June 2008
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:47, 30 June 2008 [1].
Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe
- Nominator(s): Midnightdreary (talk)
I'm nominating this article for FA to see if other editors feel that it is ready. I'm not convinced myself but I'm sure this review will, if nothing else, encourage its improvement. Thanks, as always! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
http://www.eapoe.org/pstudies/PS1960/P1968108.HTM was this a newsletter published by a academic press or what?- Who is the publisher of http://www.usna.edu/EnglishDept/poeperplex/alcoholp.htm and why is it a reliable source?
- Links checked out with the link checker tool, other sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for dropping in, Ealdgyth. The first link you mention is to a peer-reviewed scholarly publication; certainly not a newsletter! The second is not the most reliable source, but it only serves as verification; there is already another supportive footnote. It could be removed, I suppose, if other editors think it should be. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. The title of the publication is given as "Poe Newsletter" (grins). (current ref 30) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you looked again, you might notice that the "Poe Newsletter" was renamed to Poe Studies, a publication of the Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore and the Washington State University Press. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping with that. I'll leave the other for other reviewers to decide if it's needed/not needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm torn on this one myself. I'm not sure if the claim needs further substantiation but, if so, I can certainly look for an alternative to the current one. I'm glad you brought it up, Ealdgyth. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't the poeperplex a collection of student papers per this? As this is student work, I see no reason to cite it. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks; I've gone ahead and removed it entirely. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't the poeperplex a collection of student papers per this? As this is student work, I see no reason to cite it. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm torn on this one myself. I'm not sure if the claim needs further substantiation but, if so, I can certainly look for an alternative to the current one. I'm glad you brought it up, Ealdgyth. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping with that. I'll leave the other for other reviewers to decide if it's needed/not needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you looked again, you might notice that the "Poe Newsletter" was renamed to Poe Studies, a publication of the Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore and the Washington State University Press. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. The title of the publication is given as "Poe Newsletter" (grins). (current ref 30) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for dropping in, Ealdgyth. The first link you mention is to a peer-reviewed scholarly publication; certainly not a newsletter! The second is not the most reliable source, but it only serves as verification; there is already another supportive footnote. It could be removed, I suppose, if other editors think it should be. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks pretty well written; it was a very interesting read throughout. Gary King (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- Per WP:MOSDASH, don't offset quotes of less than 4 lines - there is a shorter one in the Illness section.
-
- I assume you meant the blockquote? I never knew what the cut-off length was for this (and I couldn't find it in my cursory search of that page you linked) but I made the change. No problem. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- The paragraph on Virginia's appearance seems a bit out of place, but I am unsure where to suggest it be moved.
-
- I'd love further advice on this from any other editors. It was originally its own section but I tried to pull it into the main part of the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- The paragraph beginning "While dying, Virginia asked her mother ..." does not flow very well. It seems to be a hodgepodge of different ideas stuck together (and two sentences in a row begin "She provided Virginia with"
-
- I tried to fix this. Hope I did okay. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Virginia also showed Poe a letter she had concealed for years from Louisa Patterson," - makes it sound like she concealed the letter from Louisa Patterson. Why did Virginia conceal this from Poe? Was Virginia also trying to keep Poe from his father?
-
- This was incredibly unclear. It's not that she hid it but that she tucked it away. Wording was awful but I think it's much-improved. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- "In 1875, the same year in which Virginia's body was reburied, the cemetery in which she lay was destroyed and her remains were almost forgotten" - was it the new or old cemetery that was destroyed? How was the cemetery destroyed? (Was this Westminster Hall?) How long were the bones in a box under the bed?
-
- That should have been the same year that Edgar was reburied, not Virginia. The bones in a box thing isn't clear in any of the sources I found, as far as length of time. It looks to be about two years, though. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Frances Osgood or Frances Sargent Osgodd? She is referred to both ways int he article
-
- Not sure why that's so bad (how often should her middle name be repeated?) but I can change it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- ""hurrying her to a premature grave, " - I presume the "her" here is Virginia?
-
- I tried to clarify this. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- "moved to New York City by boat" - the by boat reference seems odd - can this be removed?
Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Removing the boat reference would necessitate the removal of the whole reference to "The Oblong Box", as that's sort of the point. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Valentine wasnt going to throw away her bones, Edgar and Dennis were actually really good friends and was buried in the Valentine tomb, Para about half down page. "He would have rambled on, but I left him and went back to stand silent awhile over the bed of earth where the three so dear to each other sleep side by side. Mrs. Clemm was buried here in 1971; and the body of Virginia, brought from Fordham, where it had lain in the Valentine vault for thirty-seven years, placed beside them on the seventy-sixth anniversary of Poe’s birth, January 19th, 1885. At this ceremony, most solemn and impressive, there were present besides the officiating minister, Rev. J. S. B. Hodges, rector of St. Paul’s, and many friends and relatives of the family, Hon. Luther Marsh, President of the Park Commission, New York, and William Fearing Gill, the biographer of Poe, and the first to locate the time and place of his birth. “It is a remarkable incident that Mr. Dennis Valentine, who officiated at the sepulture of Virginia Poe in 1848, should deliver her relics to Mr. Gill in Person, and that George Spence, who conducted the burial of Poe in 1848, and afterward his re-interment under the monument in 1875, should also, as the official sexton of the Westminster Church, be called upon to witness the last rites offered to all that remains of his wife now that she is laid at his side after a long separation.” http://www.eapoe.org/papers/misc1851/18910401.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by JValentine13 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to suggest that Valentine was throwing any bones away. As I understand it, the owners of the cemetery had sold the land and it was going to be developed. The officiators of the burial ground, unable to find next of kin, were going to dispose of Virginia's bones - but William Fearing Gill, as he claims, walked onto the scene at just the right time and claimed them himself. I have not seen sources that suggest that Valentine handed her bones to Gill directly (it would be quite odd; Gill was and is considered a bit of a whacko). The article does indeed state that Virginia was originally buried in the Valentine tomb, so no worries there. Your source is more than a little off - for example, Poe was not buried in 1848 (it would be very rude, considering he was not yet dead). I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from this comment, so feel free to help me out. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support:
- I enjoyed the article and learned a lot about Poe. I found it quite interesting. --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Why are you using her middle name in the title? Surely she's usually called Virginia, not Virginia Eliza? (If this is moved, leave the first line as it is.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm not the one that originally created the article so I'm not sure what the justification was for the title. If it was me, I'd have called it Virginia Clemm as that's how many biographers and scholars refer to her, mostly to keep her distinct from Poe. I'm sure the article could easily be renamed, but I personally don't see much of a problem with this either way. I'd welcome other comments. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support A thorough discussion of Virginia Poe and her relationship with Edgar Allan Poe - thank you! I learned some fascinating details about the Poe family while reading this article. Just some minor details:
- Image:PoeMarriage.JPG - What is the source for this image?
