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

The article was promoted 18:49, 31 December 2007.

---

Joy Division

Co-nomination I've been working on this article about the legendary post-punk group Joy Division with User:Ceoil since summer. We were hoping to have it featured by October (to coincide with the release of the film Control), but we were slowed down by other obligations. But here we are now after extensive research and a peer review. I look forward to feedback, and will try to address comments quickly. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Great article, just a few wrinkles that need ironing out:
  • The quote in the lead seems pretty arbitrary and isn't talked about. You may want to segue in by stating "Joy Divison are not considered punk, and were, according to..." Something along those lines would be fine.

It seemed like a good quote to indicate that Joy Division were a break with punk, and helped set up the post-punk movement. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree and it should stay. The only suggestion I have about it is to possibly segue in. Currently it's arbitrary in the lead and is not explained. NSR77 ^T_C 21:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "Despite the band's burgeoning success, Ian Curtis was troubled by his crumbling marriage and his diagnosis of epilepsy, which made it increasingly difficult for the singer to perform live."; change to "Despite the band's burgeoning success, Ian Curtis was troubled by his crumbling marriage, and after being diagnosed with epilepsy he found it increasingly difficult to perform live."

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "In April 1979, the band began recording their debut album Unknown Pleasures at Strawberry Studios in Stockport." Stockport should be wikilinked.

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "While the tour was difficult, Curtis only experienced two grand mal seizures in the two months preceding the tour's final date." Difficult in what way? The way the sentence is structured makes it ambiguous.

Deborah Curtis says some of the shows weren't all that great, and begins the sentence, "In spite of all the turmoil . . ." WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "Artists including electronica performer Moby and Red Hot Chili Peppers guitarist John Frusciante have noted their appreciation for Joy Division's music, and its influence on their own." Falls apart at the end. Suggested rewording: "...have noted their appreciation for Joy Division's music and the influence it has had on their own material." NSR77 ^T_C 02:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Remarkably well written. I've just now read over it and have no comments for improvement. Good job to WesleyDodds and Ceoil! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

*Comment

• Need "Moscow" be mentioned in the lead, let alone be in bold?

You mean "Warsaw"? It's the band's original name, and needs to be bolded in the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• The last two sentences of the lead read awkwardly cause they use "commercial success" twice.

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sumner said the punk rock group - is he referring to the concept of a "punk rock group" or the Pistols?

Referring to the Sex Pistols.

• When (month, year) did the Buzzcocks manager call them and suggest that name?

Shortly before their first performance. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• link "14 April", "27 December", "8 April", and "2 May" because otherwise they would appear contrary to U.S. conventions.

Only full dates are linked. The reason the other dates appear to be in US style is because of autoformatting (British dating is actually consistent throughout). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, click here. "Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted..." Indopug (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• bandmates is not a word - change to band-mates.

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• New Order eventually went on to much greater success - cite?

I've been wondering about that since it's quite clear New Order was more successful (for one, they are credited with having the best-selling 12" single of all time). It's just hard to find it written out concisely. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Joy Division because of Curtis's condition. Sumner said, - replace the period by a semi-colon?

It's fine. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• link biopic.

Indopug (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support An excellent article. A suggestion: maybe you could include that album cover with the hitler youth. Remove that fansite external link. One question: how come it isn't a part of the alt music wikiproject?Indopug (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Joy Division was a predecessor to alt-rock, but not alt-rock in of itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Introductory clauses are sometimes set off by commas ("In April 1979, the band") and sometimes not. In my opinion, "Meanwhile on 27 December Ian Curtis suffered his first recognisable epileptic seizure" would be best with commas (take a look at the third paragraph of Early releases for more comma-free sentences). Also inconsistent are the ellipses in quotations; some have brackets, while others do not. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

These should all be taken care of now. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrific job, you two. There's just one area I'd like a little more information on--what sort of recognition did the band have during the seven months or so of its existence. I'm not precisely sure how this might be addressed. Are there any reviews of their performances during the Buzzcocks tour accessible? How did "Transmission" do? Was the European tour their first (and last) tour as headliners? I wouldn't mind knowing how many countries and/or shows were involved. What scale of venues did they play? Was the tour considered a success? Was the British music press paying a lot of attention to them? What was the scale of the planned U.S. tour? (By no means am I arguing that all or even most of these questions need to be answered--just giving an idea of the sort of information that might give us a better sense of the band's status/popularity at the time.)

The existing sentence on the European tour, by the way, has the only point of confusion for me in the article: "In January 1980, Joy Division set out on a European tour. While the tour was difficult, Curtis experienced only two grand mal seizures in the two months preceding the tour's final date." So, "difficult" in what way? Also, is there any reason not to rephrase along these lines: "In January 1980, Joy Division set out on a two-month European tour. While the tour was difficult [?], during it Curtis experienced only two grand mal seizures" or--if the difficulty is dispensable--"In January 1980, Joy Division set out on a two-month European tour, during which Curtis experienced only two grand mal seizures." Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The second question about the "difficulty" of the tour is addressed above. The other items you posted might be harder to ascertain. It's never mentioned how big the US tour was intended to be, but given that the rest of the band assumed the dates as New Order when Curtis killed himself, it could probably be guessed at. I think Deborah Curtis cites some reviews of the Buzzcocks tour, and I might have one myself (I have an NME special devoted to goth that reprints virtually every contemporary Joy Division album and single review, along with an interview and one or two live reviews). The European tour was considered a success, definitely. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:49, 31 December 2007.

