- 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 via Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC) [6].
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC) and Nobeljeff (talk)
This article is about yet another scientist, James Chadwick is the man who discovered the neutron. In 1932, with a laboratory instrument literally made from string and sealing wax. The group photo of the Cavendish Lab staff that year had eight Nobel Prize winners sitting in the front row. Rutherford. Thomson. Kapitza. Cockcroft. Blackett. And then there was the neutron. Chadwick found it, measured it, weighed it. Within just a few years neutrons would be the key ingredient in a scientific endeavour on an unprecedented scale. And Chadwick played a key part in all of this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I copyedited the article at A-class per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Some of the details in the infobox, for example Pollard being his student, do not appear to be sourced in the text
- Why bold Chadwick's name in Notes?
- FN46: page?
- Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the emboldened names in the papers. Someone has been going around creating DOI templates for famous papers. So the links to Chadwick appear bold in his own article. I like to have the original papers linked in the scientific articles so readers can see them for themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Cwmhiraeth
[edit]This looks to be a well-written, well laid out article. I particularly like the fact that it is low on jargon and is understandable to a non-physicist like me. A few points on the prose:
- What was the occupation of his father?
- Added his parents' occupations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- "He was named after his paternal grandfather" - It would be helpful if the name "James" was mentioned somewhere in this paragraph.
- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- "At the age of 16, he sat for two university scholarship examinations, and was offered both." - Was he really offered two university scholarship examinations?
- Two scholarships. At the age of 16, he sat two examinations for university scholarships, and won both of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- "This time the resulting paper was published under his name only." - I don't care for the "only" at the end of this sentence.
- Changed to "alone". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- "The reason for this would remain unexplained for many years." - This is an ambiguous remark.
- The continuous spectrum would remain an unexplained phenomenon for many years. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- "At a conference at Cambridge on beta particles and gamma rays in 1928, Chadwick met Geiger again, who brought with him a new model of his Geiger counter, which had been improved by his post-doctoral student Walther Müller." - This sentence is rather long and convoluted.
- Split. At a conference at Cambridge on beta particles and gamma rays in 1928, Chadwick met Geiger again. Geiger had brought with him a new model of his Geiger counter, which had been improved by his post-doctoral student Walther Müller. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- "... used polonium to bombard beryllium" - I think you mean particles emitted by polonium rather than the stuff itself?
- Yes, but I've spent so much time writing about polonium that hadn't occurred to me.
- "Chadwick had his Australian 1851 Exhibition scholar, Hugh Webster, duplicate their results." - "had" is not ideal here, perhaps "asked" or "directed" or somesuch.
- No, that won't do. Have to think of something else. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- "His research into such matters were complicated by ..." - Perhaps "was" rather than "were".
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Observing the work on the K-25 gaseous diffusion facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, he realised how wrong he had been about building the plant in wartime Britain." - This needs some explanation, - which of his ideas was wrong?
- Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- "... the Hungarian-born economist Peter Bauer. Bauer was subsequently involved in what became known as the Peasants' Revolt, in which fellows led by Patrick Hadley voted an old friend of Chadwick's off the council and replaced him with the younger Bauer." - Too many Bauers.
- In what became known as the Peasants' Revolt, fellows led by Patrick Hadley voted an old friend of Chadwick's off the council and replaced him with Bauer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- "He anticipated that neutrons would become a major weapon in the fight against cancer." - This fact from the lead is not mentioned again in the body of the article as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Added this. Chadwick anticipated that neutrons and radioactive isotopes produced with them could be used to study biochemical processes, and might become a weapon in the fight against cancer.
- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am happy with the changes you have made and now support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. An interesting article about an interesting man! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Headbomb
[edit]- Lead
Resolved issues
- A graduate of the University of Manchester, he studied under Ernest Rutherford, known as the "father of nuclear physics". I'm a bit worried that some people will have to parse this a few times before realizign that the "father of nuclear physics" is Rutherford, and I'm unsure it's necessary to mention that he's the father of nuclear physics. Also, it seems to implied that as a graduate, he studied under Rutherford. And for which degree is unclear. This is further compounded/confused by the next bit "After the war, Chadwick followed Rutherford to the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, where Chadwick earned his Doctor of Philosophy degree at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge." I'm having a hard time making sense of the timeline here. I'm sure I could if I sat down and re-read things 20 times, but prose isn't clear if I have to do that to make sense of it. I would try a rephrasing similar to "In <YEAR>, he obtained his <DEGREE> under the supervision of Ernest Rutherford at the University of Manchester." or some such (if this is what is meant). In all cases, I would at the very least mention specific years, and specific degrees and specific supervisions. It's nice that Chadwick followed Rutherford at Gonville/Caius, but he could very well have had a different supervisor there.