-
- I'm not 100% sure on this one as I didn't take the picture myself but I believe it is a blown up reproduction at the Edgar Allan Poe Museum (Richmond). I will contact the original uploader and see if he/she is still active and can give further info. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this a reliable link?
-
- Yes and no. I think her theory is questionable at best, but she does have a book with this (and many other theories on Poe) coming out soon which lends some credibility to it all. Until I see another scholar corroborate her story, though, I don't think the information merits inclusion here beyond the external link. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I still feel that referring to the subject by her first name only ("Virginia") and the poet by his last name ("Poe") replicates the infantilizing attitude that Poe used towards his wife. I don't think we should do this, as an encyclopedia. I would suggest following the system used at Mary Shelley or at Zelda Fitzgerald.
-
- I'm very torn on this one myself. I certainly don't mean to demean Virginia myself (though, oddly, colloquially, I do refer to them as "Virginia" and "Poe"). I considered your similar suggestion earlier and started making the change but stopped myself; I don't remember why. I will revisit the idea. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I see the featured topic coming into focus! Awadewit (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Many thanks for your thoughtful review and several copy edits. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:47, 30 June 2008 [2].
Strapping Young Lad
previous FAC (18:14, 29 April 2008)
Self-nominator Well, here goes nothing. I did my best to find all the necessary references, and improve the article as a whole. Gocsa (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I am satisfied with the prose carried over from the previous nom. Additionally, I was one of the editors who nitpicked over the sources until Gocsa was about to start throwing tomatoes at me, and I'm satisfied with them as well. I helped look up some more reliable sources and I believe anything questionable has been sourced to a reliable source. There are a few borderline sources but they are not backing up anything major so I'm willing to include them on the "reliable" side of the border. I encourage editors who oppose based on sources to make it actionable by calling out which specific sources you are questioning. I will work with Gocsa to find alternate sources as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This source in particular still concerns me. As I didn't follow the majority of the last FAC, has anything been found that proves this to be an RS? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
-
- I agree. The nominator should probably ask about it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Does the testimonials page help at all? That is enough to satisfy me. --Laser brain (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, that's good for that particular source. Still some more which concern me, and some prose issues which I'll point out tomorrow. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Well written and sourced article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
- Support I've been satisfied with this article since the peer review. Burningclean [speak] 05:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support per my support last time and no outstanding issues here. giggy (:O) 10:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support, The article is well written, dynamic, objective and with beautiful layout. Cannibaloki 17:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- My only problem, as nominator:), is ref2, the radio transcript from the fan site, is it possible to cite it using Template:Cite episode? I only have the month, and year of the interview, the name of the programme, the radio, and the interviewer, maybe this is enough. Gocsa (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2008 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:47, 30 June 2008 [3].
Terry Sanford
I found this article, liked it and spend a lot of time improving it with the help of others--making me a major contributor and self-nom. Sanford was a educator and politician from North Carolina. ... — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
What makes http://politicalgraveyard.com/ a reliable source?Likewise http://www.ourcampaigns.com/home.html?http://www.4president.org/ also?And http://www.emporis.com/en/?
- Links checked out with the link checker tool, other sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Change politicalgraveyard to one that you didn't object to that covers same things. Changed Emporis to official GSA ref. Working on other two. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- All four may be reliable, you know. (Although I have serious doubts about political graveyard ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- The numbers in our campaigns match other sources but it displays it with percents and in chart form, so I think that's okay. 4president reproduces his campaign brochure in word form, it's not found elsewhere, so I think that's okay two. Can we keep those two? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll leave the 4president one out for others to decide for themselves (I have a small quibble about copyright issues with it also, want one of the copyright gurus to say it's clear to link to it...) The other, maybe use it as an external link/secondary source and link to the numbers in books also? The main concern with ourcampaigns is that they don't seem to cite where they get their numbers (although if I missed it, please point out my blindness to me, it's been a long hot day in the sun here, so I'm perfectly capable of missing things...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I used one of the books for the 4presidnet ref and moved it to external links. The same numbers in ourcampaigns ref are all over the web and so far it looks like it's the best ref--it's even used as a ref by other sites. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, used by any major news companies? If so, that'd help prove its reliability, I'd think. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll leave the 4president one out for others to decide for themselves (I have a small quibble about copyright issues with it also, want one of the copyright gurus to say it's clear to link to it...) The other, maybe use it as an external link/secondary source and link to the numbers in books also? The main concern with ourcampaigns is that they don't seem to cite where they get their numbers (although if I missed it, please point out my blindness to me, it's been a long hot day in the sun here, so I'm perfectly capable of missing things...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- The numbers in our campaigns match other sources but it displays it with percents and in chart form, so I think that's okay. 4president reproduces his campaign brochure in word form, it's not found elsewhere, so I think that's okay two. Can we keep those two? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- All four may be reliable, you know. (Although I have serious doubts about political graveyard ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Change politicalgraveyard to one that you didn't object to that covers same things. Changed Emporis to official GSA ref. Working on other two. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- The wikilinks to stuff like 1940s isn't really necessary
- "Driven by his belief that a person could accomplish anything with a good education" - source?