---

Chat Moss

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. It's a fairly short, though I believe comprehensive, article about a large raised peat bog in Greater Manchester, England, complete with its own bog body. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I believe it fulfills all FACr --Kiyarrllston 13:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  PS:Query:]should it be " Derek Hampson and Gary Priestnall [said that they] chose Chat Moss because [...]"?

• The reference just says "'It [my emphasis] was chosen for the project because ... ". Adding "said that they" seems to imply some doubt that they actually chose Chat Moss for the reasons given? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

---I believe that if the artists said it then it is verified that they said it- even if the authors themselves are not reliable in their public statements.

but their true predominant motive for chosing Chat Moss is unknown even if they did say that.

At least putting their words up there would improve it - but if the source doesn't have them saying it... ummm... I don't know... -

Thanks for answering my query.

--Kiyarrllston 14:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added to that bit slightly, quoting the artist's own words. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Have you done a thorough Google search to ensure the article is comprehensive? There are other sources available, especially at Google books. Although, I understand there's a fine line between comprehensiveness and letting an article become unfocused. Epbr123 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. I have yes, along with searches of scientific literature databases like JSTOR, but there may of course be some sources that I haven't found, with new material. Most of the stuff written about Chat Moss is concerned with Stephenson's construction of the railway line through it, rather than about Chat Moss itself. However, I'll be continuing to look for further relevant information to add to this article whether or not it gets promoted to FA, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Epbr123 (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Should "site of special scientific interest" have capitals?Y Done
• "Even after all of the reclamation work that has taken place, parts of the area are still surprisingly remote and bleak." - surprisingly may be POVY Done
• "it was decided that the head had been in the bog for at least 100 years" - if this was proven, a better word than decided could be usedY Done
• "it was reported that of the 54 farms on the moss, occupying 3,000 acres (1,214 ha) – almost half the area of the bog – only three were growing vegetables." - should the second dash be a comma?N Not done Epbr123 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hyphens seem appropriate. Rt. 19:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• "In 1793, William Roscoe had begun work on reclaiming the smaller Trafford Moss" - probably should be "In 1793, William Roscoe began work" or "By 1793, William Roscoe had begun work" Epbr123 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed and done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - fulfills requirements of a FAC article. Rt. 18:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support  DDStretch  (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:49, 31 December 2007.

---

Boeing 747

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article is already an A class article and has undergone substantial improvement since ranked A class. It has undergone review by 2 peer reviewers. The Boeing 747 is probably the most known commercial airliner among the general public and 2008 will mark the 40th anniversary of the first flight of the 747. The editors have carefully considered each sentence as well as look at the article in general. Archtransit (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support This article so good it hangs out with the pope. --Keerllston 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC) PS: "Cite error 4"?
• Oppose MOS breaches and more. Plenty of reasons why this can't pass FA (or GA before)
  • Please reorder the last three sections so that they follow the global guidelines. It doesn't matter what the Aircraft WikiProject guidelines say; they're supposed to follow the MOS anyway.

When there is a discrepancy between the WikiProject guidelines and GTL, the discussion may best be handled at the WikiProject level in order to either change the WikiProject guidelines or make changes to both. Consideration of changes to this article is in progress. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? WP:LAYOUT specifically states that there is no prescribed order for these sections. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's only the letter. The spirit and the norm has them in the prescribed order. Even the automatic peer reviewer suggests reordering those sections. About the WikiProject stuff, when a WikiProject guideline and MOS conflict, MOS has priority. 哦，是吗？(review O) 00:51, 17 December 2007 (GMT)

• On Standard appendices, the Layout guide says "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other." -Fnlayson (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to make a case for it being "just the letter" when the guideline that you're appealing to specifically and deliberately okays the rearrangement of these sections. Indeed, the only time that an order was ever actually prescribed in the MoS, it was added there as an undiscussed change (here) in October 2005, and was removed only about six weeks later (here) after discussion showed that there was no consensus (see here) to mandate and prescribe this. The current version of WP:LAYOUT phrases this advice in even less prescriptive language. You personally may not like WP:AIR's page content guidelines, they may be at odds with common practice elsewhere in Wikipedia, but there is no conflict with the MoS - please stop trying to frame it in those terms, and please stop reading things into the MoS that are not only not there, but are explicitly said not to be there. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow…it was that old…perhaps another style discussion where a wider portion of the community usually comment needs to take place? 哦，是吗？(review O) 05:23, 17 December 2007 (GMT)

Since it's clear that you feel that the MoS needs to be less flexible and more prescriptive than it currently is, it's up to you to see whether you can build enouigh consensus to change it. However, this is not the forum to do it in; whether you like the current MoS or not should not be a factor in this article's FA candidacy: it meets the requirements of the policies that presently exist. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• • The bibliography section should be further reading.

Y Done, fixed some wording Archtransit (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Facts and figures is trivia; get rid of it or merge it into other parts of the article.

This is discussed in the talk page and can be discussed further. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment In that discussion, both peer reviewers suggested this section be removed, and suggestions for how to do so were supplied. Strongly suggest that this is done. 4u1e (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, fixed. Thanks to Fnlayson. Archtransit (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Article is HUGE!!! SS or condense, please. Upper limit, I suppose in this case, should be ~50 KiB.

Comment: part of the problem is the huge length of the references. If the references, infobox, and images are not counted, the article is not too far from the 50k suggestion. Archtransit (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I make it 48k of readable text, which is acceptable, although it is on the upper limit. 4u1e (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Why doesn't the lead have more of the initial development info in there? I've also said during GAN to increase the size of the lead.