- Tried to make it clearer, but I think your real problem is confusion over what Gonville and Caius College is. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure that it needs to be mentioned that he paid for the cyclotron with his Nobel money in the lead. This seems superflous to the core of his achievements.
- Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Education/Life
Resolved issues
- ... first child of John Joseph" John Joseph Chadwick? Or John Joseph?
- John Joseph Chadwick Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- When were his sibling born exactly? At least the years.
- Sorry. Do not have that information. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Out of curiousity, who/when was the continuous spectrum of radiation explained? Is that how Pauli came to postulate the existence of neutrinos? If so, this should be mentionned!
- In 1930. Added a date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- ...within an error of less than 1.5 percent. A citation needs to be provided for this.
- It's already there... Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- forces inside the nucleus link to nuclear force and atomic nucleus?
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- left the genius perplexed Who? Einstein or Chadwick? Also I don't like that kind of flowery language. It's very WP:WEASEL.
- No, it's WP:FLOWERY. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk)
- The only thing I had a problem with in this passage [7] was the ambiguity of the word "genius". The language of the explanation also seems a bit irrelevant. The quote itself was a really nice addition to the article. Consider something like A perplexed Chadwick wrote to Einstein "I can explain either of these things, but I can't explain them both at the same time." or something different if it was Einstein that said those words. Maybe with a note containing the original German quote if that's important. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Restored the quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Research
Resolved issues
- Chadwick's Clerk Maxwell studentship expired in 1923 He had one? Should have been mentioned in the previous section then.
- It is. Chadwick was awarded a Clerk-Maxwell studentship in 1920,
- In 1925, Chadwick met Aileen Stewart-Brown, the daughter of a Liverpool stockbroker. The two were married in August 1925,[18] with Kapitza as Best Man. The couple had twin daughters, Joanna and Judy, who were born in February 1927.[19] This is not research. Rename the section, or put this elsewhere.
- christened the neutrino "christened" is a fancy word for fanciness' sake. Keep it simple please, not everyone reads at this level.
- In the Liverpool section, we go back to 1930 (last section ended in 1932), before jumping to 1935. I'd keep things chronologically if possible.
- Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Lyon Jones Chair link?
- Nope. But I can tell you who they were:
- 1881-1900: [Sir] Oliver Joseph Lodge
- 1900-1935: Lionel Robert Wilberforce
- 1935-1948: (Sir) James Chadwick
- 1949-1960: Herbert Wakefield Banks Skinner
- 1960-1982: James Macdonald Cassels
- 1987-1995: Charles Edward Johnson
- 1997-2001: Peter John Twin
- The university was something of a backwater What's a backwater? A backwater town? Backwater location? there's a word missing there. Also according to whom? And the backwater seems very negative. Rephrase to be more neutral/less flowery.
- A remote place; somewhere that remains unaffected by new events, progresses, ideas, etc. (wikt:backwater) Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- He therefore chafed under Rutherford, again flowery for no reason. Keep it simple.
- £700 in today's money, what would that be? Same for the other amounts.
- No. Per Template:Inflation: This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Bernard Kinsey and Harold Walke links?
- Nope. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- so Chadwick paid the rest from his Nobel Prize money the amount he received should be mentioned somewhere, although not necessarily here. He seems to have overspent by some £484, which could or could not be a significant chunk of the prize.
- The Prize was 159,917 kr in 1935. I don't know what the exchange rate was then, but this is about 4.8 million kr today, which is about £413,000. Whereas £484 = £42438 today. So he probably had some change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- and might become a weapon in the fight against cancer How exactly did Chadwick suspect this? A random guess? Why cancer specifically, and not other biological diseases? I would expand on this if possible.
- I have no proof, but I think it is because of the Liverpool Radium Institute and Hospital for Cancer, which opened in 1931.
Chadwick arrived in Liverpool in September 1935 and took up the post of Lyon Jones Professor and Head of the Department of Physics. There was close cooperation between the Faculties of Science and Medicine at that time and Chadwick was automatically a committee member of both faculties... The somewhat ad hoc arrangements for the treatment for cancer in Liverpool and elsewhere were, however, clearly recognised as unsatisfactory and in 1938 Lord Derby led a Commission to look at this problem and report on the work. Chadwick was made a member of this Commission. Sir James Chadwick and his Medical Plans
- I have no proof, but I think it is because of the Liverpool Radium Institute and Hospital for Cancer, which opened in 1931.
- ... sent Chadwick about 2 millicuries curies are a unit of radiation, not an amount of mass/substance. Rephrase.
