Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2007

Contents

October 2007

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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Peregrine Falcon

This article was the Wikiproject Birds collaboration last month, and now appears to meet FA requirements. Jude. 21:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Please fix reference #29. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Y Done
  • Comments about the map. Why is there different shades of green? And why are the continents broders colored with a darker green? is it because the falcons are concentrated on coasts? And the dark dots are small circles and not visible enough. Could you explain all that? Thank you. CG 08:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Y Done
    • Also the map is unsourced, this must be fixed. -Ravedave 17:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Y Done
  • Comment: Can all subspecies and alternative names become redirects to this page? (Example: first subspecies Falco peregrinus peregrinus) Makes it easier to find the article if you come across one of those names and are looking to find out what it is. 74.13.103.58 14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Y Done
  • Support - much improved. Comment I'm finding a few spelling errors - if I didn't need to go to bed I'd fix the non-inline refs in Barbary Falcon problem..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: Also the citation tags still around. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Y Done
  • Comment (1) I'd much rather see a photo of a wild bird in the taxobox. The current pic is a falconry bird in awful atypical habitat (more suited to a Sparrowhawk!), and its identity (given the huge range of hybrids produced by falconers) can't be guaranteed at all. There's a very good USFWS photo Image:Falco peregrinus nest USFWS.jpg with 5½ meg size, which I'd recommend. (2) The map is awful quality, and should be replaced by a new one, preferably in .png format, and preferably with the ranges of the subspecies indicated (tho' that could be tricky with migratory subspecies, finding enough colours to indicate breeding, migration, and wintering ranges). (3) Barbary Falcon - HBW lumps it; I reckon we ought to think more about merging them. (4) Should the colloquial name "Peregrine" (without the 'Falcon' qualifier) be added at the top in bold? It's a lot more used than that archaic "Duck Hawk" (which I reckon should be demoted to non-bold as a footnote of history). (5) Along with black marketeers and eggers, gamekeepers should be added to the human threats (plenty of refs from e.g. the RSPB website). (6) There's a mix of UK and US spellings on the page (looks to be a preponderance of UK though), which should be standardised (/-ized!); as the species is native in both areas neither has location-related priority, and deciding which to follow goes to first major edit, if anyone can remember or wants to delve back into the page's early history. (7) Reference citations are a bit mixed in style, and need standardising; aim for the same style as in ornithologigal publications (e.g. British Birds): Bloggs, J., & Doe, J. (2000). Title of Paper. Journal 10: 20-30. - MPF 08:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • 1, 4, and 5 are done, and I think I've finished 6 and 7. How or where can I get a new map? Is there a site that makes them, or do I need to find a wikipedia user who makes them?Jude. 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I created a new map. It doesn't show subspecies ranges. There are between 17 or more subspecies; finding enough colors for them would be a problem, finding refs which show their ranges would be a problem, deciding whether to show breeding/migration/whatever range would be an issue, and some subspecies overlap. It's difficult, and I think impractical, to show the subspecies ranges. (Common Raven, which is an FA, does not show the eight subspecies' ranges in its map) --Jude. 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree, unless there are only a few subspecies with well-defined non overlapping ranges it can become a real headache. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to see more references cited for some of the statements in the Barbary falcon section that sound like opinions (whose?). Shyamal 04:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support The large bulleted lists of subspecies are extremely unsightly. There are several instances of single-sentence paragraphs, not exactly the best of prose. The images need serious work per WP:MoS#Images: the lead image is poor (a dark bird on a dark background that is too far away), and the article violates other principles of good image use and placement, such as creating long stacks of images on the same alignment. The external links probably need some paring, and there isn't a Wikispecies link. Most of all, the article only meets the bare minimum of citations; the end of each paragraph and quotes. To be part of the best of Wikipedia, much more comprehensive inline citations are needed. Compare to such FA-class articles as Guinea pig. As this is not a peer review, I'm not going to make a whole laundry list for you to complete right now. VanTucky Talk 21:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I've put all the subspecies into paragraph form, with the subspecies grouped roughly geographically. If they should be alphabetical, just let me know. I changed the taxobox image and right-aligned all the images. The external links have been cut down and divided into two subsections, the wikispecies link has been added. The citations have also been expanded. Cheers, Jude. 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, now that's FA-class work. Good job! VanTucky Talk 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes

  • If there's anything that makes The Peregrine Falcon stand out or distinctive from the rest of the birds, could you just put that in the lead? Thanks. Some readers just look for and like to know what makes it special or its importance if anything rather then the extensive details. Learnedo 09:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Take this FAC bird for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superb_Fairy-wren

You see how the reader can gain an understanding and feel for characteristics of the bird - "Sedentary and territorial..." "Like other fairy-wrens, the Superb Fairy-wren is notable for several peculiar behavioural characteristics; birds are socially monogamous and sexually promiscuous..." Learnedo 09:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Map

I'm working on the map to distinguish summer breeding, resident breeding, passage, and winter - might be a few days till I'm done - MPF 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've also made a subspecies distribution map (breeding ranges only). This is compiled from the textual range descriptions in HBW, some of which are a bit poorly defined - can someone check it against other published subspecies maps and say here if there's any incorrect boundaries to amend before I add it to the Peregrine article. Thanks, MPF 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Oregon State Capitol

