Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2013: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
added two
Add 2
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tylopilus felleus/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Ellison/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Artur Phleps/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Artur Phleps/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Three-dollar piece/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Three-dollar piece/archive1}}

Revision as of 09:01, 6 July 2013

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 Ian Rose 10:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Tylopilus felleus

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC) & Sasata (talk · contribs)[reply]

Another pored mushroom, this one a foul-tasting one. A joint effort by the clinically thorough Sasata and me. Lots of eyes have been on it. I think we're nearly there. So come and have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Thought I'd found this one once, but it turned out to be a Boletus species.

  • "Anaxoboletus"- Not certain about this, but if this is an informal name and (sort of) higher than a genus, I don't think it should be italicised.
fixed - aligned with source now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be inclined to say that "Index Fungorum" doesn't need to be italicised. The MOS unhelpfully says that "Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis."
hmmmm, the wiki article is italicised and it is a major work. Am open-minded on this one. I slightly prefer italics..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It measures 7–10 cm (2.8–3.9 in)—rarely to 20 cm (7.9 in)[2] tall, and 2–3 cm (0.8–1.2 in) wide—and can bulge out to 6 cm (2.4 in) across at the base." This doesn't read that well. I think you'd need to move the second dash to before the word "tall", as the text between the dashes does not form a coherent subclause.
yep, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm probably showing my "interested amateur" status, but the mycomorphbox lists this as mycorrhizal, but the description in the ecology section makes it sound saprotrophic?
good question - all these boletoid things have been traditionally considered mycorrhizal...but this one has evidence casting doubt on that. I don't recall any of the sources stating outright that it was saprotrophic though....need to double check. The safest might be to have an asterisk/see text notation in the mycomorphbox. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now stated explicitly in the Ecology section that it's mycorrhizal, and added a sentence to give some context about nitrogen cycling with respect to its role as a mycorrhizal partner. Oddly, none of the sources I have discuss the significance of its occasional fruiting on old conifer stumps and buried wood. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fruiting season is from August to September, though can be as early as June and late as November,[18] in many of the northern temperate zones.[16]" Double check- do you mean it's June to November but usually August to September in northern temperate zones (which is what it currently says), or do you mean it's August to September everywhere, but June to November in northern temperate zones?
the former - rejigged it a little Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skim milk" Wouldn't that be "skimmed milk"?
Ahaa, didn't think of that - we call it skim milk in Oz - changed to British spelling. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, assuming source/image checks come back fine. One outstanding issue, but it's not a massive problem. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sasata (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim I can't see much here that J Milburn has missed, so I'm happy to support, just one query below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Petter Karsten transferred it to Tylopilus in 1881, a genus diagnosed by its pink spores and adnate tubes,[4] as the large genus Boletus was carved up into smaller genera. — I'd move the final clause to the start so that cause precedes effect

Image check - all OK (own work, Mushroom Observer). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - I would suggest adding states/countries to lesser-known locations, but sources are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. We decided to use a more concise approach to given publisher locations (not giving state/country): it's easy to keep consistent, and it makes no difference on the reader's ability to find the source, given that all of the other more significant bibliographic details are there. Sasata (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 Ian Rose 10:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Thomas Ellison