- No, Curies is what is used then and today. Polonium is 4490 curies/g, so 2 millicuries is 445 ng. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- This had a bit of false precision in the conversion. I put 0.5 μg instead. However, this assumes that the polonium sent to Chadwick was pure Po-210. Was this the case? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Given the short half life of Polonium, that would be impossible. But she made it from lead oxide. The amount of polonium is measured from the alpha emission. So 2 mCu means you have 500 ng. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm... Do you know in what form this polonium was sent then? "... Meitner sent Chadwick about 2 millicuries (about 0.5 µg) from Germany, in the form of a <type of sample>." This is a minor point, but if you know/if it can be found, it would be good to add it IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- the mass of the neutron experimentally, and found that it was greater than that of the proton thereby confirming this theory. This makes it look like the mass of the neutron being greater than the proton is a key feature of the theory, and the reason why the theory is right. I'm very doubtful that in the 1930s you could measure the mass of protons and neutron with enough resolution to measure a significant difference between the two. And I'm also pretty sure that expectations were that the neutron and protons had about the same mass. This passage, and those surrounding it, need to be reworked to give a better and more accurate explanation of this.
- Measuring the mass of a proton is something we did in high school, so the readers will know how. As for the neutron, you sadly underestimate the genius of Chadwick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Decided to include this in the article.
- The expanded section is clearer, but it still makes the point that the mass of the neutron being greater than the mass of the proton is what confirms the theory to be right. This claim will be very puzzling to most, given that Chadwick predicted the mass of the neutron to be less than that of the proton, contradicting the experimental findings. What confirms the theory to be right is that the masses of the neutron and protons are very similar (which is why changing the model of nitrogen nucleus from 14p+7e to 7p+7n still gave the right mass). I don't know how Chadwick estimated the mass of the neutron, but I'm pretty sure he was happy to predict the mass within 0.2% of experimental results. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- How Chadwick calculated the mass of the neutron is now in the article!
- In his paper, Chadwick estimated that a neutron weighed about 1.0067 u. As a proton and an electron together weighed 1.0078 u, this implied a binding force of about 2 MeV, which sounded reasonable. Then Maurice Goldhaber, a refugee from Nazi Germany and a graduate student at the Cavendish Laboratory, suggested that deuterons could be photodisintegrated by gamma rays:
- Chadwick tried this and found that it worked. They measured the kinetic energy of the protons produced as 1.05 MeV, leaving the mass of the neutron as the only unknown in the equation. He then calculated that it was between 1.0077 and 1.0086 atomic units.
- You can read about it in Chadwick's notebook, in his own hand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's all fine and dandy, but that doesn't resolve the core of the problem mentioned in my previous post in this thread. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The prevailing theory was that the neutron was a composite particle like an alpha particle, but consisting of an electron and a proton. (The mass of an electron is negligible compare to a proton or neutron.) By determining that the neutron actually weighed more, Chadwick demonstrated that this could not be the case. So it had to be a new kind of particle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- When you rewrite this section, could you also add the original articles by Bohr/Chadwick/Heisenberg/Goldhaber/others? I don't have access to Brown, but I would have access to those (as I suspect many others). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Added the original articles by Heisenberg. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- When you rewrite this section, could you also add the original articles by Bohr/Chadwick/Heisenberg/Goldhaber/others? I don't have access to Brown, but I would have access to those (as I suspect many others). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The prevailing theory was that the neutron was a composite particle like an alpha particle, but consisting of an electron and a proton. (The mass of an electron is negligible compare to a proton or neutron.) By determining that the neutron actually weighed more, Chadwick demonstrated that this could not be the case. So it had to be a new kind of particle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's all fine and dandy, but that doesn't resolve the core of the problem mentioned in my previous post in this thread. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- WWII
Resolved issues
- He also endeavoured to place British scientists in as many parts of the project as possible in order to facilitate a post-war British project that Chadwick was committed to. Which project?