The talk page is an excellent place for this discussion as it is a complex topic. Consider how to summarize a long process into one or two sentences, if it is possible. In terms of length since that discussion (which predates my involvement in the article), the introductory section is now 1 paragraph longer and 23% longer. (21 lines vs. 17) Additional ideas welcomed. For now, Y Done Archtransit (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the lead has improved, however by improving it there shouldn't be any stubby paragraphs. When I first commented, there were three mediocre paragraphs, but now there are four shorter paragraphs. Re including some development content, there could be a little briefing on the idea, how much effort had to go into getting the prototype flying (Everett plant, etc.), and a little bit about EIS. Just my $0.02 though 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)

• • MOS:NUM: number and unit must have a non-breaking space between them.

Others who understand this suggestion, consider explaining in the talk page as I don't understand. Archtransit (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually MOS:NUM says that "a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended" (emphasis mine). "Is recommended"≠"must".

Archtransit, what the suggestion means is that whenever a number is followed by a unit (eg. 20.89 m) that in the wiki-code this is written as "20.89 m". This is so that if "20.89" happens to appear at the end of a line in someone's browser, that the "m" doesn't get split off from it to appear at the start of the next line. With the non-breaking space in place, the whole "20.89 m" will stay together, at the start of the next line. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Non-breaking spaces are used with all units that I can find. Most have been covered for a while. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (so Y Done Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC) )

• This may be down to a difference of opinion over whether 'Aircraft', 'units' (which currently do not have the nbsp) and similar terms are units or not. I tend towards thinking they are, because they would also benefit from keeping the number and the unit together on one line. 4u1e (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Policy only suggests it for units of measure (sq ft, kg, etc). Going past that is a slippery slope I don't want to get on. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• As I say, I'd tend the other way, but if that's what the MoS says, then my preference is hardly actionable! 4u1e (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Units" are stuff like nm, m, kg, etc. Other non-breaking stuff isn't necessary unless the layout is seriously screwed ;-) 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)

• 4u1e is correct; the wording at WP:NBSP is "In compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line." It doesn't talk about "units"; it's about numerical and non-numerical elements, to prevent linewrap. For example, Boeing and 747 are a numerical and non-numerical element; they are joined by a non-breaking hardspace to avoid linewrap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Vague adjectives, like "some", are in the article and are making sentences redundant.

Fixed, several "some" words reworded and removed. Archtransit (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Seems Y Done Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Please sift through the images—there are some that can be (re)moved from the current sections they are in, since they add no context to that specific section.

Y Done Discussion is in progress for additional removal of images. Archtransit (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Deliveries is unsourced.

Y Done, fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Please make sure all references have a consistent format when they appear in the references section; I recommend the citation templates.

In progress, much progress has been made. Templates were not used after a very extensive and prolonged discussion with several editors resulting in a unanimous decision in selecting the style of references. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done and a lot of work. Thanks to RJH's very specific suggestions (not shown here). Archtransit (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Most people will not know what a glass cockpit is—please link that and all other jargon.

Y Done, technical terms have been wikilinked (high-bypass turbofan, etc.). This is usually acceptable for articles. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • The Boeing 747, sometimes nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet",[4][5] is a long-haul manufactured by Boeing in the United States.—long-haul what?

Y Done, in fixing the next suggestion, this one was resolved. Archtransit (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • The first three sentences of the lead can be combined so that it flows/reads smoothly.

Y Done, fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • ''The 747-400 passenger version, accommodates 416 passengers in a typical three-class layout, or 524 passengers a typical two-class layout.—bye-bye, first comma.

Y Done, fixed, Archtransit (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • In 1965, after Boeing lost the Heavy Logistics System (CX-HLS) competition for the development of the large C-5 military transport, the Boeing design was considered as a basis for a commercial airliner.—huge fragment; second comma should be a semicolon.

Y Done, fixed grammar but differently to avoid 50+ word sentence. Archtransit (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Over the following months preparations were made for the first flight, which took place successfully on 9 February 1969, with test pilots Jack Waddell and Brien Wygle at the controls,[39][40] and Jess Wallick at the flight engineer's station.—bye-bye, second comma.

Y Done, fixed Archtransit (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • MOS:NUM again: link the first occurrence of a currency, like US$747.40.

Y Done, fixed Archtransit (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • The infobox picture has no source. Was it the user's own work, taken off of another website, or whatever? If this does not get resolved soon there will be copyright trouble.

Y Done Fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • This sentence in Background is not good: "However, concern over evacuation routes and limited cargo-carrying capability caused this idea to be scrapped in early 1966 in favor of wider single deck, becoming the first wide-body airliner" Subject of sentence - concern - did not become the first wide-body airliner! How about: "However, concern over evacuation routes and limited cargo-carrying capability caused this idea to be scrapped in early 1966 in favor of a wider single deck; the first wide-body airliner was born." Or is that too theatrical?--JCG33 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, fixed. Thank you for excellent suggestion. Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • And more and more problems. Please arrange for this article to have a proper copyedit for grammar, punctuation, and MOS. 哦，是吗？(review O) 02:41, 16 December 2007 (GMT)

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I will work on some of your suggestions more in the coming days. Archtransit (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Very good! --Brískelly^{citazione necessaria} 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• OpposeNeutral Basically a good article, but there's a lot of cleaning up still to do. I think I'm right in saying that most of my informal peer review comments have not been considered. I don't expect you to take all of them up - who says I'm infallible! - but since you specifically asked me to review the article, I do expect you think about all of them. Not all of them are needed for FA, I will mark the ones I consider necessary on the talk page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An oversight! Will be following some of the suggestions in the next few days. Majority of your suggestions already followed, some others to follow. Archtransit (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry! A lot better after recent edits. The following points still concern me:

• No explanation of why it was desirable in the first place to design such a large aircraft. There are strong economic factors which are presumably the reason for overcoming the considerable technical and financial hurdles to doing so. It's partly addressed later on in 'Entry into service', but I think mention is appropriate earlier to explain how the project came into being.