Nominator(s): Shudde talk 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ellison was a highly influential figure in late 19th century New Zealand rugby union, and was also one of the first Māori to be admitted to the Bar. He played with the New Zealand Native Football team that toured Australia and the British Isles in 1888–89, and later captained New Zealand on their tour of Australia in 1893. For someone who died so young he achieved a lot, and has had a lasting legacy on New Zealand society, but on sport in particular. I believe the article is as comprehensive a coverage of his life—and especially his endeavours and influence on rugby—as any available. The page has met the Good Article criteria, and been through a peer review. I welcome comments and questions. - Shudde talk 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A well-researched article on an interesting person, but I have a few reservations. There are some sloppy features such as the references not being in numerical order throughout, and a few places where the prose is a little rough. The article also seems heavy on background, such as the scrum, and light on details of Ellison's actual life and achievements. His presumably pioneering career as a barrister is glossed over in a couple of sentences. I don't really get a sense of the man himself, or why he was so highly regarded in rugby. I've left quite a long list of points, but I think this one needs a little more work on top of these as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll addressed some, and will try and address them all, but may take another day or so. Regarding the scrum (or wing-forward), I tried to find a balance between discussing the topic in enough detail for it to not leave more questions than it answers, and not going into excessive detail—especially regarding the negative influence the position had on the relationship between the NZ and Home Nations rugby authorities. It would be good if there was a stand-alone article about the position, but there isn't, although I'd like to create one eventually (hopefully). It was a central part of NZ play for nearly 40 years, but without Ellison that would probably not be true. I'd like to have more information on his law career and political views, however nearly all sources only mention those topics in passing. [3] has more on this than all other sources combined. I'm not sure his law career was particularly notable, other than him being one of the first Maori admitted to the bar; if he was pakeha it probably wouldn't be considered notable at all. Anyway hope this at least partially addresses those points. - Shudde talk 04:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for using "Ellison" too much, when a pronoun could be used instead.
  • "He led the first New Zealand representative rugby team organised by the New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRFU) on their 1893 tour of Australia, and played in the 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team on their epic 107 match tour, and scored 113 points, and 43 tries with the side": Long sentence, with a few too many ands.
  • "in 1882 Ellison was awarded a scholarship to attend the famous Māori secondary school Te Aute College in the Hawke's Bay. He had been introduced to rugby by a cousin at Otakou, and participated in the sport after starting at Te Aute College": The order seems a bit off here. We go school, rugby, then back to school. Could these be merged somehow?
  • "when they won the Hawke's Bay senior club championship.[3][4][5][1]": The order of the refs needs sorting here. And four refs in a row looks quite ugly.
  • "After moving to Wellington, he joined the Poneke Football Club in 1885": Don't start a paragraph with "he" as the subject. It should be "Ellison".
  • "After moving to Wellington, he joined the Poneke Football Club in 1885. The Poneke team played junior club…": Close repetition of Poneke; could be re-worded to avoid this.
  • "Poneke won the Wellington club championship in 1986, and won again the next three years": I'm assuming 1986 is a typo.
  • How did he perform at school rugby? He suddenly seems catapulted to the Wellington team. And then how did he perform for Wellington, which would have been quite a step up, I imagine.
    • There is no more information on his performance for the school team, but that they won the Hawke's Bay club championship means that they must have been a very strong side. I'm not sure if the step up from club to provincial was as large as it would be today, however Poneke were clearly a very good side if they were unbeaten one season, and then won the club championship immediately after promotion to senior rugby. So he had 3-4 season playing for very successful club sides before playing provincially. I've tried to find more on his performances for Wellington, and I'll keep looking. - Shudde talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did he stop playing for Wellington in 1892?
    • I have not found anything on why; it's probably not particularly unusual to retire younger than today, especially considering the sport was amateur, and travel times for provincial games was longer. I haven't found anything to suggest he stopped playing because of injury, his professional career, or family. He did continue to be involved as a coach and administrator. - Shudde talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "Early life" seems to have a few too many short sentences.
  • "In early 1888 Joe Warbrick was attempting to organise a private party": Why not just "…Warbrick attempted to organise…"? Or if he succeeded, why not just "organised"?
    • I have reworded this. I've tried to make it clear that he was attempted to organise a tour of Maori players. He ended up recruiting non-Maori as well because of concerns that the squad wouldn't be very strong. It is beyond the scope of the article, but hopefully it reads better now. - Shudde talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They then toured Great Britain, Australia, and finally New Zealand again—with the trip lasting 14 months": Better to have just "–the trip lasted 14 months".
  • "and played at least 83 of the team's 107 matches; including a minimum of 58 in Britain.": Why the uncertainty over the number of games he played? I think the reader may want to know. What about a note?
    • I've added a note. The most comprehensive information on the tour is in the Greg Ryan book "Forerunners of the All Blacks" - teams listings for all the matches haven't been discovered/may not exist, so the numbers are a minimum. - Shudde talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Ellison playing in the forwards.[11][10]": Try to avoid the noun plus -ing construction. And make sure the refs are in numerical order.
  • Second paragraphs of "New Zealand Native football team": A few too many instances of "the natives" rather than a pronoun or synonym.
  • "The Natives scored four tries in the half; with their third try scored by Ellison after a counter-attack by George Williams": This sentence does not quite make sense using a semi-colon. And "their third try was scored by…" would be better.
  • "Writing after the tour, Ellison said of the incident—".. gross as these errors were": Why the dash, and I think the ellipsis has gone a little wrong.
  • How was the team received by critics and the public? Were the games popular? Did critics consider the team to be a good one? Were the matches full internationals? Were the opposition full strength?
    • I will add some information on all of this. I think the team were generally well received, the incident where several players left the field against England seemed to overshadow other aspects of it. Whether the matches are full internationals is decided by the union of the respective sides—so for example the Wales Rugby Union get to decide whether to award Test caps to the Welsh players. The Natives were not an international side, and would not have been awarded caps, although their opposition may have (it's a weird rule in rugby, even today the Maori All Blacks won't be awarded Test caps, but sometimes their opposition will). I am not 100% sure either way whether the English, Irish and Welsh were awarded international caps for the game, but from what I have read they were treated like full internationals in all other respects. - Shudde talk
    • I've expanded on this. It's almost certain that the three teams awarded caps to their players ([4] and List of Wales national rugby union players offers evidence). The Natives would not have been awarded caps, allblacks.com has a very good archive of past players and past matches, and the Natives would be included there had Test caps been awarded. - Shudde talk 11:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 10 in New Zealand.[19][1]": Ref order.
  • "amply penalize off-side interferences of opponents bent on spoiling my passes ...".[23]": Something off with the punctuation here.
  • "The use of a wing-forward did provoke controversy": Why not just "provoked"?
  • "The all black uniform would become famous as that of New Zealand representative sides, and eventually give them their name—All Blacks": The name is as famous as the side? I think this needs sourcing a little better. And the quotes source suggests that this is only one possible explanation of the origin of the name.
    • I'll reword this, but have not yet. A consensus has emerged over the last 15-20 years that the name "All Blacks" derives from the colour of their playing strip, not a newspaper misspelling of "all backs" as was widely believed in the past. I can find more sources for this, but may take a little longer to address than the other issues here. - Shudde talk 10:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tour was the end of Ellison's participation in the sport as a player": Why?
  • "this was in 1898—nearly a century before rugby relinquished its amateur status": If we are trying to cast him as an ahead-of-his-time pioneer, perhaps the origins of rugby league should not be forgotten! I think we are reaching here.
    • That wasn't the intention; I reworded it to make it more explicit. He was specifically proposing that players be compensated on long tours—so not "broken time" payments or anything like professionalism. It was probably more of a middle ground between broken time payments and strict amateurism. Terry McLean spent a few pages talking about it in New Zealand Rugby Legends, and I can probably expand on it to make it clear that he wasn't talking about domestic tours, only international ones if need be. Players and administrators were still arguing that long tours required to large a financial sacrifice on behalf of the players in the 1980s (when McLean was writing), and that their per diem was not adequate for overseas tours. I didn't want to dwell on it to long, because the proposal wasn't successful. - Shudde talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The book was pioneering, and is a classic of rugby literature.[8][4][32]": Says who? And again ref order.
  • "Outside of his sporting endeavours": Makes it sound like he played many sports successfully, but we don't read of these.
  • "and is believed to be one of the first Māori admitted to the bar.": Believed by who?
  • "several times against Tame Parata,": Who?
  • "working for government consideration of Ngāi Tahu land claims": Of what? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few more: Nearly there, I think. I've done some copy-editing, but feel free to revert anything you don't like or which I have messed up. Just a few last points. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He married his wife Ethel May Howell in 1899—with whom he had three children—before his death from tuberculosis in 1904": Do we need his marriage in the lead? And there is no need for "before": he could hardly marry after his marriage! A new sentence would work better if you want to keep his wife here.
  • "In early 1888 Joe Warbrick was attempting to organise a private party": I still think this would be better as "Warbrick attempted to organise..."
  • Be consistent in which numbers are given in words and which in figures.
    • I was always taught to use figures for large numbers and words for smaller ones. I've gone through and used a cut-off of 12 before I start using figures. Hope this is ok. - Shudde talk 03:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this would increase the amount of time the half-back would have in possession before their opposite could tackle them": A little ambiguous, perhaps, for non-sports readers. Maybe "in possession of the ball..."?
  • "The book was pioneering, and is a classic of rugby literature...": Better to say within the text "according to X" rather than adding a note.
  • Is the "All Black" part finalised yet?
    • Yes , done now. I'm pretty happy with the source I used, it supports the assertion that the name is derived from the playing colours. I've added an additional source however. - Shudde talk 03:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing obviously missing for me is some kind of critical summary of his career: other than his gravestone, there are no opinions of him as a player, either contemporary or modern.