- Time Magazine needs italics in all references
- "Sanford was Kennedy's choice for vice president on the 1964 Democratic ticket, had Kennedy lived" - this reads awkwardly, perhaps try "Sanford would have been Kennedy's choice... had he lived"?
(Covers up to the Senate career section...) giggy (:O) 03:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Did a read through the rest and nothing of issue came up. —Giggy 06:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH.Gary King (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support
Comments.Overall, the article looks well-written. Have you checked out the book that is listed in the Further Reading that is specifically about him to see if it would have any relevant information that isn't already in the article? Other comments:I don't like this sentence During World War II he enlisted as a private in the US Army, parachuted into France in combat with the 517th Parachute Infantry Regiment, was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, fought in the Battle of the Bulge, attained the rank of First Lieutenant, and was discharged in 1946. I think it is trying to cram too many events into one sentence which minimizes their impact a bit. Just separating it into two or three sentences would likely be fine.I would include his party affilitation when first discussing his state offices; that way people who don't read the lead will still know.- This is a very weird citation format ,[7]:157, 194, 247, 257–258 [10] - is that intentional?
University of North Carolina is wikilinked the third time it is referred to; may be better to do so at the first referenceIt might be wise to include a very brief description of what the Governor's School of North Carolina is - I've never heard of anything like that and it is interesting
Karanacs (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. There were some 1a issues, but after copyediting the article myself, these concerns have been addressed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Glad you enjoyed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and please address all my inline comments. There's about 5-10 still left in the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Glad you enjoyed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Answered Sandy's postwar concern too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:21, 29 June 2008 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:27, 29 June 2008 [4].
Trial by Jury
- Nominator(s): Shoemaker's Holiday, Ssilvers
This article is the latest concentrated drive by WP:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan. Over the last month or so, over two dozen published sources have been consulted - the lengthy bibliography section will give some idea of this; and all, or almost all, have been newly-consulted or reviewed during this drive (as well as a few others that, for whatever reason, never got cited, and thus aren't mentioned). While I can't guarantee that every source was used, I think that most people who knew about Gilbert and Sullivan would not find any substantial omissions, save, perhaps, that some of the sources, such as Arthur Jacobs, that we consulted late in the process didn't get cited as much as they would if they had been consulted earlier, simply due to overlap.
A great number of people have helped us in his process, and I apologise if I miss anyone out, but I'd like to thank User:Finetooth for an excellent MOS-check and copyedit, all our peer-reviewers, Marc Shepherd, who came back from retirement to assist us, and many, many others. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) [Nomination went live on 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)]
Co-nomination: This is the first article on any of the famous Gilbert and Sullivan operas to be nominated for FA, and it will serve as a model for what the others might look like, so it is important to WP:G&S. I agree that the research for the article has been thorough, and I think the article is comprehensive. Shoemaker's Holdiday and I, as well as Marc Shepherd and some others who have assisted us are familiar with the literature about Gilbert and Sullivan and their operas. The prose in the article has been vetted by many readers, although I am sure that FA reviewers will have further helpful suggestions. In addition to the editors mentioned by Shoe, User:Yllosubmarine, User:Awadewit, User:Tim riley and many others have assisted us. We look forward to resolving any comments raised in the FA process. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC) [Nomination went live on 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)]
- The old peer review is archived at Wikipedia:Peer review/Trial by Jury/archive1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Marc Shepherd wrote quite a number of scholarly articles - I don't have a list to hand of his most major publications, but here's a google scholar link: [5] I think, therefore, that he is a recognised scholar in the field, even if not one of the really big ones. As such, he can be trusted to get the lists right, and that's all we really need to trust him for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- The google links you provided don't answer my query, and Shepherd is being used to source critical opinion:
- Of the recordings by the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, those from 1927 and 1964 have been well-received. The 1961 Sargent and the 1995 Mackerras recordings are also admired.[120]
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, that critical opinion isn't supported by the citation, and isn't attributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the citation does support the critical opinion, based on the site's star rating system. Shoemaker is wrong: I wrote the section recently; it is not "legacy text". Isn't it better for the article to make some qualitative comparisons among the various recordings than to leave the reader to select one at random from the list? There is no other source on the web OR ELSEWHERE that provides this information. Shepherd's star ratings are the most useful comparative assessment in the world for G&S recordings: See below. As for attribution, that would be easy enough to add. I suggest that we reinstate the description about which recordings are recommended. Also, I note that Marc Shepherd has not contributed more than a couple edits to this article in the past year, and those were at our request simply to add references to the Rollins and Witts books, with which he is not affiliated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, deleted. I trust the simple list of recordings is acceptable? I think what happened is that we got a bit of legacy text that was meant to have gotten better cited but ended up being missed because noone sslapped a citation needed on the first, uncited part. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- That is not correct, Shoe. It was cited; Sandy is saying that the cite does not support the conclusion. See above. I have put the text back in and added the attribution that I think Sandy is looking for. Let's discuss how to clarify the Discography's status as a reliable source. This is very important to all the G&S articles. There is no more difinitive source for information, including comparative assessments, of recordings of G&S in the world. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Without a doubt, Shepherd's discography is the most complete and best researched discography of Gilbert and Sullivan in the world. It was compiled over a period of many years and includes reviews by dozens of Gilbert and Sullivan experts beside Shepherd. Every Gilbert and Sullivan expert in the world knows Marc Shepherd. He is an editor and consultant for the Broude Brothers critical editions of the Gilbert and Sullivan scores. Broude has published the only critical edition of Trial by Jury. Shepherd has published the best modern-engraving score in the world of The Grand Duke, and has published numerous articles on Gilbert and Sullivan in the various Gilbert and Sullivan specialty publications, such as GASBAG, The Palace Peeper, The Trumpet Bray and elsewhere. He is attributed as an expert or consultant on dozens, if not hundreds of books and articles about G&S and related subjects. See, e.g., "From First Baseman to Primo Basso: The Odd Saga of the Original Pirate King (Tra La!)", NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture - Volume 15, Number 2, Spring 2007. People writing about G&S usually say this about G&S sources: "Two websites are of great value - Marc Shepherd's exhaustively annotated discography and the vast resources of Jim Farron and Paul Howarth's Gilbert and Sullivan Archive" [6]. One could go on. I disagree with Shoemaker: Marc Shephered is a major Gilbert and Sullivan authority, not a minor one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I did not mean to disparage Shepherd: I was not aware of all his work, but had the impression he had only writen quite a lot of insightful journal articles, but nothing pulling together his work into a large-scale form, such as a book. However, this was in ignorance of his role on the Broude scholarly editions of scores - heavily researched scholarly editions of Gilbert and Sullivan. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Marc Shepherd wrote quite a number of scholarly articles - I don't have a list to hand of his most major publications, but here's a google scholar link: [5] I think, therefore, that he is a recognised scholar in the field, even if not one of the really big ones. As such, he can be trusted to get the lists right, and that's all we really need to trust him for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- < Discussion moved to the talk page here for sorting. > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Book questions and lots of WP:SPS "evidence" left for Ealdgyth on the talk page (I don't know book publishers as well as Ealdgyth does). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- A summary of Marc Shepherd as a reliable source is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Please don't run the author/publisher/other bibliographic information into the link title of web sources, it makes it hard to make out the title separate from the rest of the information. You do this with current res 83, 46, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 61.
- Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
CommentsSupport: I don't think I helped with this one, but thank you nonetheless for the shoutout. :) This was a very interesting read and I can see how it would help frame the other G&S articles to come. I'll be more than willing to support after a few things have been addressed:
-
- The lead's timeline is confusing. The play's genesis is mentioned after its production history; shouldn't it be the other way around? There's also no mention of the recordings or benefit productions. Also, should it be mentioned in the lead when the productions stopped or when it was removed from the repertory?
-
- I have tried to simplify the first two paragraphs of the Lead, although I think it is important to mention the date of the show's premiere at the top. I also mentioned the benefits and recordings and clarified that the piece is still being widely performed. I also added a paragraph in the Production and Aftermath section to amplify the more "modern" information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of specific quotes in the lead lest they be notable in their own right. I don't think Kurt Gänzl's quote ("probably the most successful British one-act operetta of all time") appears in the body, either, so maybe the sentiment could just be paraphrased? "It's considered to probably be the most successful...?"
- Arthur Sullivan and W. S. Gilbert are mentioned by their full names in the lead, but from the very beginning in the body they're simply referred to as "Sullivan" and "Gilbert". Remember, pretend the lead doesn't exist and start with the basics.
- The section "Production and aftermath" may be a little misleading since it's about the initial production, yes? Should the section header be made more explicit?
- "Analysis and innovations" is a huge section; is there any way to split it? Music innovations, production innovations?
-
-
- The best split is probably splitting off the last two paragraphs [the Trial-specific material] from the rest [which is a forward-looking discussion comparing the innovations with later G&S operas. I'm not sure about it, though, as it's hard to set out the scope, and, by necessity, the comparison with later works also discusses Trial a lot. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I tried several methods and finally decided on three subheadings. "How say you"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's the little things in life that get to me: in the refs, is it Stedman, pp. 120–21. (ref 9, only one example) with a period or Stedman, pp. 99–127 (4) without? Also, is it Bradley, p. 36, 38 (132) with "p." or Ainger, pp. 380–81 (119) with "pp."?
Otherwise it looks great! I made a handful of very minor edits, mostly regarding punctuation. Hope you don't mind. María (habla conmigo) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Changed to Support. All changes were made or explained away to my satisfaction. Great work, guys! María (habla conmigo) 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Gary King (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work. It's come a long way since I looked at it last.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support It's incredibly thorough and well-written. I'm impressed. MarianKroy (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Echoing Finetooth, I must say that I added one link to the article and made a couple suggestions during its nomination for "Good Article" status. MarianKroy (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Very nicely done and a delight to work on. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I did some proofreading of the article, but it didn't need much. Finetooth (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I did a GA review of this article and it is definitely improved since then. The article has been reorganized a bit and it definitely flows better. Without a doubt, it is well-written, well-researched, and comprehensive. Here are my little nitpicks:
-
[:Image:Trial by Jury - So I fell in love with a rich attorney's elderly ugly daughter.png]] and Image:Trial by Jury Usher.jpg both appear to be from books - the full publication of those books should be on the image description pages.