Y Done reworded and reference added to support the new wording. Archtransit (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• A similar point, there is no explanation of how the introduction of the 747 created 'a new standard of air travel'.

Y Done reworded and reference added to support the new wording.Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Still not clear on times in Entry into Service/Further development sections. Try and make sure that each para has a date somewhere near the beginning to establish context.

Y Done Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I know I suggested it, but the 'in popular culture' section needs to either go, or be expanded a lot. I think it would be possible to make this section (for once!) encyclopedic for this subject.4u1e (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Section is eliminated and integrated into article. Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've struck my oppose - my specific points have been addressed. Neutral only because I haven't had time to review the considerable amount of work done since I last read the article. I plead Christmas as my excuse! 4u1e (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• WP:SEASON: summer 1969 哦，是吗？(review O) 04:04, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
  • Fixed, done. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, primarily because the references section is not up to standards. As an example, note #135 consists solely of the linked word "Development". It should look something like this: Lawrence, Philip K.; Thornton, David Weldon (2005). Deep Stall: The Turbulent Story of Boeing. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. ISBN 0754646262. Retrieved on 2007-12-17.  The reference section is replete with similar examples of insufficiently formatted citations. They should be showing, where possible, publication dates or years, publishers, access dates, authors, &c. Note #3, for example, should show it was published June 26, 2007 and written by Aaron Karp—RJH(talk) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My concerns with the citations have been alleviated, so I'm lifting my opposition. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The article lacks citations. Many sentences have no citations attached to them. While I see that the citations list is already huge, this is an indication that the article could be better written in a summary style with majority of the info present in sub-articles and only minimal highly relevant well-cited info in the main article. There is nothing stopping a user from adding a citation needed tag on any one of the currently existing uncited sentences, an FA should cover all the bases.-- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is no requirement to cite every sentence. WP:CITE says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source." One citation can cover a whole paragraph, if a single source contains all the information likely to be challenged. The article would probably be better cited if fewer citations were used, pointing to more comprehensive sources. There are currently rather a lot of citations because each of the references used contains only a small amount of information. Add citation need tags only where you see uncited information that may be challenged. 4u1e (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

- References cover sentences and whole paragraphs in some cases. To say it lacks references now is a real stretch. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some have said the article has too many references, not too few. It appears that the level of documentation is much better than most articles. I would fix the article to address the complaint if there was something to fix (how to address "too few citations" when others say "too many"?). There are roughtly 180 citations, more than almost every article in WP. (United States has 215 citations, India has 130.) Should this issue be labelled as Y Done? Archtransit (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunno; we should be worrying about the quality of the sources, not the quantity of citations/references. 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)

Exactly - are there sufficient good quality, reliable sources cited to cover all points that are or are likely to be challenged? The answer to that is surely yes. (As an aside, I feel that fewer, higher quality sources would be an improvement, but I wouldn't withhold FA over that)If Amar feels that there is uncited material, could s/he point out where the problems are? 4u1e (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Prose is well below the "compelling/brilliant" standard one would expect. The article needs an experienced copy-editor to go over it with a fine toothed comb. I am not a good fixer, but I can spot problems with the language, which in places is hard to parse and difficult to extract meaning from in places. SOME examples (and fixing these will not solve every problem, so don't look at this as a complete list. Enlist help at WP:LOCE...)
  • "Ultimately, the Boeing proposals that were selected for the high winged CX-HLS and the low winged 747 were completely different designs although influence from the earlier military design in designing the 747 have been alleged" Sentance is a run-on sentance. There are several nested clauses here, and it makes it hard to parse. Consider how many clauses there are... X that were selected for Y and Z were different although influence from A in designing B has been alleged... Its just too much to follow. Much of the article suffers from this problem.
  • "The original design was a full-length double-deck fuselage seating eight across (3–2–3) on the lower deck and seven across (2–3–2) on the upper deck." The meaning of these numbers is unclear. What do they mean?
  • "At the time, it was widely thought that the 747 would eventually be superseded by supersonic transport (SST) aircraft,[30] so Boeing designed it such that it could easily be adapted to carry freight, so that it could remain in production if and when sales of the passenger version dried up. The cockpit was therefore placed on a shortened upper deck so that a nose cone loading door could be included, thus creating the 747's distinctive "bulge".[14] However, supersonic transports, such as the Concorde, Tupolev Tu-144 and the canceled Boeing 2707, were not widely adopted.[31] SSTs were less fuel-efficient at a time when fuel prices were soaring, very noisy during takeoff and landing, and their ability to operate at supersonic speeds over land was limited by regulations concerning their sonic booms" This paragraph seems out-of-order. The thesis seems to be that the 747 had success where the SSTs did not. Well, we have the second part, the failure of the SSTs and the reasons for it, but the other half of it, the idea that the 747 ended up more successful, is left without explanation.
  • Organization is poor. We have the "Design" section separated from the "Background and design phase" section; these seem a natural pair, and they are quite far apart.