  • 2nd nomination. I think all previous items were addressed, an since failed nomination the article has been reviewed by a member of the League of Copyeditors and sailed through GA review without any comments/changes. Artilce has the breadth and depth of a FA class article and meets the MOS, as well as all other aspects of the FA criteria. Aboutmovies 18:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Ref 13 is faulty
      • Y Done Fixed. Aboutmovies 02:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings shouldn't begin with "the", and "Capitol grounds" should be changed to "Grounds".
      • Y Done Fixed. Big Smooth 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • An images caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
      • Y Done Fixed. Big Smooth 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "The initial vote set up a runoff between Eugene and Corvallis, but after some ballots were invalidated" - is there any info on why the ballots were invalidated?
      • Y Done Fixed. Aboutmovies 02:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The article states, "Oregon's first capitol building was in Oregon City", whereas, later it says, "The land that the first and subsequent capitol buildings were built on was Salem block 84"
      • Y Done Fixed. Big Smooth 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "the magnitude 5.6 Scotts Mills earthquake damaged the dome, requiring closure for repairs." - about how long was the building closed?
      • Y Done Fixed. Aboutmovies 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Near the rotunda are eight painted medallions representing the eight portions of the Oregon State Seal" - Are these painted on the walls, and which room are these in?
      • Y Done Fixed. Aboutmovies 03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Also surrounding the rotunda are four murals depicting moments from Oregon history." - are these on the inside of the rotunda?
      • Y Done Fixed. Big Smooth 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Other murals include the Provisional Government of Oregon’s salmon and wheat seal, the Oregon Territory’s seal, and depictions of Oregon’s industries." - are these in the rotunda?
      • Y Done Fixed. Aboutmovies 00:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Are there any stats on the size of the grounds?
      • Y Done Fixed. Aboutmovies 03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Ref 1 is missing the publisher.
      • Y Done Fixed. Aboutmovies 02:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There is some problem with refs 30-34 causing the ref and cite numbers to not match up.
      • Y Done I closed an HTML comment, which seems to have fixed this. Pagrashtak 21:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Epbr123 21:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, all concerns from both FACs have been addressed, and between the first and second FAC, article was extensively copyedited by a member of the the League of Copyeditors, who otherwise had no input into the article. (note: I am a significant contributor to this article) Katr67 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Good feedback has been generated from GA and previous FA nominations, and numerous editors (myself included) have participated in improving the article. This article truly reflects the power of collaborative authorship. One of the finer articles I've encountered. -Pete 22:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe the article meets all FA criteria and should be recognized as such. -Big Smooth 00:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Oregon Supreme Court shouldn't be included in the see also section as it is already linked in the article. Epbr123 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Y Done Fixed. Aboutmovies 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks really good for the most part, but a couple minor things...
  • Does state really need to be capitalized? Per WP:MoS, only pronouns basically need them, and while Oregon most definitely is one and capitol can be, I think state is a regular noun in this usage.
  • I've been kinda wondering about this. Is "Oregon State Capitol" a proper name? If not, what about these other possible article titles: "Capitol of Oregon", "Oregon Capitol", "Oregon's Capitol" -- ? -Pete 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is just nit-picking, but should the footnotes be two columns? With 30+ notes, it takes a little too much scrolling. If this means the statue image needs shifting, I'd be happy to try it myself. VanTucky Talk 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - As to the name, it matches what the state calls it, and that seems to be the consensus for stat caps as well so I think it should stay as titled. As to two columns, go for it. Aboutmovies 06:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Good enough for me, re: title. I have no strong preference on the columns. -Pete 07:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Florida Atlantic University

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. I have put a ton of work into it, and it has also been through an exhaustive peer review here. I was able to get a number of of experienced editors to look at the article and I believe I have addressed all of their concerns.

Thanks, KnightLago 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Self-nomination KnightLago 19:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The peer review (to which I was a contributor) tidied up the edges of what was already a very strong article. I've just re-read through it, and can't find anything to criticize. Excellent work! Dylan 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Comment: Nice piece and, for once, a genuinely enticing introduction! I enjoyed the enthusiasm and the local-school-makes-good sub-text though it isn't overtly POV. You weave in many statistics without clunkiness and the occasional colloquialisms adds unobtrusive color. Anyhow, now the flak :)
  1. Trivial typos and inconsistencies: controvery > controversy; was comprised of > was composed of? or comprised?; "the The Scripps" > "the Scripps"; "The HBOI" > "the HBOI"; Army > army (generic use) and Air Force > air force (ditto). Y Done
  2. Punctuation of abbreviations is inconsistent, tho "no points" dominates. I suggest either U.S. > US and S.E. > SE per Wp:mos#Acronyms and abbreviations or points everywhere throughout :) Y Done I left it S.E. because the official name of the library is S.E.
  3. Drifts a bit? By the end of 1945, about 100 planes were stationed at the airbase.[16][17] The conclusion of World War II marked a significant point in the history of the land that would later become Florida Atlantic University. Boca Raton Army Airfield saw a steady decline in use. Perhaps By late 1945 about 100 planes were stationed at the airbase though the end of World War II marked a significant decline in use or similar? Y Done I moved the sentence down a bit to make it flow better. What do you think? KnightLago 17:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Good solution - RD.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, although I admit to bias, having just done the copy-edit :). Also admit to being not familiar with criteria like "wikification". But I do believe the article meets the listed writing criteria, gives an interesting history, covers past and current issues, and would describe the topic well to any uninformed reader. I myself had heard the name, but knew zero about FAU before editing. Very educational to copy-edit! Unimaginative Username 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Just read through again (as requested), after the changes for consistency of referring to the school were made, as Karanacs suggested. (I also caught another couple of minor nits). I agree with Karanacs' suggestion. It reads very smoothly now that those changes were made. Fine article. Unimaginative Username 01:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well-written and informative. Karanacs 13:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