-
- Done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I still think the "Reception" section is quote-heavy. I am thinking one quote per paragraph, perhaps? :) Ok, I'll be less Draconian, two?
-
These would, from this point forward, provide a grounding point for romantic characters in each of the Savoy operas, providing an introspective scene in which such characters stop and consider life, in contrast to the foolishness of the surrounding scenes. - repetition of "provide".
- Fixed Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
-
Like both of the tenor's arias in Trial by Jury, tenor arias in later Savoy operas were set in 6/8 time so frequently... - Perhaps link 6/8 time for the non-musically inclined?
- Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
-
As Crowther explains, Gilbert combines his criticisms with comic entertainment, which renders them more palatable, while at the same time underlining their truth: "By laughing at a joke you show that you accept its premise. - First mention of Crowther needs to tell the reader who he is.
-
- Fixed. There was a couple refshuffles, and it appears we missed moving a bit of attribution, now provided.
-
The following tables show the casts of the principal original productions and D'Oyly Carte companies at approximately 10-year intervals through to the 1975 centenary season - I'm still unconvinced that all of these cast lists are necessary. The originals, yes, but why at ten-year intervals? This just seems arbitrary to me.
- The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company split up when I was two, so I'm not fully conversant, but, as I understand it, the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company was, perforce, the focus of a great deal of love for Gilbert and Sullivan up until their breakup. As such, each generation of performers gained their fans, and, as they had an almost ridiculously rigid control on performances in Britain - not following their prompt-books could result in you never gaining permission to perform the opera again - they proved hugely significant to generations of Gilbert and Sullivan fans, directors, etc. In another thirty years, these cast lists may be less important, but the works only left copyright (and thus the rigid control) in 1961 (Life +50 was then the rule, I believe), and thus they are still significant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- The DOC did not license any other professional G&S companies in Britain, and so it was the only authorized professional G&S company in Britain until 1961. Even after this, they continued to be the premiere G&S company in the world until their dissolution in 1982. They toured the shows constantly in Britain during the creators' lifetimes and thereafter and performed frequent seasons in London, as well as touring the world. Their performers also made the only licensed recordings of G&S until 1961 and their recordings continued to be in high demand after that. So these performers are well known to modern fans. Indeed, many of the vintage recordings with the famous performers shown in these tables have recently been re-released. So, for some of our readers, these tables will be of interest, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I hate to sound contrarian, but I don't think these answers are really addressing my point. I asked why ten-year intervals. I'm sure this company is important, but I am not sure that these particular performances are. Why not five-year intervals? Why not seven? I'm just not convinced that the process of selection of these cast lists was anything other than arbitrary. Awadewit (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- The DOC did not license any other professional G&S companies in Britain, and so it was the only authorized professional G&S company in Britain until 1961. Even after this, they continued to be the premiere G&S company in the world until their dissolution in 1982. They toured the shows constantly in Britain during the creators' lifetimes and thereafter and performed frequent seasons in London, as well as touring the world. Their performers also made the only licensed recordings of G&S until 1961 and their recordings continued to be in high demand after that. So these performers are well known to modern fans. Indeed, many of the vintage recordings with the famous performers shown in these tables have recently been re-released. So, for some of our readers, these tables will be of interest, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Over to Ssilvers, he's our expert on performers. With the exception of a few prominent members of the original casts, I am completely ignorant about them.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- After reviewing the historical casts, it appeared from the sources that there was major turnover in casts about every 10 years, and that by selecting this interval, we would be able to show the names of most of the famous performers. If we had selected five years, there would be a lot of repetition and hardly any new notable names would appear. If we had selected 20 years, many of the famous names would be missed. So it seemed the best choice. This was true not only for Trial but for all the G&S operas. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. I added a sentence above the tables. Perhaps it would be better as a footnote, though? It seems to me that only a select few eagle-eyed readers will wonder about this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a thoroughly enjoyable article and I think the fun of the play comes through in it - well done all. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I've copyedited this article and checked over the references, but haven't done much to the content. Rosuav (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great. No problems as far as I can see. --Folantin (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great article on my favorite G&S. — MusicMaker5376 14:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2008 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:27, 29 June 2008 [7].
The Penelopiad
- Nominator(s): maclean
A novella by Margaret Atwood. It is a WP:1FA-promised article that I have been working on for a couple of months. This article now meets all the FA criteria so I'm nominating it here. maclean 06:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- At first I thought it was a typo (revealing something about myself here!), but then realised that a novella is different to a novel. Perhaps wikilinking its first use will make things clearer for people like, erm, me?
- I'm not a fan of using "#1" (as opposed to "number one"), so unless that's common practice on novell(a) articles...
- Canongate Myth Series needs to be in italics throughout. (Including in refs.)
- "who rigged the contest between suitors that decided which one would marry her" - this sentence sounds a bit bulky to me... I think you could chop after "suitors" (as it's probably assumed they're marriage suitors), but if not could you reword another way?
- "Structured similar to a classical Greek drama the storytelling alternates between Penelope's narrative and the choral commentary of the twelve maids" - eek, needs commas for clarity.
But overall, quite a good read. giggy (:O) 13:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments Sources look good, links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for checking. maclean 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- I think changing "..." to "[...]" more clearly indicates that words have been removed.
- Some American spelling exists in the article when it should only contain British spelling since it's a book published by a Canadian author. Examples of American spelling include: "honorable", "recognize", "criticize", etc.
Gary King (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Support. An enjoyable article on a book I enjoyed but have mostly forgotten. Will support when the comments below are addressed.