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've added a couple of things that I think are appropriate. The quote in the quote box should be PD (the author was born in 1868). Hope this is satisfactory. - Shudde talk 07:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did some light copy-editing on this article, but nothing major. I think this article comfortably meets the criteria now, and well done to the nominator for putting up so patiently with my nit-picking. Good work. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Early life: "Introduced to rugby at the age of around 14 by his cousins at Otakou, later wrote of his first game" is missing Ellison or "He" after the comma.
  • New Zealand Native football team: "Ireland led led 3–0 at half-time." Repeated "led" needs fixing.
  • Wing-forward: The 1903 link appears at first to be a bare year link—which is undesirable—but turns out to be a valuable link to a tour article. Is there any way we can avoid this situation? Maybe we can make all of "Test match in 1903" go to that link and trust that interested readers will find the Test article if they need it?
  • Professional and personal life: Last semi-colon should be a regular old comma instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made those changes. I changed the sentence with the link to the 1903 tour. I think the link to Test match is probably more valuable, as it's not a term very well known in some parts of the world. Hopefully my changes address your comment satisfactorily. - Shudde talk 03:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – It's been a while since I've seen a really good rugby article at FAC, if I ever have seen one in five years. I'm confident that the FA requirements are met here. It's not the longest article, but it's clear that a good deal of research has gone into it and that this is a quality piece throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Lead: should "wing-forward" be linked, also the wrong hyphen is being used (see later in article when correct hyphen is used)
    • Good spotting – fixed the hyphen. Like I said to Sarastro1 above, there is not an article on the wing-forward position. I might create one in the future if I have time, and when I do I'll be sure to link to it from this article!
Oops, sorry, I missed your response to Sarastro1. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: Otago and rugby are not linked on first usage.
    • They are both linked in the lead, so I didn't link them afterwards. Is this not ok?
It is a little inconsistent when you have done links in both the lead and main body (which is acceptable) for several other things eg. Okatou, 1888–89 New Zealand Native football team. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: He was introduced to rugby at around 14 and presumably played his first game at Otakou; but then he "started playing rugby there [Te Aute]". Do you mean he started playing graded rugby there?
    • Was his first organised rugby; have reworded.
  • New Zealand Native football team: "New Zealand born players" close repetition of this phrase, and although not 100% sure, I think it should hyphenated "New Zealand-born players".
    • Tried rewording – see what you think.
Works for me. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Zealand Native football team: try is wikilinked, but on its second usage (third if you count tries). Maybe wikilink "converted"?
    • Try was linked in the lead. I linked conversion.
  • (one goal and two tries to nil): Re the goal, do you mean conversion or a penalty goal?
    • At the time there was no distinction, both were worth three points. I could maybe add a note on this if you wish. It was a conversion, but this probably isn't important.
Wow, so tries were only worth one point at the time. If it was a conversion, I would say so, i.e (two tries and a conversion) rather than have other editors potentially ask the same question I did. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wing-forward: RE the image, what is with the numbers on the blue players? They are not jersey numbers?
    • There are no official jersey numbers for positions in a seven-man scrum (numbers were standardised after it was abolished). I added the numbers so that there could be a numbered key with each description. See the description at File:2-3-2 scrum.svg. I could add a key to the caption if necessary, or removed the numbers.
I would remove the numbers, adding a key would clutter things up for something that is not necessary for understanding of the article. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wing-forward: off-side is wikilinked but on its second usage.
    • Fixed.
  • Professional and personal life: "stood unsuccessfully for the Southern Maori parliamentary seat": should the electorate be wikilinked?
    • Done
  • Professional and personal life: "Ellison was buried in Otakou, Otago Heads." An inconsistency here with respect to the first section of the article in which he was born "...at Otakou in Otago, to..." (i.e. not Otago Heads specifically).
    • Like you say, Otago Heads is more specific, but neither is wrong. I would like to have Otago Heads in there, but there is not an appropriate article, so Otago (with a link) is probably the next best thing. What do you suggest here. I'm not really sure what to do either way.
For me it is a matter of consistency. If you prefer Otago Heads, go with that in both places (born in, buried in). I would suggest linking Otago Heads to Otago Peninsula. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professional and personal life: "I am prepared to say that the late a T. R. Ellison..." should the "a" be there?
    • Fixed.
  • Professional and personal life: "...among the backs—half or three-quarter—I and was a fine coach..." should the "I" be there?
    • No. Fixed.