*Comment So far I have not done a full read-through of the article (that is coming), but here are some things that should be fixed: **Be consistent in how you refer to the university, either as FAU or as Florida Atlantic. I am not sure if this is an issue. See Ohio Wesleyan University (featured) which uses abbreviations and the name of the school throughout. Ohio Wesleyan's usage was a special circumstance according to the FAC nom, so I will change to Florida Atlantic. Y Done KnightLago 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Check all your citations for publishers (see 15) Y Done
    • Citations should be consistent in how newspapers are done. It looks like some of them have the newspaper name in italics (preferred) and others do not; choose one template method and stick to it. Y Done
    • I would trim the external links, and have only the official website for the school Y Done I left the main website, the main athletics website and the newspaper.
    • Don't need wikilinks to 1940s, triangle, senior citizens, or other simple terms Y Done any others?
    • "Owl's football team" should not have an apostrophe in it Y Done

Karanacs 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few more from me

    • The History section bothers me a bit. In the Beginnings section I expected to read about the foundation of the school, but that doesn't happen until the Expansion and Growth section. I think I would rename the first section Establishment, and have it start
"On July 15, 1961, to meet the burgeoning educational demands of South Florida, the state legislature passed an act authorizing the establishment of a new university in the City of Boca Raton"...Should City really be capitalized?...Then go into the existing Beginnings section. Lastly, grab the first two sentences out of the next section and add them into this one. Y Done
    • Furthermore, on the Beginning section, do we need to know about the amount of money spent updating the airfield in WWII? I would remove that sentence and the one directly after it, as the second is an unneeded transitionary sentence. Air Force should be capitalized. Y Done
    • I'm confused over what you mean by "upper division" students. Are they graduate students only or juniors/seniors? Y Done Both, the sentence reads "university in the nation to offer only upper-division and graduate level courses."
    • I would reword the sentence about the presidents to something like "...the university has been led by five presidents. The fifth, Frank T. Brogan, assumed office in 2003 after resigning his position as the Florida Lt Gov." (and president in the following sentence does not need to be capitalized) Y Done
    • Article needs non-breaking spaces between numbers and their qualifiers (Ex: 22181 undergraduates) Instead of a space, use & nbsp; or {{nowrap}} Y Done
    • I don't understand this sentence: "It offers a liberal arts education in the platform of a public institution." Y Done I looked at the source. By public institution they mean public university. I tried to make it more clear.
I will, thanks. KnightLago 13:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Need a citation for the 364,000 square foot research facility Y Done
    • Need a citation for why the owls find the campus appealing Y Done
    • Need to fix number formatting in first paragraph of Residential Life section. Do you mean the "within a 50-mile [(80 km)] commutable?" The brackets are because the 80kn part is not from the quote. If that is the problem then Y Done

Karanacs 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment -
  • 1.) In the Rankings section, the last two sentences tell the reader virtually nothing. What does "fourth tier" mean? How many schools in the US are first through third tier? And how many other schools were named as one of the "Best Southeastern Colleges"? 10? 100? 1000? We need these numbers for those sentences to have actual context. Y Done
  • 2.) Full sentences in captions should have periods. Fragments should not. Y Done
  • N Not done These are complete sentences: "Here is the Glades Road entrance sign, Boca Raton Campus." "The Glades Road entrance sign, Boca Raton Campus, looks pretty." This is a fragment: "The Glades Road entrance sign, Boca Raton Campus." A sentence must contain a noun and a verb. Many fragments in the captions still have periods. I guess I could just personally delete them (would take like 2 seconds), but I just wanted to let you know the rule for captions.
  • Y Done Ok, I fixed them for you. :)
  • 3.) The first sentence in the lead is somewhat contradicted by the second sentence. The first sentence states that FAU is in Boca Raton. The second sentence states that there are six other campuses in other cities. A clarification is necessary (e.g. "...university with its main campus in Boca Raton" or something like that.) Y Done
  • 4.) "Florida Atlantic's seven campuses serve a" - repetitive; you just named the seven campuses. We don't need to be told the number again. Every word in the article should be valuable - it's a tough task to say the most important thing about a university is such a short article. Delete unnecessary words -> "Florida Atlantic serves a" Y Done
  • 5.) History - "1940s&ndashera" - fix please Y Done

I honestly haven't read the vast majority of the article, so I cannot support it, but it looks fine on a cursory glance. -Bluedog423Talk 01:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Battle of Barrosa