- Changed to "a post-war British nuclear weapons project" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- In the tube alloy section, the timeline seems to be Meitner & Frisch explained fission, Hahn & Strassman noted the possibility of chain reactions, then Joliot et al. confirmed it. There are a few ommissions in this make it seem to contradict the timeline in Nuclear fission#History/Otto Hahn#Discovery of nuclear fission. Hahn & Strassman discovered fission first (missing), communicated with Meitner & Frisch who explained it, and Frisch later confirmed it (missing). Then Hanh & Strassman hypothesizes chain reactions, which were confirmed by Joliot et al.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't want to stray too far from Chadwick. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Resolved issues
- The contributions of Wang Ganchang to the discovery of the neutron seems to be overlooked (if his Wikipedia article is to be believed.) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The use of polonium and beryllium a a radiation source was discovered by Bothe and Becker in 1930. Irene and Frédéric Joliot-Curie used it, but did not interpret the results as indicating the existence of neutrons. Given that Meitner was skeptical about the neutrons, I don't think that Wang Ganchang would have found them either had he built his cloud chamber. The fact is that he didn't do or find anything. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I thought it might have been documented somewhere that he gave the idea to Meitner, and Meitner gave it to Chadwick or something, but I was going off a a badly-referenced Wikipedia entry more than anything reliable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't get the point of this edit. Nothing broke... and re-introduced a bunch of long-form citations that really should have been in {{sfn}} format. 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Violates WP:CITEVAR: As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. I dislike reducing all the author's names to initials. The doi templates that an editor added have been stripped. OCLCs have gone missing. Worst of all, the source review now has to be completely redone. If retained, I would have to withdraw the article. So I'm putting it back.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- If the point of contention is the name of authors, that's a very easy thing to fix. OCLC adds nothing over the ISBN, especially since the OCLC record is incomplete and generally in bad state, but they could easily be added back. Using {{cite doi}} however, just makes things harder to edit and maintain, and in fact makes the article inconsistent, as cite doi templates must not use full names, but rather "Smith, J." format. And I've got no idea what you mean by "source review", given it's all the same sources (except [8], and the expanded further reading section). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The point of contention is a clear cut violation of WP:CITEVAR. I don't want to spend all my Wikipedia time fighting Wiki Gnomes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- So don't fight us! WP:MOS/WP:CITE/WP:FAC are crystal clear that citation style within an article should be consistent. WP:CITEVAR is in no way an argument for keeping inconstant citations within an article. Smith, John to Smith, J.? Yes, WP:CITEVAR applies there. Mix of {{cite doi}} and {{cite journal}}? That goes against WP:MOS/WP:CITE/WP:FAC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- My citation style is consistent, and has passed FAC many times. ANI has already supported the mix of {{cite doi}} and {{cite journal}} (which I opposed). Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The point of contention is a clear cut violation of WP:CITEVAR. I don't want to spend all my Wikipedia time fighting Wiki Gnomes.
- Violates WP:CITEVAR: As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. I dislike reducing all the author's names to initials. The doi templates that an editor added have been stripped. OCLCs have gone missing. Worst of all, the source review now has to be completely redone. If retained, I would have to withdraw the article. So I'm putting it back.
- Ernest Lawrence#The developments of the cyclotron hints that Chadwick had a greater role in the development of cyclotrons than the article surmises. 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Chadwick was a critic of the American approach to science. He refuted Lawrence's claims, which he correctly considered due to contamination. Rutherford and Oliphant then found that deuterium fuses to form helium-3, discovering nuclear fusion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Does this merit mention? I'll defer to you on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Added a bit. I wrote that article too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is a good start, but context is a bit lacking, at least as much as it's unclear what are Lawrence's results. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The expanded version hits the nail on the head, but it needs original sources for Lawrence/Rutherford/Oliphant's claims. Also, in which he considered careless should that be which (Big Science), or whom (Lawrence)? Or is my grammar off here? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Re-worded. Not sure what you mean by original sources. The paragraph is footnoted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- The rewording is fine. And by original sources I mean the original articles/proceedings/letters/etc... where Lawrence/Rutherford/Oliphant's made those claims. I.e. in what publication did Lawrence postulate the new particle? (Is this the "light neutron" in Heilbron & Seidel? doi:10.1103/PhysRev.44.313?) Where did Chadwick expressed that the results were likely due to contamination? Where did Lawrence rechecked his results? Where did Rutherford & Oliphant found deuterium fusion? Etc... I don't doubt that Heilbron & Seidel and Herken support the paragraph (Heilbron & Seidel gives a an impressively detailed history of this whole paragraph actually), but having the primary sources alongside Heilbron & Seidel add a lot for those who want to see the nitty gritty details of it all. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Heilbron & Seidel cite the appropriate sources, mostly letters, but since most of they are not online, it makes little point to cite the primary sources. Heilbron & Seidel give a good account. There's no requirement to fill the article with primary sources. The gritty details can be found in the subarticles.
- It is the light neutron, but Lawrence didn't publish a lot of papers, preferring to make announcements at conferences and in the newspapers. I don't see the value of including an erroneous paper. The Americans generally presumed that they were the most technologically advanced nation on Earth, but in the 1930s Britain was ahead. Chadwick was one of those Britons that Americans found a staunch ally, but prone to being snooty, patronising and condescending.
- The other point is about Big Science. Chadwick was one of its progenitors, but did not like it.