Looks a good article, I thought the description of the wing-forward position is particularly well done. Zawed (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Hopefully everything is addressed, let me know if you are happy with my changes/responses. - Shudde talk 12:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, some embedded comments above for your consideration. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully everything addressed now. I have gone with only linking in the first instance (including the lead). Let me know what you think. - Shudde talk 03:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes satisfactory and I made one myself. Sorry to do this at such a late stage, but I just noticed that some of the notes are not referenced? Zawed (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most are non-controversial and easily verifiable. I'll added references regardless. - Shudde talk 08:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check all OK (PD in Australia and NZ, own work). Sources provided (tweaked some tags). GermanJoe (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that so promptly! - Shudde talk 11:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- Hi Shudde, looks like it's been a long time between FACs for you? I've requested a source review at WT:FAC and would like to see someone perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, In the meantime, you have some Harv errors -- this script will highlight them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has been quite a while! The process is essentially still the same; looks like the project is having more trouble getting reviewers though. Thanks for letting me know about the source review. The harv errors are for sources that are no longer cited in the text (after the changes made during this FAC). They still have value though, so unless someone objects I'll leave them in the source section. I've removed the harvid templates causing the errors however. - Shudde talk 07:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they're useful refs but not cited in the article then I'd generally expect them to go in a separate "Further reading" section at the end of the article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Done that. - Shudde talk 10:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review but no spotchecks