(Self nom): This article was an inaccurate stub when I got hold of it. It quickly evolved to B-class, and then a very constructive MilHist peer review (here, thanks to Cla68 and Jackyd101) allowed me to take it to MilHist A-class review (here), which passed. Since then, there have been various minor tweaks, and the article has been through LoCE (thanks to EyeSerene). I can't see anything more to be done to the article, so I'm proposing it here, for FA status. Thank you for your attention, and I shall endeavour to address any issues raised as soon as I am able. Carre 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Still needs a copyedit and readthrough by an editor who hasn't seen it before. I am sure that the nominator does not find The first column engaged broke after a single British volley. disconcerting, but the poor reader must switch from The first column engaged the enemy to seeing engaged as an adjective. This is grammatical, but clumsy; the LoCE should have caught it. This is the first thing that caught my eye; are there more? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I know what you mean here - it could perhaps be The first column to be engaged broke? Although the to be may be considered redundant.
      • I think I would put The first French column Wheatley engaged broke.... This is one of Fowler's pet peeves; the beginning of the sentence looks like it's going to have one structure and then it switches to another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, I think I know what Although initially garrisoned by a mere 4 battalions of volunteers and recruits, the actions of the Duke of Albuquerque in ignoring the Spanish Junta's orders to attack Victor's vastly superior force allowed him to reinforce the city with his 10,000 men means, and that him is the Duke; but I'm not sure, and the reader ought to be. "Use the right word, not its second cousin."
I assume the city, not the actions, was garrisoned; try The city's garrison was only...; but the Duke of Albuquerque ignored his orders from the Junta and, instead of attacking..., if that is what you mean. If I find more samples, I'll put them on the talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Your suggestion is better. More suggestions on talk page much appreciated, and I'll stick another request at LoCE in the FAC section and hope it gets attention. Carre 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I have no problems with either of your suggestions, so they're done. Did you give up after spotting those two, take a break from the reading, or just didn't find anything else? (I'd be surprised if the latter!) Thanks for the assistance. Carre 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I stopped after two, since they seemed evidence that a copyedit was still needed. Would you rather I looked again, or would you rather wait until a copyeditor has been through? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been through LoCE again (in proofread mode), but I'm not convinced it's an improvement. Carre 15:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Nor am I; Albuquerque seems to have lost an e, and there are unanswered questions:
    • How large an area did the Junta control? Just Cadiz? Granada? All of free Spain?
    • Who "allowed" it to resign?
    • What's "dead ground"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This reads, in general, as though you have been trying to stick too closely to a single source, and your source has crept into your writing. I don't think you would answer a Talk page question "So what happened at Barossa?" with this, but your reply there would be better writing. For example:

  • Use politic, take it out, or explain that the Spanish were annoyed at Graham; but don't link it; that's as bad as putting slang in quotes.
  • whilst?!?