- As the article says, Chadwick expressed his opinions at the Solvay Conference
- As the article says, Rutherford & Oliphant worked at the Cavendish. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- The rewording is fine. And by original sources I mean the original articles/proceedings/letters/etc... where Lawrence/Rutherford/Oliphant's made those claims. I.e. in what publication did Lawrence postulate the new particle? (Is this the "light neutron" in Heilbron & Seidel? doi:10.1103/PhysRev.44.313?) Where did Chadwick expressed that the results were likely due to contamination? Where did Lawrence rechecked his results? Where did Rutherford & Oliphant found deuterium fusion? Etc... I don't doubt that Heilbron & Seidel and Herken support the paragraph (Heilbron & Seidel gives a an impressively detailed history of this whole paragraph actually), but having the primary sources alongside Heilbron & Seidel add a lot for those who want to see the nitty gritty details of it all. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Final thoughts
Overall enjoyable, most of the above should be easily fixable. The end of the article is somewhat abrupt however. I like a "Legacy" section of some type, like things named after Chadwick, selected works, etc.. Maybe a "See also" section. Ending with "and then he died" seems... uninspired. Also doi:10.1038/161964a0 and doi:10.1080/00107517208205684 should be explored. I cannot support FA in the current state, but it's close to being there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Ian Rose
[edit]Recusing from coord duties to review, as I have a FAC open myself at the moment...
- Tweaked prose as I generally do so pls let me know any issues. Few remaining concerns except:
- I fully agree with Headbomb re. "which he considered careless should that be which (Big Science), or whom (Lawrence)?" -- needs clarification/rewording.
- Although I took out a second mention of his daughters' names for reasons I explained in the edit summary, you called them Judy and Joanna initially but then Julie and Joanna -- better check that Judy (from the initial mention that I left in) is correct.
- Under See also, if Chadwick crater is indeed named after the man, as seems to be the implication, why not move to and cite in the Legacy section and just drop the See also?
- Structure and level of detail seem fine.
- I'll happily defer to Nikki for the source review.
- As far as images go, licensing looks good to me though I'd assume File:Solvay1933Large.jpg and File:Liverpool Blitz D 5984.jpg would have a US copyright tag in addition to those present.
Generally looks a worthy addition to your series of mad scientists (is there any other kind?)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Added a 1996 tag to File:Liverpool Blitz D 5984.jpg. Removed the Solvay picture. Cannot understand how Commons can tag an image as author unknown while stating who the author was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merged the crater into the Legacy section. Hadn't even noticed that one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Chadwick's twin daughters are Joanna and Judith. (My favourites names were Granville Ryrie's twin daughters, Dee and Dar.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merged the crater into the Legacy section. Hadn't even noticed that one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Happy to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- More on images -- Points re. initial check were resolved, have reviewed licensing for two recently added colour picture and both look okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I came here with a view to making a closing decision but I am concerned about the accuracy of the physics. This phrase jumped out at me: "Chadwick was able to demonstrate that beta radiation produced a continuous electromagnetic spectrum, and not discrete lines as had been thought." I am a biologist and not a physicist, but I think photons and not electrons form the electromagnetic spectrum. Electrons produce a kinetic energy spectrum, which is different. The source used says "the beta ray emission from the radioactive deposit had a continuous range of energy practically from zero up to a certain limit on which was superimposed these peaks". Am I missing something? Graham Colm (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm a mathematician, not a physicist. I think the problem is in the clarity of the wording. From the article on Bremsstrahlung:
Bremsstrahlung "braking radiation" or "deceleration radiation") is electromagnetic radiation produced by the deceleration of a charged particle when deflected by another charged particle, typically an electron... The moving particle loses kinetic energy, which is converted into a photon, thus satisfying the law of conservation of energy... Bremsstrahlung has a continuous spectrum, which becomes more intense and whose peak intensity shifts toward higher frequencies as the change of the energy of the accelerated particles increases. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am not at all convinced by this argument and quoting another of our articles does not help. I think that there is a fundamental error here, which calls into question – at least in my mind – the accuracy of the rest of the physics in this article. I would not be confident in promoting this candidate without more reassurance from our physicists. Graham Colm (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would advise against closing until the concerns about the The mass of the neutron was indeed greater than that of the proton, thereby supporting Bohr and Heisenberg's theory. passage (and surrounding text) have been fully addressed. As it stands, the article is very misleading on that issue.