Again, the above list of problems is not complete, its just an idea on where to start fixing the article. Its a decent article, but I don't think it meets the exacting standards of a featured article just yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Fixed the above examples raised, several other editors have made similar fixes, outside copy editor contacted for advice. Archtransit (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

-part of that was already fixed last night. The Design section covers detailed design aspects and features for the aircraft and all its variants. The main section labels follows WP:Aircraft/PC layout guidelines. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I see that copyediting for clarity has been performed, and I must say that it is starting to read better. Some more comments though:
  • The 747 is available in passenger, freighter and other versions. The 747's hump created by the upper deck allows for a front cargo door on freighter versions.—A little bit choppy.
  • The aircraft flew for the first time on 9 September 2006.[146] The aircraft is not certified to carry passengers other than essential crew.—Same thing.
  • Why am I reading the deliveries table right to left, bottom to top? It's confusing for readers who are not familiar with this kind of layout. Also, English is not Arabic. 哦，是吗？(review O) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
    • It lists deliveries from now back to the start. I don't see that as being confusing with the years labeled. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Copyedit completed by usual editors and subsequently copyedited by an established member of the League of Copy Editors (LOCE). The table with number of 747's made is geared more towards what the recent orders are, hence the order. The LOCE review did not recommend reversing the order. If there are further requests to reverse the order other than the one editor, this can be done. The order of the deliveries table is not a disqualification for FA. Furthermore, all FA articles can be tweaked over time to reflect editorial consensus, including reversing the order of the table! Archtransit (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the table disqualifies this article for FA. I'm just suggesting that it may be a little confusing. 哦，是吗？(review O) 18:57, 22 December 2007 (GMT)

