the situation and the discussion which did arise before 1916 is mentioned.

• It's mentioned that Woolley wanted unique designs for each coin because of prior similarity. First off, the reason why is not answered here (I have an idea, but it could be wrong). The second is the wording doesn't make it clear if he just means the immediate prior design or all designs of those coins were similar.

We don't know. Mint records from that time, mostly owing to the "Hackel debacle", the shredding of many Mint records by Carter's mint director, Stella Hackel, are incomplete.

• "...on February 23 met with Woolley in New York to make presentations..." - should probably Wikilink this as its not clear it means the state or the city.

Good point. It was actually at the New York Assay Office, so on "Mint territory" in NYC.

• The article is heavily quote laiden. Some of these are great, but and I think some this one "evidently the haste called the engraving...." could be better paraphased without losing any context.∞陣内Jinnai 22:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I will look at the shorter quotes. Sometimes they are opinions, so I want to attribute them.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped three of them in favor of descriptions including the one you mentioned. Some of them are needed to give the reader a flavor for the times, or the people involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Another thing: about the Palladium coin, the date is from June. That's half-a-year ago. There isn't anything newer considering it was up in the air then?∞陣内Jinnai 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I read Coin World or at least look at the headlines every issue and also I just ran a few google news searches. The eagles are in the news because of a special limited edition set that is getting a lot of interest, they would headline approval of the palladium coin. And I just checked the MInt website.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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