  • Don't include quote-initial or -terminal ellipses
  • Formatting error in Anderson entry
  • Why have Meikle 2011a when there is no other Meikle 2011?
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were two Meikle references from 2011, but during the FAC one has become redundant – I've removed it. I've included locations with books. Everything else should be sorted. - Shudde talk 10:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor spotcheck. I checked sections of text where the cited source was Anderson 2012, which is available online (ie. footnote 1). They were all good on both reflecting the source and appropriate paraphrasing except for one quibble: the phrase "nearly a century before rugby relinquished its amateur status" is a fact not in the source, though the date to which the phrase refers is indeed in the source. Some readers might regard this as either common or unimportant knowledge, but if we were being sticklers, there would be a source for when NZ rugby turned pro. I also checked the one citation to Meikle 2011, and that was also OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that. As far as online sources go, I leaned on the Anderson source more than any of the others., so really appreciate you doing a source check on it. I'm am very confident that the statement regarding professionalism is common knowledge (for anyone quite familiar with rugby union anyway), but I've added a sourced note. For those unfamiliar with the sport it will hopefully be valuable. Cheers for checking those sources, I really appreciate it. - Shudde talk 12:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for delegate - I have left a message on Hamiltonstone's talkpage, but haven't had a response yet. I'm guessing the only thing we're waiting on is a more comprehensive spotcheck? Is it worth leaving a note at WT:FAC? - Shudde talk 11:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not returning to this nom earlier. I think we're almost there but:
  • We should have a sentence in the lead expanding upon the fact that he was a lawyer -- if it's worth mentioning this profession in the opening sentence then it's worth a bit more info.
  • ...the Natives improved considerably in the second-half where they scored four tries. -- I think the second half is an expression of time rather than location, therefore "when" (preceded by a comma BTW) is more approproaute than "where" -- or you could simply replace the last clause with ", scoring four tries." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed both of those. Added a sentence in the lead giving a little more information on his legal and political career. No problems with the speed of reply, I understand you're kept quite busy! - Shudde talk 05:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks; I'm satisfied with the review this has had. Ian Rose (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 GrahamColm 10:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Artur Phleps