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, now I'm confused:
  • Alburquerque (in the article) hasn't lost an 'e'... nor has it gained an 'r': the spelling you may be more familiar with, the place in New Mexico, took its name from the town in Spain, but was misspelt. I could wikilink it, to clarify (Alburquerque, Badajoz)?
  • The article says that Cádiz was the seat of Spanish government, and further goes on to say the "ruling Spanish Junta".
[Edit again] - I found an alternative wikilink for Junta (Cádiz Cortes), which explains the role better than the previous one (2nd paragraph). Is that better? Carre 13:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Who was allowed to resign? Exactly as the article says - The ruling Spanish Junta, under pressure from widespread protests and mob violence, was allowed to resign - What's not clear?[edit] - misread the question, sorry. Carre 12:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "dead ground" is a fairly standard military/MilHist term, but I suppose I could find something to replace it, although the cost would be wordiness.
  • politic was wiktionary linked following a comment by the last copyeditor, claiming the sentence didn't make sense. Since it clearly does, the wikt link was put in so a non-English speaker, unfamiliar with the term, could look it up. Much the same as any other wikilink.
  • whilst, indeed.
Carre 12:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Summary - just an attempt to summarise PMAnderson's comments above, and my actions in addressing them. Mainly for the sake of what remains of my own sanity. I don't mean to put any words into that reviewer's mouth, so if I misrepresent his concerns I apologise and hope he corrects any mistakes in the list.
  • First two comments (First column engaged, and initially garrisoned) - changed article to use PMAnderson's suggestions.
  • Alburquerque - as explained above, the article is correct, but wikilink added for clarification.
  • How large an area did the Junta control - better wikilink provided.
  • Who allowed the Junta to resign - "allowed to" removed; now reads only that the Junta resigned.
    • Calling the Cadiz Cortes a Junta is questionable, but I suppose it is Oman's usage. They were a National Convention, not a local committee; nor were they warlords.
  • Personally, I'd rather call it the Cortes, not the Junta, but it's not just Oman who uses the phrase (although, admittedly, most of the more modern single volume histories borrow hugely from Oman). Incidentally, for corroboration on the term Junta, you can see this, which one of our Spanish colleagues offered as a cite when he changed the number of the Regency from three to five (both being correct, as explained in the current citation). You may not have Spanish, but you should be able to get the gist (I don't know the language, and I understood it).
    • I think your inclination may be right: English Junta has a strong implication of a usurping group of generals in jackboots; I gather the Spanish word does not, but is as neutral as committee. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Correct - I think the current English interpretation stems from the military Juntas of South America during the 70s and 80s, especially around 1982! I trust we can leave Junta as is then, or perhaps change the term to Junta Suprema Central, with same wikilink. I think just Junta is better though. Another dead objection, I hope. Carre 21:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[←]Actually, a day later and re-reading your last, I think I may have misinterpreted. By "your inclination", did you mean my preference to call it Cortes rather than Junta? Junta being more accurate, but carrying the negative, military jackboot connotations. Carre 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • "dead ground" - nothing done. If this is a blocking issue, I'll just remove the phrase on request, since I think explaining the term in the article would be detrimental.
    • I would suggest the use of some such phrase as "along sloping ground not visible to the French". There is no reason to use jargon when it is avoidable.
  • That version doesn't fit with the sentence - how about more cover and ground not visible... etc (just removing your "along", which is the bit that doesn't fit).
  • "Sticking to a single source" - no comment, other than look at the reference and bibliography sections before throwing accusations like that around.
    • Each sentence does have a single source, and all I said was it reads like it; this article has the mannerisms of an official history, and could do with fewer of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • wictionary link on "politic" - explanation for the wikt link addition given above (wasn't there in original nominated version).
    • I see the problem, and will wait for a third reviewer. But I would either rephrase, or if I believed it to be clear to most readers, boldly keep it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "whilst" - not changed, and I have no plans to change it. If anyone really objects, they can go change it themselves.
    • Changed. This is 2007, not 1911. Btw, the same sentence asserted Victor's knowledge of the tactical problem involved. Do we have his orders, or his memoirs? Vague and unfounded assertions of this sort are endemic in military histories of a century ago; we should avoid such bloviation.
  • This was a single instance of whilst you were complaining about? There are more than one in the article! ;) I noticed your edit adding {{cn}} with edit summary "is this really Sir Charles" - Oman says "The move could only mean the garrison of Cadiz intended to come out. Accordingly, Victor resolved to stop its egress;" - so it's my paraphrase and editorialising, and I do still use whilst when writing :P You've since clarified anyway, and I have no problem with the more recent change.
Ahh, sod it - I bit the bullet and replaced all the remaining whilsts with while. Carre 20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: whilst is still in common use in BE; it's considered to be a more formally correct usage than while (better for an encyclopedia article?), although the two are synoymous. I'm not suggesting you change it back... just resenting the dumbing down of the English language ;) EyeSereneTALK 12:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In fairness, Eye, whilst is listed under Tony1's useful guide under "Misplaced formality". Fowler notes that it is less common than while and, when discussing among/amongst, even suggests that while has largely driven it out. I know you and I still use it, but it's not worth arguing about :). Annoyingly, I've had Fowler's work sitting on my bookshelf for the last 15 years without realising it, since it's disguised as volume III of the Oxford Library of English Usage, and I never considered consulting it. Serenity is the key! Carre 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely serious. I've read the Times and Guardian style guides ;) It's an interesting one though - a quick straw poll amongst my colleagues has us split at around 50/50 in usage (with the more literary ones preferring whilst). Amidst all the office controversy I've just started, I'd better get back to work ;) EyeSereneTALK 14:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the strike outs and clarifications. Carre 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If PMAnderson could strike through those specific comments he feels have been addressed to his satisfaction, then I can keep track of where I am. Similarly, if I've missed anything or misrepresented, please fix. Carre 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify that I am trying to polish the prose because I have no problem with the substance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That's no problem - help with the prose is appreciated. Additionally, all instances of whilst have now gone. The external link above (details Junta handing power to regency) verifies use of Junta. Dead ground now gone. A note on single cite per sentence: typically, I read the relevant part of all the sources before writing a paragraph, and paraphrased them all. Then I chose citations that best supported my paraphrasing - I did this rather than list all sources since I hate seeing multiple cites, one after another, especially mid-paragraph. Are we in a position to start a new list now? (Except for the politic one, which I'm not fussed about either way) Carre 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree firmly on multiple footnotes. You might want, on a new article, to use a single footnote per sentence of the form "Source A p. m. Source B, p. n. Source C, p. q, note 1." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I find no compliants with the article, everything looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Wandalstouring 09:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Cla68 08:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, well written and referenced --Jackyd101 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Superb Fairy-wren