• Abstain - I don't play the FA game, but I'll just mention to anyone who cares that the specifications section doesn't follow WikiProject:Aircraft's layout for this section (the article uses a table, the guide asks for plain text - these days usually supplied in a parameterised template), and that it provides specifications for a range of different subtypes rather than a single, representative model. FWIW --Rlandmann (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, when an aircraft has multiple variants that may be widely different from each other, a table provides much better organisation. 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
    • Agreed, if one were to attempt to show all these variants. But that's not how aircraft data is presented in Wikipedia: a single, representative model is selected and shown. I'm sure I've seen some aircraft articles with a subpage on variants that presents this kind of comparative data, but I can't immediately think of an example. The table would be appropriate and and useful in such a subpage. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Numerious commerical aircraft article use a table like this. Almost makes it standard practice. Adding some guidelines for spec tables has been discussed a time or two on WT:AIR before with no conclusion. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Not really a standard practice when it's done in such a tiny fraction of our coverage (how many articles out of roughly 3,000-4,000? Maybe 20 at the outside?) Anyway, I know that there's no chance of getting this article and its ilk to conform. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • It is more than 20 articles (airliners by Boeing, Airbus, MDD, Gulfstream, Bombadier), but your point still stands. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Fair enough; but it can't be many more than 20: in any case something about 1% of our aircraft coverage. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the approach, but I do think that we should be consistent. After all, there's nothing peculiar about airliners that requires a different approach from any other class of aircraft; let alone peculiar to "modern airliners from major manufacturers", which is about the only way I can characterise the spread of this practice. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
          • I said your point was right. WT:AIR or elsewhere would be a better place to cover this. I will say there would probably be disccussions/arguements over which variant to list with the template format. But not with the table format. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
            • I've brought up airliner specs standardization at WP:AIR before, but it didn't go very far. For the most part, a semi-standard table has been used in several airliner pages, most done or updated by Jeff. I do understand RL's point on what the WP:AIR guidelines prescribe, but in usage, tables are very common in airliner articles, esp the ever-growing RJs, and I think they have a place, if done right. I think a standardized table with set parameters (there is a LOT of variation!) would be good for these articles, and would like to debate the issue in total again at WP:AIR. - BillCJ (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Um, before we even get to the content, there are MOS breaches all over the place. And inconsistencies such as the double adjective "double-deck", which is variously hyphenated (correct) and unhyphenated. "4 million cubic yards"—I think one decimal place is necessary for the metric: 3 is just too off the mark. 30 miles = 48, not 50 km. Check all conversions. "But though"—are both words necessary? "250 -100s"—MOS suggests spelling out 250 in this instance. "short range versions"—hyphenate; why in quotes previously? Why do we need that little-known country "Japan" linked once, let alone twice? Why is 747-200M et al. bolded? I see hyphens that should be en dashes in the Notes. I see references to web pages I don't know whether to trust: airliners.net; I see author not cited in the Notes (Chaz Hinkle, Ref 116). Needs a sift through the references. Deagal? Who are they? Who's the author? Sloppily written web page. Tony (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The conversions are correct. The numbers have been rounded to proper number of signficant figures, e.g. 1 for 4 mil cu yd/3 cu m and 30 miles/50 km. Variants are bolded for emphasis on their first use. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll just throw in that bolding of variants the first time they're mentioned (if not every time they're mentioned) is quite common in aircraft encyclopedias and reference works. The practice seems to originate with the annual Jane's All the World's Aircraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Notes: Please see WP:MOSBOLD (Wiki doesn't use bold for emphasis). Please see WP:TRIVIA regarding the "Incidents" and "Preserved aircraft" sections; these two sections appear to be lists of trivia, discouraged. Please discuss the heavy reliance on Boeing as a source. Please see WP:GTL and WP:MOS, commons belongs in External links, See also should not contain links already included in the body of the article, and navigational templates go at the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Y Done Preserved aircraft as a list of trivia eliminated and integrated into article as a section.Archtransit (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UT
        • Y Done Reduced Boeing references to roughly 40 references and an overwhelming majority are non-Boeing references.Archtransit (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Y Done Elminated external links that are in the article already. Archtransit (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: Incidents (crashes) is an established section in airliners. Eliminating it would make the article non-standard. Only major crashes, not trivia, are listed. Many of these crashes changed the way things are done.Archtransit (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Y Done Bolded variants in text unbolded. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
          • N Not done struck two items completed, and there are now cite errors. There is still listy trivia that should be converted to prose, navigational templates mid-stream, items mentioned in See also that are included in article, and reliance on Boeing sources hasn't been discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Y Done "listy trivia" now substantial crashes and changed to prose. Boeing sources discussed in talk page and also reduced in number so that other sources far outnumber it. Cite errors no longer there, thanks to Fnlayson!Archtransit (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
              • N Not done Trivia struck; from reading edit summaries, there appears to be some confusion between external links and see also. Navigational templates belong at the bottom of the article, and articles already linked in the body of the text are not repeated in See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
                • There apparently is. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:05, 28 December 2007 (GMT)
                  • Y Done Followed SandyGeorgia's suggestions. See also fixed. Looked for articles already linked to see that no duplication. Navigational templates put at the bottom of the article. (I interpret navigational templates to be those horizontal blue bands that expand, these bands are entitled "Boeing airliners", "Giant aircraft", "Lists relating to aviation". If incorrect interpretation, please let me know.) Archtransit (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
                    • I struck one more, there is still the matter of repeat links in See also. Two weeks in, there are still four substantial Opposes on this FAC; I will let it go a bit longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
                      • Y Done There is no more "see also" section so problem solved. It seems that all the objections have been addressed so the opposition question should be resolved. Also, I don't see four objections. There's only 1 opposition; User:O whom some say is commenting on bad faith and is opposing articles when discussion should be at the MOS or WikiProject level (but whom I'm just interested in addressing his/her complaints, not throwing punches or making accusations). Otherwise all other opposition has been fixed; User:JCG33 (problem fixed, didn't come up with additional complaints), User: 4u1e (who makes suggestions, all followed), User:RJH (who struck out opposition after everything fixed), Jayron32 (everything fixed and also LOCE editor approved and fixed it afterwards), Tony (everything fixed with the units, etc.)Archtransit (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
                        • Whether you label it "Related content" or "See also" there are still links in that section which are repeated in the article and repeated in the navigational templates. They aren't needed in See also/Related content. See WP:ALSO. There are still four Opposes on the page. Reviewer's concerns are considered addressed when opposes are struck by the reviewer. Copyedit and content concerns raised by reviewers cannot be overlooked. See WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
                          • • See also part is done! Sorry for the confusion between see also and related content. Again, we are not trying to fight you, just improve it! The copyedit comments were made before LOCE review. Before we had LOCE review the article, we re-reviewed it ourselves (showing that we are trying hard!). I've reminded the 4 reviewers to come back here to hopefully strike out the "oppose". Archtransit (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
                            • The Related content template started out as a Navbox. It basically still is, but does has a more normal section format now. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Where our MoS is in tension with widely-used publishing conventions within a particular subject area, it seems to me to be a textbook case of WP:IAR. What's more, the intention of MOS:BOLD is apparently to discourage the use of bolding for emphasis; the aviation publishing convention has nothing to do with emphasising meaning, but apparently to help readers looking for information on a particular subtype or variant of the aircraft being described. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
          • The aviation publishing convention doesn't apply here. MOS must be adhered to in all FAs (WP:FA?). 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:35, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
            • What WP:FA actually asks is that the article "follows the style guidelines", which is a mite less strident than "MOS must be adhered to" (emphasis yours) don't you think? This is particularly so when MOS itself states that its contents "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". --Rlandmann (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Not a problem! Thanks to Fnlayson, bolding eliminated. I concur! Let's work together (isn't that slogan familiar? Boeing people?) to get the FA star! Archtransit (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, 30 miles is 48, not 50 km. Other issues I raised not addressed. Plus: ellipsis dots need spacing (MOS); "It has wing tip extensions of 6 feet (1.8 m), winglets of 6 feet (1.8 m)"—hyphen needed and can it be reworded to avoid the ugly repetition? Non-breaking spaces are necessary to avoid what I see now: "The -400", with the hyphen dangling at the end of a line.
  • Why does "wing tip extensions of 6 feet (1.8 m)" need hypens? I'd understand if it said 6-feet (1.8 m) wing tip extensions. The hanging hypen is a browser problem. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "Wing-tip extensions"—it's not a common construction, which makes the hyphen more necessary. See MOS on hyphens. Tony (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah some clarification. Good. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The browser problem is solved by using the {{nowrap}} template. Same for all the WP:NBSPs needed between Boeing (non-numerical) and the numerical element of the name. Unfortunately an article like this is top-heavy on the need for either nowrap or NBSP. It would be ideal if you all would find a way to deal with the unsightly hyphens before numbers so you wouldn't have to nowrap them, but I guess that's the way ya'll do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah. Fixed now with the nowrap templ. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Por nada. This came up at 7 World Trade Center which was also heavy on the linewrap problems. Having the 7 on one line and the World Trade Center on the next was ugly, and fixing it was a lot of work :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support This is a well written article that strikes a balance between being too simple and too technical. It mentions some unusual information that even some of the Boeing highlights glosses over. If there were some faults (as mentioned above), I don't see them now (and I've studied this article for nearly an hour). Of the 5 of so FAC's that I've reviewed recently, this is the best one without any question especially when looking at the big picture. Although I wouldn't disqualify it because of the infobox photo, I'd recommend either a photo of a 747-100 or the best selling model. The 747-200 didn't sell as well (?) so having a rarity in the infobox doesn't seem right.Congolese fufu (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Y Done photo changed to suggestion. Archtransit (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about changing the photo, since the 744 has its own article. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 20:22, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

• Support Struck through prior oppose. In the last few weeks, the language and organization have been tightened up quite a bit. This is now a great article about a very signifcant aircraft, and everyone that has worked on it should be quite proud. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 03:35, 30 December 2007.