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently successfully underwent GAN and MILHIST A-Class review and was expanded and enhanced during those reviews using a number of mainly German language sources. Phleps served in three armies, in two wars, was an SS Corps commander in the Balkans and was posthumously awarded the Oak Leaves to his Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. While under his command, the 7th SS Division earned a reputation for savagery and committed numerous war crimes against the Yugoslav population. He was famously photographed with Kurt Waldheim (later UN Secretary-General and President of Austria) during Case Black in Montenegro. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments, not a complete review:

  • First sentence, "a Austro-Hungarian": an ...
  • "reaching the rank of Generalleutnant (major general) and also became": comma before "and"
  • "after he was killed in September 1944, a posthumous award": redundant; delete one part or the other.
  • "third son of ... his mother Sophie": third son of ... Sophie
  • "he transferred to the staff of the 13th Infantry Regiment at Esseg in Slavonia, and the 6th Infantry Division in Graz.": Maybe a "then" after the "and". - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan, all addressed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Why do the second set of flags link to image descriptions and the first set to articles?
  • It might just be me and a lack of knowledge of flag templates. I've fixed the Kingdom of Romania ones, but the Austro-Hungarian Army and SS ones don't seem to have flag templates that go to the relevant article.
  • File:Phleps.jpg: what is the original source/creator of this image? The "unique historical image" tag is tricky, as it's usually only allowed when the image is the subject of commentary in the article
  • I have replaced it with a different pic with a historic portrait NFR. Can you check it please?
  • Still using the "unique historical image" tag, with creator/status unknown...which unfortunately doesn't solve the problems of the last image, unless you can find more information or a different tag that might apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand all this, but I have added some more information about where the photograph was taken and the date, as well as the fact that it is very likely it was taken by a German military photographer. I assume that means that the relevant copyright resides with the photographer, was extended to 70 pma in Germany before the date of restoration, and is therefore copyrighted in the US too? Do I need to use a "Non-free biog-pic" copyright tag instead of the "Non-free historic image" one?
  • Done
  • File:Kirchenburg_Birthälm.jpg: as Romania does not have freedom of panorama, you need to include licensing for the building as well as the photo
  • So does that mean I can use PD-art-70-3d with an additional statement as follows: "Per [6], copyright protection in Romania expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer). The lack of Freedom of Panorama (FOP) is no longer relevant for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free. The church depicted in this image was built in the Middle Ages, and it can be reasonably assumed the creator or designer of the church died centuries ago."?
  • Done.
  • File:Artur_Phleps_and_Kurt_Waldheim.jpg: can you give more info on the NYT publication? Date, page?
  • added name of article and journalist.