I am nominating Superb Fairy-wren at FAC..another critter that is territorial and lives in a pride like a lion...but seriously. I feel this article is nice and cohesive and comprehensive and throughly referenced. I feel the prose came together OK, and another expert copyeditor has given it the once over. Let me know of any problems and I'll try to fix pronto. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: All images were taken and uploaded to Commons by their respective authors. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Kennedygr 09:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ya know nominating more than one article for FAC is discouraged Cas? JSYK. :) Article looks good though! Will comment on it later - no time right now. Spawn Man 00:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I know, but they are both shortish and got a through grilling beforehand and the other looks ok...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • SupportConditional Support I gave the article a light copyedit- I've always been told not to have more than one semicolon in a sentance. Feel free to revert this if you disagree. Also, in the first paragraph of behaviour, "Plentiful insects are available which allows the birds to rest in between forays" sounds a bit awkward to me: could you reword this? Also, there is no section on either Conservation or Relationship with Humans. I can see why there is not anything for Conservation (though BirdLife International probably has enough for a short section, similar to King Vulture's), but is there nothing out there about it and humans? Still, this article is in my opinion definately featureable and I'll be more than happy to change to support after my questions are adressed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 20:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In answer - the concept is more insects --> easy catching ---> can rest (summer), while winter --> less insects --> must forage continuously. Having a little trouble wording it to avoid ambiguity and repetition simultaneously. If you feel the current is still awkward feel free to tweak.
That sounds better to me. Thanks. R-cS
I hadn't realised there were multiple semicolons in any sentence. I'm happy you reverted. Did you get all of them?
I think so. R-cS
Re Fairy-wrens and humans, I guess like many small birds, the only real human stuff is that they have adapted well to human invasion as long as they have plenty of shelter (I mentioned this in habitat as would be tricky to stick in right at the end and is more ecological than cultural anyway). As they are insectivorous no-one feeds 'em much that I know of and I am unaware of any usage. No book I know records anything and I'll google it post haste. There are two - one as the emblem of BOCA, the other is as a badge for scouts in this country. Now question is, waht to do with them? A 2-3 sentence stubby section or at the bottom of taxonomy? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I honestly don't see how it fits in with Taxonomy. My advice would be to make a section at the bottom that would involve both your two things and a quick conservation bit from BirdLife. Obviously, expound on why they chose this bird as the emblam if you can find that out. Thanks for your quick response to my comments. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
True - taxonomy was a long stretch. I've been musing while AFK and think I can whip up something soon.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Gah! I can go with Wrens and humans and have the cultural stuff with a least concern bit but it seems a bit artificial really. I now can't find the scout ref and each combination I type into google turns up nix (?!). Instead I got two stamp issues, though one was a mistake. I'll see what else comes up as it still looks a little stubby cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think it looks good now. I always preferred to have a stubish section over leaving out the information. Thanks, Casliber. Oh, and I'll write up a conservation paragraph at some point and put it on the talk page in case you want to use it. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 16:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • SupportComment: Under subspecies, should "... are intermediate between King Island and Tasmanian forms." read are "of intermediate colour"? Just because I wondered, initially reading it, whether it referred to color or to some kind of evolutionary order or relation. I changed "deeper blue colour still; while birds of Flinders Island" to "deeper blue colour still; birds of Flinders Island"; it could also read "deeper blue colour still while birds of Flinders Island" (semicolon to a comma) if you prefer it that way. The article uses a generous amount of semicolons! (I approve; I love semicolons) However, I believe that the semicolon in "Vocal communication has two main roles; " (under Description) should be a colon. Under "Behavior", the sentence "The head, neck and tail are lowered, wings held out and feathers fluffed out; the bird running rapidly and voicing a continuous alarm call" seems awkward to me. Perhaps "The head, neck and tail are lowered, wings held out and feathers fluffed as the bird runs rapidly and voices a continuous alarm call"? --Jude. 23:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In answer, yes it is colour that it is intermediate. All your suggestions sound good. It's daytime/weekend here and my time may be limited if you don't see my changes to all of the above feel free to hoe in. All good. all done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything has been fixed, and I have no further suggestions for changes, so I've added my vote to support the article! Cheers, Jude. 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Maybe I missed it, but is there something in there about conservation status, is is endangered or threatened, etc? Sumoeagle179 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That's the thing - it has adapted well to human change and is common even in urban Sydney. It is under distribution but what I will do is change cultural depictions to X with humans and put something there when I get a chance today. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes

Ok, I've added a couple of select links - we now have one to a call, and another on birdscaping the garden. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Populous: The Beginning

previous FAC

(self) I addressed the concerns from last time, but the reviewers didn't show up... so I'm renom'ing. David Fuchs (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose

I own this game and I stubled over this piece of text:

"The game has no formal resource management; new units are created at houses, and training new warriors costs no type of resource. Only wood from trees is required to build new structures."

Training warriors costs mana as far as I know and mana is created by followers residing in houses. I would like to have this double checked. Regards, Daimanta 00:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. The number of followers in general funnels into the amount of mana your shaman has, but at any time you can create any type of fighter. I've double-checked the manual, and I see nothing to the contrary. David Fuchs (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I looked it in further and I have found some (weak evidence)

"This building takes any follower type (except Warrior) and makes them a Warrior. This process uses mana, and proceeds fastest whent[sic] the spell charge bar is full."

