Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2008

Contents

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

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)
  • 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:

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)
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)
  • 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

Self-nominator: — Rlevse • Talk •


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

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)
Done with all. Found one from TIME that uses a part of the data, added as a second ref. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 21 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)
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:33, 21 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 reference
    • It 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)

Done. As for the footnotes with numbers, that is intentional. See {{rp}} as to why. Thanks for improvement tips. I have not found a copy of the book in further reading. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen that citation format; thanks for educating me. Karanacs (talk) 03:17, 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)
          • Just started looking at that. Should be done soon. FYI, I only see two left. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
              • I answered the inlines and also made a "Books by Terry Sanford" section. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 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)]

< 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)
I've fixed the ones you listed, Ealdgyth, although I think you're mistaken about ref 93; The Gondoliers is part of the title, not the publisher. Was there something else wrong with it? Let me know if there are additional ones. María (habla conmigo) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Support: 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 like the added information and I can live with the wonky timeline. María (habla conmigo) 12:20, 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...?"
  • I moved Gänzl's quote down to the Production and Aftermath section, but I think that trying to say the same thing in the intro would be a controversial statement that requires citation. Perhaps the Lead is enthusiastic enough without it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • OK, I linked them again below and used their full names again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 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?
  • Hmmm. It's about the initial production and then discusses how the piece became very popular and what happened to G&S afterwards. What would you suggest? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You know, looking at it today, it doesn't bother me as much. If no one else finds issue with it, just disregard. María (habla conmigo) 12:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Analysis and innovations" is a huge section; is there any way to split it? Music innovations, production innovations?
  • LOL! This has gone back and forth a few times. Shoe? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 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."?
  • We agreed "without" the period. Also pp. if more than one are named. Thanks! I'll go thru and fix. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
Ok - could we explain that to the reader of the article? :) Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 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)
I think the sentence is fine, but if you would prefer a footnote, that is fine, too. Awadewit (talk) 13:24, 26 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)

Thanks. I've made the appropriate fixes [8] maclean 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, looking good. Support. giggy (:O) 01:56, 22 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)

I made the fixes [9] There is one "recognize" still in there, but it is part of a quote (I did double-checked the source to make sure the quote is correct). Thanks for reading. --maclean 18:22, 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 voice justice" 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)
  • Comments Support: 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)
Quantity more than quality on my part, I'm sure. :) Nice job, maclean, I'm more than willing to offer my support. María (habla conmigo) 12:23, 24 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

Gary King (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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)

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 links
  • Lead 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)

Comments

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 (