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- Copyedited/reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and, having checked alterations made since then, I believe it meets the FAC criteria for structure, prose, referencing, coverage/neutrality, and supporting materials. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments
    • The transition between the evacuation in January and the criticism thereof and the award of the German Cross in Gold in June is a bit abrupt. What did he win the medal for and what did he do during the time in between?
      • I've moved it, I don't have the text to hand to clarify if the reason for the award is provided (other than as corps commander) per the awards section.
        • Ok, that's better, but what did the corps do in the first half of '44?
          • Added three operations, two with links.
    • Where is St. Paul? And Oxford?
      • Done.
    • Fix the title of Kumm
      • It's verbatim off the inside title page. What do you mean?
        • Capitalize "history". There's a deplorable tendency nowadays to ignore title case in titles. Damn kids! Get off my lawn! (shaking my cane at'em)
          • Day'um. Done.
    • Need an ISBN or OCLC # for Schulz
      • Done.

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  • The rather long rank at the top of the infobox, in my opinion, detracts from Phleps' name and seems rather unnecessary given that the rank appears right next to the infobox in the lead and is then mentioned in the appropriate section of the infobox. So, I think this can be safely removed.
    • Fair enough, done.
  • Is it known why Phleps was awarded the Iron Cross in 1917? Same for his World War II awards?
  • The title of Phleps' 1926 book should probably be mentioned.
    • Done.
  • What specifically did Phleps criticise of the government policy?
    • I've added a bit from Kaltenegger, but it isn't clear what the specifics were.
  • Who did he ask permission from to leave Romania? The Government? If so, why did he require their permission?
    • have added some material that fleshes it out a bit.
  • How did Operation Kopaonik end with little success?
    • Added.
  • Is it known when Phleps married? Or are there any further personal details about him available?

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 GrahamColm 10:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Three-dollar piece

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. The three-dollar piece is a bit of an oddball in American numismatics, and why there was one and why they kept it 35 years is a bit uncertain. Perhaps it is not quite as queer as a three-dollar bill, but it's getting there. This is another fruit of my research and photography at the American Numismatic Association Library and Museum in January, my thanks for their courtesy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • near-identical -> perhaps "nearly identitical"
  • Longacre's models, both for the obverse and reverse, did not have lettering on them, as the legends and numbers were to be punched once a reduction was made from the large models. - Repetition of models, suggest cutting "from ... models".
  • Julian believes that there were no later restrikes, but that pieces held by the Mint in anticipation of demand were obtained surreptitiously by employees in exchange for common-date issues before the proof pieces would have been melted, and were not included in official mintage figures. The proof-only pieces were available to the public only as part of a proof set of all gold denominations, at a price of $43. - that first sentence is making my head spin. Also, you have "proof" four times in two sentences. Couldn't "would have been" be changed to "were"?
  • Fantastic article, and great work on an obscure piece that most people have never heard of. I'd give you an image review but as I uploaded nearly all of them there may be a conflict of interest there. I think they are all fine, for what it's worth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got those, thanks for all your work on this one, you've been in since I was at the museum. I'll forgive you the images, which should be simple, all the images are of coins or medals and I took them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Fixed, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A few minor comments:

  • Final words to lead: "only one is known". Does this mean "only one is known to have been struck", or "only one is known still to exist"?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have raised before the question of terms such as "Indian princess" and "Indian queen". I am raising it here, not because I think the terms are offensive, but simply because of possible confusion. The words "Indian princess" don't immediately suggest a native American princess, particularly to the UK reader; we have been schooled against using the term "Indian" in the American context. And you have used "Native American" in the lead. Perhaps you would consider whether this wording is the most appropriate.
  • "the Whig Millard Fillmore administration..." is a bit clumsy, particularly with the double blue. Perhaps: "...the Whig administration of Millard Fillmore..."
  • "Julian believes that there were no later restrikes..." and two sentences later: "Numismatic writer R.W. Julian suggests..." The description of Julian belongs to the earlier mention.
  • It would be interesting to know roughly how many of the half-million $3 coins produced are thought to be still in existence; is tghere any reliable estimate?
Not that I'm aware of. There are sometimes estimates for individual dates, but they are really focused on how many in the highest grades.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another for the collection. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've dealt with those.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The earlier reviewers seem to have fixed all the obvious problems, so I don't have much to add:

I will do that, thanks. Appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 GrahamColm 10:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Lie Kim Hok

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I am sure it meets the criteria. I was confused how to introduce Lie. After all, he won't be our first FA on a Chinese-Indonesian, nor on an Indonesian writer, nor even on Lie himself. However, I realised that, if promoted, this article will be our chronologically earliest featured biography of a person from what is now Indonesia. The article had a GA review by Khazar2, which helped immensely, and a PR from Wehwalt and Sarastro1 which polished the prose even more. Hope you enjoy the read! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, had my say earlier on, worthy and interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning support: I reviewed this article at PR and I think it meets the criteria fairly comfortably. Just re-reading, however, a few little points come to mind. Nothing major, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Watch out for overuse of "Lie". Are there any places where synonyms or pronouns could be used? There are over 70 instances of "Lie" in the main body. The "teacher and publisher" section seems particularly heavy.
  • The lead seems to jump a bit abruptly into his biography without really giving a sense of his achievements or significance. Rather than wait until the fourth paragraph, is there anything that could be moved to the first few sentences? I imagine many readers will not have heard of him, and it is good to give a sense quickly about why they should be interested, or why he is notable.
  • I think one or two sentences are a touch long in places, and would stand splitting. Nothing concrete here, just a vague sense that trimming may be needed. Perhaps cut back on one or two semi-colons as there seem to be quite a lot. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: Watch out for too many sentences beginning "In [year]..." or "After [year]". I think this should be my last nit-pick before supporting! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There may be one or two minor prose nit-picks remaining, but I think this article comfortably meets the criteria, and I'm happy to support fully now. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-IDOld-Art30, PD-1996, PD-1923, PD-old-100). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments by Jim No major problems, well written, looks thorough to a non-expert. A few nitpicks, mainly minor style niggles, before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • peranakan Chinese—this links to Indonesian Chinese, not sure why you have used an obscure term instead of self-explanatory, especially in line 1 of the lead
  • Two reasons: one, peranakan is more specific (there are also pure Chinese, not interace, in Indonesia) and two, there was no "Indonesia" until more than 30 years after Lie's death. Ethnic Chinese would work, though, if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've translated European foreign language publications in the text, and local languages in the references, but local names aren't translated in the text. I assume this is accepted practice?
  • Oh, you meant the Malay titles? I can add that to the bibliography (rather than inflate the body), but some will be lacking (the ones with Chinese names; they aren't Mandarin, and I doubt most Chinese speakers could identify the correct words based on the (nonstandard) romanization. My classmate is Chinese and she protests every time I say "Lie Kim Hok"; she insists on "Li Jinfu"). Is that an issue? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • a rice mill operated by his friend.— the friend isn't named until much later, either give his name here, or change to "a friend"
  • to the latter field.—the intervening clauses have detached this somewhat from its target, perhaps literary output" although it's a bit repetitive
  • the stage and film—I'd expect "cinema" or "screen" here (or plays and film)
  • Screen.
  • Although displeased with the coupling, he obeyed.—to me, coupling suggests mating, perhaps "arrangement"?
  • found himself unable to support his wife. As such, he sold— suggests equivalence rather than cause and effect, "Therefore" or something similar in meaning would be better
  • While busy with the press, he wrote or contributed to four books. Two were pieces of nonfiction, one a collection of Chinese prophecies and the other outlined lease laws.— either fourth or last
  • Another was a partial translation of the One Thousand and One Nights,—Another has no subject, you've done all four books
  • Ibrahim gelar Marah Soetan—just checking capitalisation is correct
  • You have an "External links" section but no linked websites, surely redundant?
Support No further queries, nice work. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2013&oldid=563083745"