- The mass of a neutron is greater than that of a proton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- That fact is not in dispute, it's the whole explanation that is confusing and misleading. Chadwick predicted a lesser mass, then it was discovered it was greater. If the core of the argument is that different mass implies a different particle than the proton, then what is important is that the mass of the neutron is different, not that it is greater, than that of the proton. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- The mass of a neutron is greater than that of a proton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- As for the continuous spectrum, I'll look into it. I didn't even notice EM spectrum, in there. The way I've seen those before was in terms of momentum spectrum [9] (which is more or less equivalent to presenting it in terms of an energy spectrum). I don't think Bremsstrahlung is involved at all, but I'll dig further to confirm. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley
[edit]I am to physics what whales are to rollerskating, so excuse any howlers in my comments. This, to the layman's eye, is a fine article. I don't understand some of the scientific bits, but I don't need to. The biographical stuff – which is most of the article – is first class. I offer these few comments for the nominators' consideration, and look forward to adding my support thereafter.
- Education and early life
- "physics" – perhaps move blue link to the first mention earlier in the para.
- "within an error of less than 1.5 percent" – the Manual of Style thinks "percent" is American and "per cent" British, and so do I.
- Cambridge
- "You are inconsistent about whether or not to use the false title when labelling people: thus, you have "succeeded by the Russian physicist Pyotr Kapitza" with the definite article but "Theoretical physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg" without it. The latter is undesirable in good British English, though good AmEng and beloved of our tabloid newspapers. There are other false titles later in the article, such as "Cosmologist Sir Hermann Bondi", "Prime Minister Winston Churchill" and "New York Times reporter William L. Laurence"
- Liverpool
- "the government became more parsimonious with funding for science" – a bit POV, perhaps, especially without a citation. Perhaps, "the government cut back funding for science"
- "Chadwick responded condescendingly" – unless this is a quote from a source the adverb seems to me to fall foul of WP:EDITORIAL
- "his 159,917 kr Nobel Prize money" – a Sterling translation would be useful here
- "Lord Derby" – perhaps a piped link to Lord Derby?
- Tube Alloys and the MAUD Report
- "Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch created an uproar" – this reads rather as though the scientific community was outraged rather than astonished, which I think you probably don't mean to suggest
- References
- "Some statements are given as many as four individual citations. To the layman's eye this looks like overkill, but I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
- "Your bibliographic style, though impeccably academic, is not what I usually expect in Wikipedia: I refer to your "— (1932)" style for second and later mentions of authors' names in your list of references. I thought the MoS disapproved of this style, but if it does I can't find it, and so I just mention it and leave it to you to agree or disagree with me.
I hope you can find some useful points in this little batch of quibbles. Tim riley talk 13:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It's always good to meet an editor I haven't encountered before. Thanks very much for your review! I presume that Chadwick is a local hero in Liverpool. Well he out to be. I've addressed all your points.
- "Percent" makes no sense to me, and my spell checker flags it as an error. The Commonwealth Style Guide says "per cent" is correct. I'm blaming the Wiki-Gnomes.
- I'd never heard of "false title" before, but have removed them.
- I did not have much hope of converting kroner to Sterling, but as luck might have it, the kroner was fixed to 19.40 to the pound at the time.
- What happens with the multiple citations is that one is a secondary source that covers it, and the other three are scientific papers, so the readers can read the details for themselves.
- By "parsimonious". I didn't mean that they actually cut funding per se; they tightened the eligibility rules. The whole article is cited.
- If you can find the bit in the MoS that disapproves of the bibliographic style I'll change it.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I too don't like the "--" in the citing style, if only because if you click on e.g. "Chadwick & Ellis, 1922, you're transported to a citation that doesn't explicitly contain Chadwick, and you have to backtrack to find who -- was, exactly. It also makes it more annoying to copy/paste the citation (e.g. in Google, or in another document). I like -- for lists of work by the same person (e.g. David_Malet_Armstrong#Bibliography), but I don't like it in reference sections such as this one. But this might be YMMV stuff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Image check
[edit]- File:Chadwick.jpg - Unsure; this doesn't seem to actually clear before the URAA date, and the documentation is a little confused.
- It was used for his Nobel prize. It has been in the PD since 1985 - before the URAA date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- The 1996 increase to 70 years in the UK was retrospective, and happened on January 1, 1996, meaning that it counts for URAA. Also, the claim of anonymous photography isn't documented. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- The photograph is from Sweden, not the UK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Same thing, isn't it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not quite, because in Sweden when the copyright term was extended to 70 years on 1 January 1996, works that had already fallen into the public domain were not re-protected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Right then. In that case, I suppose the only remaining issue is the anonymity, which needs a little more documentation to demonstrate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not quite, because in Sweden when the copyright term was extended to 70 years on 1 January 1996, works that had already fallen into the public domain were not re-protected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Same thing, isn't it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- The photograph is from Sweden, not the UK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- The 1996 increase to 70 years in the UK was retrospective, and happened on January 1, 1996, meaning that it counts for URAA. Also, the claim of anonymous photography isn't documented. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was used for his Nobel prize. It has been in the PD since 1985 - before the URAA date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- File:The Cavendish Laboratory - geograph.org.uk - 631839.jpg - Fine. Standard geograph.org.uk release.