- Prose issues, all in the plot.
-
"neither Odysseus’ mother Anticleia, nor his nurse Eurycleia, liked Penelope but Eurycleia helped Penelope settle into her new role and became friendly, but often patronizing." - seems like something is missing here, perhaps "liked Penelope but eventually Eurycleia" might read a little better."Odysseus instructed Telemachus to execute the maids who were in league with them." - But they weren't in league with the suitors according to the previous sentence. Change to "who he believed were in league"."but Penelope remained silent on the maids actions as spies so not to raise suspicions on the event" - raise suspicions of what? This isn't clear.
"Using the maid's lecture on anthropology, Atwood satirizes some of the feminist criticisms of Robert Graves." - This kind of comes from nowhere. I doubt the majority of readers are familiar with the feminist criticisms of Robert Graves, and so I suggest there be a brief discussion of what they are.Also, is this Robert Graves or someone else with the same name?I see this is discussed below, but I recommend either explaining (and linking) it when it first appears or moving the whole lot to the lower section.- There is a reference that does not come after punctuation in the "narrative
voicejustice" section.
-
- Still there, after the word Odyssey.
Numbers less than ten should normally be written out, not given in numerals.
Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I enjoyed the book, also. As someone who has read the book, your perspective in very valuable. Thanks for reviewing. I believe I got everything here [10] maclean 21:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've struck out above as done, although I think you missed one. I did notice something else, "Atwood agreed to participate, believing she was helping a rising young publisher." - I don't think this issue recurs further down, but this sentence gives me images of an enraged Atwood claiming she was cheated by someone pretending to be from a small publishing house. I don't think this is quite what is meant, but I'd consider rephrasing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I enjoyed the book, also. As someone who has read the book, your perspective in very valuable. Thanks for reviewing. I believe I got everything here [10] maclean 21:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
CommentsSupport: I'm a fan of Atwood's, so I'm very glad that an article dedicated to one of her books may very soon become featured! I quite enjoyed the book and I think the article is well executed; I actually added the infobox a year ago when it was nothing more than a stub, so imagine my surprise to see it now! A few comments before I support:
-
- In The Penelopiad Atwood has Penelope reminisce on the events during the Odyssey: I'm not a fan of describing plot in terms of authorship; although this is a reworking, I think you could simply write "In The Penelopiad, Penelope reminisces..."
- "jump-rope rhyme, a lament, an idyll, a ballad" are all wikilinked later on in the article, but should also be linked in the lead
- I fixed a few missing commas here and there, but there may be more.
- As a fifteen year old she was married to Odysseus: a little awkward; "at fifteen, she was married"?
- I feel there should be an explanation for the title, Penelopiad, even if it's just a sentence. Is there anything in the sources that addresses this? I always took it as a cross between Penelope and Iliad, but I could be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time. :)
- The tense switches from past to present in the "Reception" section; make sure it stays past, changing "calls" to "called", etc. Also, repeating "Atwood at her finest" is somewhat redundant; perhaps it can be changed to something similar to "Robert Wiersema echoed that sentiment, adding that the book shows..."
Great work, maclean, I enjoyed the read! María (habla conmigo) 15:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Despite what the edit counter says (which triple's giggy's and double Epbr123's edit count for some reason), you are the second biggest contributor to the page (by edit count). Thank you for coming back and reviewing. I integrated your suggestions.[11] I have not encountered any sources that address the meaning behind the title. I took it to be a simple portmanteau, also. maclean 19:43, 23 June 2008 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:27, 29 June 2008 [12].
Hare coursing
Self-nomination: I've been working on this for a while, was delighted that the Good Article review process was able to prompt improvements in the article. I now have more time on my hands, and hope to work with comments made to ensure that the article can be assessed at/helped to reach FA standard. MikeHobday (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- Format the dates in the references, so "2008-02-10" becomes "2008-02-10" and "2000-2" (which hardly anyone reads like that) becomes "February 2000".
- Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH
- Some references are placed incorrectly, such as "coursing [25] where", which has an extra space before it; remove extra space. Also, "coursing' [25]," – the reference goes after punctuation. This is all per WP:FOOTNOTE. Ensure the other references are placed properly because several are not.
- Thanks, tried to do these, though I'm not really expert on the dashes. MikeHobday (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- User:Epbr123 has very kindly done the dashes, hope that's OK now. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- "2000-2" →" "February 2000" in the references, too. Gary King (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well spotted, now done. MikeHobday (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Do let me know if I've missed anything else. I find a fresh eye is often best placed to spot such things. MikeHobday (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well spotted, now done. MikeHobday (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- "2000-2" →" "February 2000" in the references, too. Gary King (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
-
Comments
Starts out awkward: "Hare coursing is the coursing of hares" - I Palindrome I?Perhaps a little more context in the opening, to explain exactly what it is without turning to the linksLead also needs another paragraph, to fulfill the requirements. Maybe something about its history, and then transition to the sport today?
Interesting read, I'll continue to add more comments as I see them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Tried to cover this, could you look to see how the new version looks? Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Looks much better. I tried to clean up the second paragraph a little, make sure it is still accurate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perfect, thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Looks much better. I tried to clean up the second paragraph a little, make sure it is still accurate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
-
- I think I've now put publishers for everything. MikeHobday (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
One dead link is showing up on the link checker tool. Another says it's timing out.