---

St Kilda, Scotland

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a GA that has recently been copy-edited and peer reviewed. The subject matter is perhaps obscure, but I hope fascinating nonetheless. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please close and archive the peer review, per instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Lurker (said · done) 15:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - well written, well referenced, great images, and I agree that it is a fascinating topic and article. (In the interest of full disclosure, I peer reviewed this article, and have made three edits to it and the map of the archipelago for it.) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support with a few comments on some redundant bits and other minor things.

• "The Gaelic-speaking population probably never exceeded 180 in number and was never more than 100 after 1851" in the lead. "in number" is redundant as there is little else the 180 can refer to than the number of them. Done
• "various artistic interpretations," - various does not add to the sentence as it seems implicit in the plural.Done
• "The geology of the islands areis comprised of" ... This is in a section called "Geology". Fixed by Finetooth.
• The last sentence/paragraph of the "Geography" section does not seem to fit with the rest of the section.

I have tweaked it, but I am not sure this deals with the comment. Most places in the UK might have a greater balance between the physical and human geography, but as St Kilda has been effectively uninhabited for more than seventy years, there is very little to say about the latter without getting into yet more history (rather than geography). Any further suggestions are most welcome.

• "practical routines of running the island" - "running" appears redundant. Done.
• "The boats also brought other previously unknown diseases" - means the same as also is implicit and there are no diseases previously mentioned for the other to refer to.

removed 'also', but there were other diseases - "visiting ships in the 18th century brought cholera and smallpox". Hopefully fixed.

• "The children all now learned English in addition to and their native Gaelic". Done.
• "From the 1880s, trawlers fishing the north Atlantic made regular visits, and this brought bringing additional trade" Done
• "A variety of new military buildings and masts have since been erected" - I think that it's understood erected structures are new unless explicitly stated otherwise.Done
• "the Marquess of Bute's in his will bequeathed" - means the same and is more succinct. Done
• Can reference [87] move to the end of the sentence ?

Something has moved around. The only one I can see in that number range in 'evacuation' has been so moved. Fixed?

• Is it known that the heritage area is exactly 24,201.4 ha ? This looks like excessive precision. This may be correct but the land area of 854.6 hectares is also troublesome.

Both are from the official UN description in the "United Nations Environment Programme: World Conservation Monitoring Centre" reference. For some reason this was not provided as a ref in the infobox. Fixed.

• "The Scottish folk rock band Runrig have recorded a song"...recorded is already past tense Done
• "It was performedenacted simultaneously"...surely operas are performed, acts are enacted. Done
• "s part of the lasting legacy, this production also left" Done
• "These tools are also probably of Neolithic origin" - can't see what also adds here

I can certainly remove it, although the pottery is definitely Neolithic, the tools are harder to be certain about. I have re-worked the para. Done

• Can you add ISBNs to the "Further reading" section as they are in the references section.

- Peripitus (Talk) 04:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments and your support. I have attended to them all save the ISBNs which will involve a little research. (Now also 'done bar a couple I could not find). Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support The article is fascinating, well-supported, well-illustrated, and well-written. In the interests of full disclosure, I should note that I copyedited St Kilda, Scotland, a few weeks ago, and I've made a couple of minor edits since then. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Support. This is a fine article. A few comments:

• evacuated in 1930: reading through the rest of the article, it's pretty clear that from 1930 onwards there have been no year-round residents except for the military base; can you make this explicit? On first encounter I had to pause to think why they were evacuated.
• the late Late Middle Ages. If this is intentional, it's a bit clumsy.

Technically correct and patently absurd. Fixed.

• Culdee, the name for anchorites, who may have brought Christianity to the island: I think this needs to be tweaked. "Culdee" doesn't mean all anchorites; should this be something like "Culdee, the name of an order of monks who may have brought Christianity to the island"? We don't even need to know they're anchorites at this point, since the name is the point.

Fixed - I hope.

• You mention "Toubir-Kilda" and "Tobar Childa" separately in the "origin of names" section; presumably they are the same. I can see you're organizing this material by sources, which makes sense, but I think the explanation of Tobar Childa's etymology needs to be included the first time you mention it. If you can parenthetically explain the different spellings that would be handy too. Perhaps reverse the order of use of the sources, moving Haswell-Smith right after Martin Martin?

Done.

• Haskeir island much nearer the west coast of the Outer Hebrides. I think this is slightly confusing. I presume you mean that Haskeir is nearer the main body of the Outer Hebrides, that is, nearer to North Uist. However, the lead makes St. Kilda part of the Outer Hebrides, so the west coast of the Outer Hebrides is the west coast of the St. Kilda archipelago. Just adding something like "main body" probably suffices here.

Fixed.