Source: http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/198322/23903

I believe I have read that training units costs mana in the game itself(probably level one), so you might want to take a look into either the tutorial or the first levels of Pop:TB. Regards, Daimanta 18:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the sentence slightly. David Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Support: Very well, the rest of the article is fine with me. You have my support. Regards, Daimanta 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Concise, informative, well-referenced, NPOV - great article (and milestone game). Can't believe this is the same article I created amateurishly over three years ago - User:David Fuchs has done an excellent job. -Kez 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support well written and well sourced. Good job! Miremare 21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd like to see "PC" linked in the infobox (as "PS" is), but that's all. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Lee Smith (baseball)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the featured article criteria. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • What is "kmph"?
    • Kilometres per hour. I was not sure if that needed to be added as per the Manual of Style's guideline regarding US and metric designations. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "casted" not a word
  • "closing duties were shared by Smith, Willie Hernández and Bill Campbell" "Smith, Willie Hernández and Bill Campbell shared closing duties" is better.
  • A lot of stuff about the 1984 season that has nothing to do with Smith
    • Removed a good bit of detail. See [1]. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "to the New York Mets in shocking fashion" POV
  • Ref #10 link 3 times in the same paragraph
    • I usually don't follow the convention of placing my references at the end of a paragraph. Is there any particular problem with placing the same ref 3 times in a single paragraph? Nishkid64 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I removed the middle reference. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Smith saved 234 games by the end of 1989, Reardon had 266" I think a word would be better than a comma here.
  • "Lee Smith's single season National League record for saves was threatened after only a year – by Smith himself." "Smith threatened his own single season National League record for saves after only a year." is better and is threatened really the best word to use?
  • "record which" needs a comma
    • Done. See the diff above. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "he was tied by John Wetteland in June 1996 and Chad Cordero" "John Wetteland and Chad Cordero tied him in June 1996" is better
    • Sentence reads: "...until he was tied by John Wetteland in June 1996 and Chad Cordero in June 2005." I have reworded it to "...until John Wettleland and Chad Cordero tied him in June 1996 and June 2005, respectively." Nishkid64 (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "he started 1995 even better." POV
  • Is career-worsts a word?
    • It's often used in sports writing. "Career-low" would not make sense because a higher ERA is worse. It would have to be career-high, but that would not make any sense. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "much speculation" "a lot of speculation" is better
  • ", if the candidate less than 5%, that would end eligibility" "the candidate receiving less than 5% would end eligibility" is better
    • Reworded to "However, if the candidate receives less than 5%, he would no longer be eligible for future Hall of Fame balloting consideration." [4] Nishkid64 (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "put Boston in an 0-2 series deficit" this sounds odd, I don't think they were put anywhere "ment they had" or "were down 0-2" would be better.
    • Reworded to "Boston had a 0-2 series deficit going to Oakland." Nishkid64 (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Buc 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Why do we only have his career totals for stats and not year by year numbers? Buc 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • People can just go to one of the many baseball statistics sites linked on the page. Personally, I don't support the inclusion of seasonly statistics to baseball player pages (I used to, but that was more than a year ago) because people tend to go overboard with the coloring and it impedes on the readability of the article. I think our career statistics section is fine, though. It's simple, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support well written, and has a lot of reliable references. It could use one or two more images though. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Was quite the struggle to find the one image!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, lol I see. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, we waited over a year to obtain an image of Smith! Finally, Wknight94 found one on Flickr. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, was a great article to read, and I see no problems with it. About time another baseball article gets to FA status :) Wizardman 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support
    • "In 1995, Smith registered a save in every appearance from April 28 through all of May and into June" s/b In 1995, Smith registered a save in every appearance from April 28 until June XX".
      • Two sentences later, I said the streak ended on June 28. In the previous sentence, I said Lee Smith said a record for most consecutive saves. It would seem repetitive if I mentioned April 28 to June 28, since I mention it later on. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
        • This means that his stread went from April 28 to some date before June 28 when he made his last successful save. This is the date I want.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Date added, but I still don't think it's really necessary (since it's explained a few sentences later). Nishkid64 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
            • You are missing my point lets suppose his last successful save was June 24th. Then, it should say Smith registered a save in every appearance from April 28 to June 24. Then it should later explain that he blew the save on the 28th as it does. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is a better way to explain that. In fact, there would then be a game recap saying on the 24th he saved his 19th consecutive save.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Ah okay, I fixed it now. Thanks, Tony. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
                • I was just guessing on the date. The date you added does not match the gamelog in the reference. Why don't you get the actual game and a box score and a recap for a ref?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • Fixed the date. Is that all? Nishkid64 (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
                    • What do you think about getting a game recap or box score of the 19th save?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
                      • I couldn't find a game recap, but the box score is at Baseball-Reference. It would just say he saved his 19th game. There's no mention that it was his 19th consecutive save. What about this? This shows that in 19 games, he had 19 saves. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you get game box scores for June 11 and June 28 1995--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I have added the gamelog for June 28, 1995, but not for June 11. Adding the gamelog would confirm that he made a save on that date, but it does not prove that he had 16 consecutive saves. However, the CNN link does indicate that. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
        • BTW, the BOX+PBP links at the left of this link will give box scores for every game Smith pitched in 1995. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Secret sup 22:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