-
- All bar one addressed, not sure if that is a temporary or permanent issue. MikeHobday (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- What's the status on these? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- The link was dead yesterday and today, so I planned to check Monday just in case it has gone down for the weekend. I've asked [13] the User who found the link for suggestions, but I anticipate having to remove the reference on Monday. MikeHobday (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to User:Cattus, who has found a new location for the law, I have removed the dead link. MikeHobday (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- The link was dead yesterday and today, so I planned to check Monday just in case it has gone down for the weekend. I've asked [13] the User who found the link for suggestions, but I anticipate having to remove the reference on Monday. MikeHobday (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- What's the status on these? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- All bar one addressed, not sure if that is a temporary or permanent issue. MikeHobday (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What makes http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/index.html a reliable source?
-
- Removed. MikeHobday (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The Arrian ref, is lacking either a page number or a book/paragraph reference.
-
Removed as duplicate, and mentionned in references, as classic book.MikeHobday (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)- Reinserted with page number. MikeHobday (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What makes http://www.agreyhoundswish.org/hist_greece.htm a reliable source?
-
- Removed - duplicate source in any event. MikeHobday (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You're linking to a lot of books that are previews on Google Books. Unfortunately, they often don't link to the page you want, due to the vagaries of the preview system. (At least twice this happened checking out refs on this article) Page numbers would be nice. Also, I worry about using google books as a reference like that, because you're not usually getting the full book, so it's hard to be sure you're getting the full nuances of the author's writing.
-
- I see that the use of "cite web" and the google book links causes the page number in the reference to be lost. I seem to have a choice between having the link and showing the page number in the article. Can yoiu advise me on the better practice? MikeHobday (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Are you just giving a convience link for the reader? I.e. are you using a hard copy book? If you are, you can use the {{cite book}} template and use the url field to give the link to the book page as well as use the page numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Regrettably, I was using google books as the source when trying to do a wide search for relevant information. I did, of course, read the relevant chapters thoroughly to be sure that I was not providing a misleading account. Accordingly, I've used the {{cite book}} template. MikeHobday (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Are you just giving a convience link for the reader? I.e. are you using a hard copy book? If you are, you can use the {{cite book}} template and use the url field to give the link to the book page as well as use the page numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see that the use of "cite web" and the google book links causes the page number in the reference to be lost. I seem to have a choice between having the link and showing the page number in the article. Can yoiu advise me on the better practice? MikeHobday (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What makes http://www.dogshome.org/rehome/choosing_a_pet/which_breed/lurcher.html a reliable source?
-
- Because Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is a highly reputable and independent organisation. MikeHobday (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a dog breeding organization be a better source though?
- I'm sure you're right, but breeding organisations, like The Kennel Club for example, do not recognise cross-breeds. MikeHobday (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a dog breeding organization be a better source though?
- Because Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is a highly reputable and independent organisation. MikeHobday (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 18 Mirriam O'Reilly - is this a TV show? Does it have a title? Also, should be author last name first to fit with the rest of the footnotes.
-
- Surprisingly, no. It's just called Countryfile every week. Changed name format. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What makes http://www.gulfcoastgreyhounds.org/hist-0-indx.html#Time a reliable source?
-
- Was used twice, one now replaced. MikeHobday (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Still doesn't answer why it's reliable for the one time it's being used? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't claiming it was but (perhaps unnecesarilly) reporting work in progress. MikeHobday (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- More reliable source found for key information, the extra detail in the Gulf Coast Greyhounds source, is now described as a claim, but could be removed if you think that exagerates its reliability. MikeHobday (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- No worries, I've been pretty busy this week with a horse show (which is finishing up thankfully) so I've been double checking everything. Looks fine.
- More reliable source found for key information, the extra detail in the Gulf Coast Greyhounds source, is now described as a claim, but could be removed if you think that exagerates its reliability. MikeHobday (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't claiming it was but (perhaps unnecesarilly) reporting work in progress. MikeHobday (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Still doesn't answer why it's reliable for the one time it's being used? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Was used twice, one now replaced. MikeHobday (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What makes http://www.heliosgreyhounds.com/ a reliable source? Looks like a commercial site to me.
-
- Amended to refer to as a claim rather than a fact. Regrettably, hare coursing is not subject to that many scientific articles, and I hope that you feel that relevant claims can be cited as such. MikeHobday (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine. Have you done any looking on JSTOR for articles that might have been published? While there may not be scientific, there might be historical ones. Also look at http://www.nsl.org/, they may have some information online. (It's a GREAT library, although a bit out of the way) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've used several (I have Athens access to many databases of journals, including Science Direct, Jstor and Ingenta. I hadn't been aware of nsl, and its online catalog seems down for now, but I'll try again later. MikeHobday (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I know in some of my research I've run across articles about hunting in the middle ages, as well as some tangential bits about other hunting styles from work on Thoroughbreds. These might be helpful Book, Journal article in pdf with bibliographical entry, JSTOR article, another book, JSTOR article, pdf article, JSTOR article, Another JSTOR article, article about Salukis. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good sources, I've added some info. MikeHobday (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I know in some of my research I've run across articles about hunting in the middle ages, as well as some tangential bits about other hunting styles from work on Thoroughbreds. These might be helpful Book, Journal article in pdf with bibliographical entry, JSTOR article, another book, JSTOR article, pdf article, JSTOR article, Another JSTOR article, article about Salukis. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've used several (I have Athens access to many databases of journals, including Science Direct, Jstor and Ingenta. I hadn't been aware of nsl, and its online catalog seems down for now, but I'll try again later. MikeHobday (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine. Have you done any looking on JSTOR for articles that might have been published? While there may not be scientific, there might be historical ones. Also look at http://www.nsl.org/, they may have some information online. (It's a GREAT library, although a bit out of the way) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Amended to refer to as a claim rather than a fact. Regrettably, hare coursing is not subject to that many scientific articles, and I hope that you feel that relevant claims can be cited as such. MikeHobday (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.animalplace.org/blood.html this site (current ref 28) it seems disjointed, I'm not sure exactly what they are against, it's not made plain on the site. Also, what makes them reliable?