• The images used are outstanding; they're a real asset to the article. The archipelago map is very clear too. Is there any chance of getting a map of Hirta itself, showing some of the summits mentioned, and the village itself? This isn't absolutely necessary, since you do identify Village Bay, and hence implicitly the location of the village.

I have asked the creator of this excellent map. He was recently admitted to the company of administrators and may be busy.

I can't take any credit for the images, but one of my favourites is the one with the Eiffel Tower photoshopped onto Boreray at [1].

• No trees grow on the archipelago, although more than 130 different flowering plants, 162 species of fungi, 160 bryophytes and several rarities exist amongst the 194 lichen species. Needs to be rephrased; as it stands it sounds as if flowering plants, fungi and bryophytes are amongst the lichen species.

Fixed.

• The beach at Village Bay: I'd unlink "beach". In the following sentence, was the survey only of that beach? I assume so, but it might be good to say so explicitly: "A survey of the beach in 1953…."

Fixed.

• I'd never heard of a fowling rod; there's no fowling rod article to link to, but perhaps fowling would be worth a link -- it doesn't mention fowling rods now but might do so in the future.

Fixed - they may have been used by one or two other nearby communities, but I don't think they were at all common in Scotland, and I doubt elsewhere either.

• It has been known for some time that St Kilda was continuously inhabited -- any reason not to simplify this to "St Kilda has been continuously inhabited"?

I have added 'earlier'. The intention here is to convey the idea that it was well-known that St Kilda had a long history, but it was only recently that Neolithic habitation was suspected.

• You use both "St. Kilda" and "St Kilda"; the manual of style allows either, but please be consistent. I believe WP practice is not to regularize this sort of thing in direct quotations and titles of works, so those don't need to be made consistent.

Fixed.

• What is a "Skaill knife"?

Note provided.

• elected the most "meagre" among his friends in the neighbouring islands, to that number: what does "to that number" mean in this quote?

Fixed - I hope. The contrast with the situation two centuries later is incongruous.

That's all I have time for at the moment; I'll come back to this later today. Mike Christie (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a little more time than I thought, so here are some more comments:

• the first place in Scotland to be inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site; this is an odd use of "inscribed"; is something specific meant here?

According to my GB-English dictionary inscribe means "to add to a list".

OK, I'll strike; it does appear to be a reasonably common usage in this context, though I must say I hadn't come across it before. Mike Christie (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd also suggest moving the reference used for "first place in Scotland" to the end of the sentence.

Fixed.

• The area of the whole archipelago is given in the infobox, but the body of the article doesn't mention area of the archipelago as a whole or the individual islands. This is a fairly minor point, given that the map makes the area fairly apparent, but if you can mention the area of one or two of the larger islands in the text in the Geography section that would be nice. I also wonder a little at the use of hectares as the unit of measure for area. You've been thorough about quoting both metric and imperial units elsewhere; could we have areas in acres or square miles as well?
• its original purpose is the stuff of legend rather than archaeological fact: might be better to make this "Martin's account of its original purpose is the stuff of legend rather than archaeological fact".

Martin's account is certainly mythical, but the purpose of the buildings is also unknown. This has received further attention and is I hope fixed.

• I'm not convinced of the value of the "See also" links. Mingulay, the Flannan Isles and Rona all seem only peripherally connected. The World Heritage article seems like something that could be linked from within this article, and I think relevant material from the other two should be worked into the body of the article and eliminated as "See also" links. However, I wouldn't withhold support for this point.

I've removed the Flannans and North Rona, which are peripheral. The story of Mingulay is very similar to St Kilda's so I've left it.

Struck; I agree those two were the least relevant. I'd still recommend finding a way to merge the relevant material into the main article but it's up to you. Mike Christie (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done - extra sentence puts Flannans etc. back into the Geography section.

That works very well, and bulks up what had been a rather short paragraph. Actually what I meant to say was that I thought you might add the material from the remaining "see also" links to the article, and eliminate them too, but as I said it's not necessary.

• I don't know what the manual of style says on this point, but I was slightly surprised to see that references and further reading were two distinct sections. I understand that the references are the ones used in the notes, but wouldn't it be more concise to merge the two sections? Is any useful information lost by doing that?

According to WP:GTL this section "is generally for resources on the topic that are not specifically cited in the article".

Overall, this is a great piece of work, and I am likely to support if the majority of these points can be dealt with. Thanks for a very interesting read. Mike Christie (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. A few more fixes to come. Hopefully all now attended to. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 10:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. The map would be nice to have at some point in the future if you can find a source. I've switched to support above; this now thoroughly deserves the FA star. Mike Christie (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I've done some editing myself to points needing fixing. Otherwise, it definitely looks like FA-class work. Nice job! VanTucky ^talk 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for the support and fixes - incidentally the last para in 'Geography' is now slightly longer and has re-emerged in a separate state. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 10:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes and References

Notes: Please complete the footnotes to include publisher, last access date, etc (per WP:CITE/ES)

Hopefully all in place and fixed.

Not corrected; sample edits left. Author and publication date should be given when available, all sources need publisher, all websources need last access date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• ^ 2001 UK Census per List of islands of Scotland
• ^ Ordnance Survey

I believe the above two references are fixed. I will go over them all again tomorrow.

Done. The BBC ref in 'Media & the arts' has a 'last updated' date rather than a publication date as this does not seem to have been supplied. Ref 83 has a link that no longer leads to the March 2007 work party information as this is no longer current. Presumably people with clever Google link apparatus can still find it.

and note style recommendations on ibid and