King Vulture

Self-nomination Another bird and vulture article (to go with California Condor). I've done quite a bit of work on this article as part of the potential New World Vulture featured topic and believe that it matches the featured article criteria. It is very comprehensive and well-cited. It flows well and has some pretty good images to go with it. If there are any problems, I'll fix them as soon as I can. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support as a late-in-the-piece tweaker and copyeditor I feel this one is just over the line - the prose runs smoothly. The only things are that a distribution map would be great, and the cultural section at the bottom is a little stubby and would be great if this could be embellished. Also, we have a few samey images - I guess this is due to what there is to work with and I'm not sure we need them all. Some other notes in image captions would be good (location etc). Might not be able to do much about the last point though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
'Card has agreed to do a distribution map, but he has to make a new map to show all of the Americas. If someone else wants to try their hand, feel free to do so. I put everything that I could find in the culutral section- I'll reread my notes on the Maya and see if I missed something. I fiddled with the images, gave them better captions, and put in a new one showing the bird's habitat. If you want to delete one of the two heads just above the picture of the cloud forest, go ahead- I personally think it looks fine though. Thanks for supplying such a quick comment. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Jude just put in a new range map that looks absolutely outstanding. THANKS, Jude! Rufous-crowned Sparrow 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment references 3,17, and 28 don't look right. KnightLago 21:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Jude fixed them. Thanks, Jude! Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree that it matches the FA criteria (assuming the range map is in the works right now); in particular, it's very well-referenced. Cheers, Jude. 00:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support As per above. Aflumpire 05:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I've been through fixing some inconsistencies ("grey", drift between singular and plural, and caps. Should the relation with humans be written as singular too? Is there any discrepancy between It is relatively unaggressive at a kill and will normally back down rather than fight. and Once it has found a carcass, the King Vulture displaces the other vultures because of its large size and strong bill. ? Jimfbleak 06:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. It reads very well and is well-referenced. Great pictures, too. Coemgenus 14:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • "most strikingly colored bird " is probably subjective and doesnt fit in the opening sentence. I perfer a simple statement about what the bird is and maybe where it is found.Y Done unless you want to build up starting sentence
    • How soon until chick fly, how soon until they fend for themselves? will look for this, but I don't recall ever seeing it
    • Other than that pretty dang good. Which vulture is next? :) -Ravedave 02:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've got the Andean Condor next on my slate, followed by the American Black Vulture. Not sure where I put all my condor notes though...Rufous-crowned Sparrow 03:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

House of Gediminas

I hereby nominate this article for featured article. Article was written by user:Renata3 and with kind copy editing help from user:Novickas, article is ready for this procedure. Article is already reached GA status and all FAC criteria are met, in my view. Article deals with important issue of Lithuanian history, namely one of the most famous Lithuanian ruler's royal house, who's heirs once ruled Center and Eastern European states. In article, mostly used published works, including and English encyclopedias and academic publications; extensively referenced and comprehensive. Illustrated with maps and graphical representation. Please express your opinion as well. M.K. 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Support as nominator and reader. M.K. 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm leaning towards support, because this is essentially a genealogical article and as such provides a mine of carefully pieced-together information about who was who in this family. This is very valuable.

  • ...but after Jogaila signed the controversial Treaty of Dovydiškės with the Teutonic Knights, Kęstutis seized Vilnius and became the Grand Duke in late 1381. A few months later he was imprisoned in Kreva and died there. Does this not rather simplify and shorten the matter? Jogaila was not able to strike back as quickly as implied here, I suspect. Checking the source given was disappointing, as I don't feel that Rowell, p. 69, backs up the text as it should.
    • Brittanica [5] has a summary of the events, which took place in 1381 and 1382. Will put this in tomorrow. Novickas 01:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, Kęstutis seized Vilnius in late 1381 (don't have a month), Jogaila seized power back in June of 1382, and Kęstutis died on August 15. Everything happened in less than a year. I added a source (just it won't help you much - it's in Lithuanian). I put in more precise date, but I don't feel like elaborating is a good idea: it's not the focus of the article. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your cutting "a few months later" helpfully removes the impression of this being a brief conflict. By "shorten the matter", I did not wish to imply that I thought more detail was needed; merely that the events appeared telescoped. The treaty was supposedly signed in 1360, so one imagines the confrontation did not begin with Kęstutis's seizure of Vilnius. One has to be most cautious of the sources here, I feel: our reading is coloured by Vytautas's own report to the Teutonic Knights much later. We assume that this treaty, for which Vytautas (through Wigand) is our source, was the problem. But Vytautas may have been trying to justify his father's usurpation.qp10qp 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
1360? You mean 1380? Nutshell: Jogaila came in power in 1377, signed the treaty in 1380, was deposed in 1381, seized the title back in 1382, fought against Vytautas in 1383, and reconciled with Vytautas in 1384. A copy of the treaty survives (see img). Renata 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I meant 1380. (First rule of prognosticating about others' articles is that one always makes stupid mistakes!) qp10qp 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • striking a personal union. This doesn't seem idiomatic to me; it has echoes of "striking a bargain", which is certainly what Jogaila did. But it might be better to state what happened more clearly.
    • I did not want to focus on grandchildren. The main focus of the article is Gediminas, his origins, siblings, and kids. Grandkids are mentioned very very briefly. So I don't feel like elaborating on Jogaila-Vytautas conflict is a good idea. There are better places for this. It's enough to point the reader where. To that extend I added another sentence This Polish-Lithuanian union, in different forms, survived until the third partition of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"Striking" was my main query, and now the that is gone, the matter is clearer, I believe.qp10qp 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "ca." Outside of brackets, this might be better as "about".
    • Changed. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine.qp10qp 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • After 1345 he became the Grand Duke of Lithuania and co-ruled with his brother Kęstutis. This could need a note of explanation, as it might sound contradictory to those unfamiliar with the arrangement. It might also be worth saying a word about the theory alluded to that a tradition of co-ruling may have long existed; as it is stands, that is left hanging. I believe Rowell dismisses this theory.
    • Yes, Rowell dismisses the theory. There is this sentence Their successful collaboration is celebrated in Lithuanian historiography, and gave rise to a theory that the tradition of co-ruling in Lithuania arose as early as 1285. in Kęstutis' paragraph. Any ideas how to phrase the co-ruler blurb in Algirdas' praragraph? The theory is rather complex and I am afraid it might confuse more than explain. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
<