-
- Was used twice, first as referencing its own opinion which seems valid. Second use replaced. MikeHobday (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What makes http://www.scoobymedina.com/ancient_history_en.htm a reliable site?
-
- Both Scooby references replaced. MikeHobday (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Replaced with reputable international organisation. MikeHobday (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What does HMSO stand for?
-
- Her Majesty's Stationery Office, have wikilinked. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
-
- Sorted. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links (except mentions above) checked out okay. I wasn't able to evaluate the foreign language sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, started on these, will continue over the weekend. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg is non-free and has some problems. It seems to be used in a decorative way in the article. The text of the article doesn't discuss this poster at all. The image description say the purpose of this is to demonstrate coursing by muzzled greyhounds - since this type of coursing still takes place today, the image is replaceable in this role per WP:NFCC#1. There is a brief explanation that it would be difficult to replace this image - I'm afraid this isn't normally accepted at Wikipedia as a reason except in exceptional circumstances. After all, the League Against Cruel Sports was able to obtain a photo; we should be able to as well. (Perhaps we can get a photo from them?)
- Image:Hare5.jpg claims a public domain release by the League Against Cruel Sports, but there's no evidence of the release (i.e. an OTRS ticket or a link to a copyleft statement).
- The use is not intended to be decorative, but to do what the caption says. Regrettably, just because an activity takes place, does not mean that its organisers permit photography. In fact, they do not. I would dearly have loved a straight forward photo, but these are just not available. Hence I hope that the use of the leaflet image is considered exceptional here. With regard to Image:Hare5.jpg, the evidence is that, for seven years from 2001 to 2007, I was verifiably a senior manager at the League Against Cruel Sports([14] and hence able to authorise public domain release. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- On the leaflet image, I'm sorry, but the objection stands. I guess the obvious question I would ask would be how the LACS obtained a photo if it was unobtainable. On the second image, are you the copyright holder? Kelly hi! 23:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies for making this point in two places, but I thought I should reply here as well as on the image deletion page you proposed. With regard to Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg, you are regrettably unduly optimistic in suggesting that a free image is available. As I said above, the organisers of hare coursing events do not generally permit photography. The background to this image is this: that the League Against Cruel Sports purchased a commercial image with permission to use it on a leaflet. and then distributed the leaflet. They did not buy general use rights for the image and therefore cannot release the image. The leaflet they produced, however, is in the public domain and is therefore, I believe, exceptionally able to be used here. With regard to Image:Hare5.jpg, could I apologise again for not being clearer above. I was, for seven years, a senior manager at the League Against Cruel Sports (evidence above) and therefore able to release permission on behalf of the organisation. I no longer work for them, and can no longer be considered as the copyright holder. See also the deletion page for that image. MikeHobday (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Permission for Hare5 confirmed [15]. MikeHobday (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am conscious of the overlap of this FA candidacy and the IFD on this image. Given the backlog in processing IFDs, it is likely that User:SandyGeorgia will have to make a decision on the FA promotion before the IFD has been closed. I therefore have a suggestion to make: that the image is removed from the article now, to allow it to proceed to FA, and reinserted if and only if the image passes IFD. What do you think? Would that be acceptable? MikeHobday (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great suggestion to me. Kelly hi! 17:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done accordingly. MikeHobday (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great suggestion to me. Kelly hi! 17:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am conscious of the overlap of this FA candidacy and the IFD on this image. Given the backlog in processing IFDs, it is likely that User:SandyGeorgia will have to make a decision on the FA promotion before the IFD has been closed. I therefore have a suggestion to make: that the image is removed from the article now, to allow it to proceed to FA, and reinserted if and only if the image passes IFD. What do you think? Would that be acceptable? MikeHobday (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Permission for Hare5 confirmed [15]. MikeHobday (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies for making this point in two places, but I thought I should reply here as well as on the image deletion page you proposed. With regard to Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg, you are regrettably unduly optimistic in suggesting that a free image is available. As I said above, the organisers of hare coursing events do not generally permit photography. The background to this image is this: that the League Against Cruel Sports purchased a commercial image with permission to use it on a leaflet. and then distributed the leaflet. They did not buy general use rights for the image and therefore cannot release the image. The leaflet they produced, however, is in the public domain and is therefore, I believe, exceptionally able to be used here. With regard to Image:Hare5.jpg, could I apologise again for not being clearer above. I was, for seven years, a senior manager at the League Against Cruel Sports (evidence above) and therefore able to release permission on behalf of the organisation. I no longer work for them, and can no longer be considered as the copyright holder. See also the deletion page for that image. MikeHobday (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- On the leaflet image, I'm sorry, but the objection stands. I guess the obvious question I would ask would be how the LACS obtained a photo if it was unobtainable. On the second image, are you the copyright holder? Kelly hi! 23:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I'm sure the statement "commoners with lurchers" makes sense in the UK, or parts of it perhaps, but on this side of the pond it is utterly baffling. I kind of understand the concept of a commoner, but I don't understand why they wouldn't have Greyhounds and I have absolutely no idea what a "lurcher" might be. Please fix! Maury (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Have wikilinked lurcher and removed "commoner". I agree that the latter sounds archaic, even in a historical reference. MikeHobday (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Much better, the link helped and I expanded it slightly. Maury (