- File:Sir Ernest Rutherfords laboratory, early 20th century. (9660575343).jpg I don't see why this is out of copyright, it's very poorly documented. Does the person who uploaded this as CC have the right to do so?
- It was part of a series of images belonging to the Science Museum in the UK. It was uploaded to Flickr at my request via the Wikimedian in Residence there. It's actually in the PD, having been taken in 1926, but Flickr doesn't allow you to tag PD, so CC was used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's a problem: See first comment about the really annoying thing the UK did with the URAA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Science Museum have licensed it on Flickr as CC. This was verified by the Commons admin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, presuming they own the rights, that's fine, but that should probably be explained on the page. (And I apologise for the difficulty ere, but we do want to get this right.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Science Museum have licensed it on Flickr as CC. This was verified by the Commons admin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's a problem: See first comment about the really annoying thing the UK did with the URAA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was part of a series of images belonging to the Science Museum in the UK. It was uploaded to Flickr at my request via the Wikimedian in Residence there. It's actually in the PD, having been taken in 1926, but Flickr doesn't allow you to tag PD, so CC was used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- File:Victoria Clock Tower, Liverpool University - geograph.org.uk - 374422.jpg Fine. Geograph.org.uk again.
- File:William Penney, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls and John Cockroft.jpg Fine.
- File:Liverpool Blitz D 5984.jpg Fine. Crown copyright.
- File:Quebec conference 1943.png Fine. Canadian copyright expired.
- File:Groves and Chadwick 830308.tif Fine; this could probably be cropped if we have to lose the current lead image.
Conclusion: Probably fails? It might be fine, but I have significant doubts on several images. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Closing comment - I have decided to break with tradition and promote this article without the usual level of explicit support. This is not to be taken as a precedent. In my view – thanks in part to the thorough reviews above – this article satisfies the FA criteria. Graham Colm (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- @GrahamColm: I'm sorry, but File:Chadwick.jpg claims its copyright in Sweden based on it being anonymous - but lists the photographer. That's kind of a nonsense copyright claim. Please actually resolve the image check issues before promotion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am satisfied that any remaining issues will be resolved post FAC as we have done in the past with other candidates. Graham Colm (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Without actually flagging up such things as needing done post-FAC? The lead image is quite possibly a copyvio. And, given the lead image is liekly the one that will go onto the main.. screw it, I'll just nominate them for deletion at commons and be done with it, shall I? Good thing I actually noticed this was bpassed without resolving the issues, because I don't think anyone else was paying attention. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I also disagree with the closure, the issues with the mass of the neutron experimentally, and found that it was greater than that of the proton thereby confirming this theory still have not been resolved. The rest of my objections were addressed satisfactorily, but not this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- The best I could do was: The mass of the neutron was too large to be a proton/electron pair, and so had to be something else, thereby supporting Bohr and Heisenberg's theory that it was a new nuclear particle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's bad to close things with unresolved image reviews. It's worse when the lead image is one of the ones that may be a copyright violation, because that gives a very high risk of copyvio on the main page. If you expect the things to be dealt with after closure, I'd ask how you expect that to happen, if you don't, say, put a message on the talk page of the article saying, in bold, all caps, "fix these issues now", but, instead, hope they read a closed FAC - which is meant to have had all issues dealt with - and notice that actually, no, that didn't happen, then it's likely the problems will not, in fact, be fixed. We're not in the habit of doing Image reviews on things that are already FAs, because FAC is meant to have dealt with that. Seriously, had I not noticed this had closed, and checked it, I have very little doubt we'd have copyvio on the main page in a few months. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I was here as a reviewer rather than a FAC delegate but I have to admit that if I was wearing my delegate hat on this one I might well have closed it too based on the image review as it stood. The way the most recent comments on the outstanding points were worded just didn't suggest to me the level of concern that's now apparent -- there was no oppose statement, and no use of the term "copyvio" until after promotion. Okay, the concern is quite apparent now so it should be addressed one way or another but, for the future, if anyone really thinks an article should not be promoted then the best way is to explicitly oppose it. There's nothing harsh about this, it simply acts as a red light until the issues are dealt with, at which point the reviewer can change it to support or at least strike it out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- I also disagree with the closure, the issues with the mass of the neutron experimentally, and found that it was greater than that of the proton thereby confirming this theory still have not been resolved. The rest of my objections were addressed satisfactorily, but not this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Without actually flagging up such things as needing done post-FAC? The lead image is quite possibly a copyvio. And, given the lead image is liekly the one that will go onto the main.. screw it, I'll just nominate them for deletion at commons and be done with it, shall I? Good thing I actually noticed this was bpassed without resolving the issues, because I don't think anyone else was paying attention. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am satisfied that any remaining issues will be resolved post FAC as we have done in the past with other candidates. Graham Colm (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC) [11].
- Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is about an active typhoon season that featured a lot of damaging storms. I've had it done for a while, but I decided to give it a go and try for FAC, since I believe it represents some of the WPTC's best work, and it's the best coverage on typhoons in 2002. Hope you like it as much as I enjoyed writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would also like to invite User:Jason Rees to co-nom this FAC, as I might be busy over the next few weeks with music stuff. He indicated interest off-wiki that he'd be able to help out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yep for my own personal reason that Hink is aware off i am willing to help out with this articles FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: While i would still like to see this article succeed in its quest for FA Status, I have become rather busy in real life and am currently only able to use Wiki at weekends and at odd moments during the week. As a result i am withdrawing from being a co-nominater of this article.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yep for my own personal reason that Hink is aware off i am willing to help out with this articles FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - the color scheme used in the headers of the infobox do not comply with WP:CONTRAST. Namely, the link colors
#0645AD(unvisited) and#0B0080(visited) against the dark red (ff6060,ff8f20) and dark blue (5ebaff) colors used do not comply according to this calculator. Since the link is to very useful information explaining the scale used, removing it isn't an option, so some sort of color adjustment needs to be made. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- As this is a project-wide issue, one that cannot be addressed solely with this article, and as you are currently in a discussion about it with the rest of the project, I believe it is inactionable at the moment, and that it should not affect the progress of the FAC. When the concern is addressed by the project as a whole, it will also be fixed in this article. If you have any comments pertaining to this article specifically, I'd be happy to address them though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #2 - "It follows the style guidelines". Are you implying that this featured article candidate should be exempted from following the Accessibility guideline just because other articles in that wikiproject fail to adhere to it? -- Netoholic @ 21:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all. I'm saying that there is a discussion going on to discuss this, since it affects the entire project, so it is inactionable on here. Once the issue is addressed, it will be fixed through the entire project, including this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Likewise, there FA promotion request could be "inactionable" if the article fails to comply with the MoS. I suggest helping to move along the adoption of a compliant color scheme. -- Netoholic @ 02:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but none of the 189 FA/FL's have had issues with this before, so I think it's a little unfair to single out this specific FAC, when it deals with every article in the entire project. After all, just two weeks ago, another season article in particular passed FAC with no problems. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can't answer about any previous ones. It's a shame this particular MOS has been missed, but its understandable. But what I really cannot understand is why you keep repeating yourself, trying to convince people here to overlook this standard just because it was never brought up before. Now you know about it and it is an issue here and now. I don't know how others will comment, but I will not give this article a free pass on a several-years-old MoS style guideline, especially when the guideline is one designed to assist people with impairments. -- Netoholic @ 06:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not asking you to give it a free pass, or to overlook. I'm just saying that I am incapable of addressing your concerns with this one single article when the changes affect the entire Wikiproject. There is a discussion on this with you involved elsewhere, so I don't see a point continuing to harp on it on here. I just ask that you assume good faith that when a consensus is reached, that the change will be put into effect project wide, including this article. If you have anything on this article in particular (and not other articles) that you have qualms about, I'd be happy to address them, though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would have more confidence in what you're saying if, as the nominator here, you said something like "I recognize this is a problem and am working hard to address this concern". Lacking that, it feels like you're ask for a free pass on this article. Perhaps you should withdraw until this article (and the WikiProject) adheres to the MoS guideline? -- Netoholic @ 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Quite the contrary. As some editors believe that how we have it currently does indeed adhere to the MoS guideline, I feel no need to withdraw it, since I believe the article does pass all of the FA criteria. Your point is noted, but your edits are getting borderline disruptive. I feel there is no need for more discussion about this specific issue here, considering how lengthy the discussion is at WT:WPTC. But, once again, if you have anything specific about this article (and not the tropical cyclone project in general that you seem to have some beef with) that you have concerns about, I'd be happy to address them! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm mostly ignorant about color issues, but I know that ACCESS lists two standards, AA and AAA. Just eyeballing it, the contrast doesn't seem to be a problem, so I'm wondering if that's the issue, if the contrast meets the AA standard but not the AAA standard. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you have normal vision, "eyeballing it" probably won't indicate to you the problem, but WP:CONTRAST links to tools that assist. Since this page uses a total of only about 7 distinct colors for storm strength, we should be able to get AAA, or very close to it. -- Netoholic @ 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I got an answer to this question here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Added comment: the tracking images used on this page also fail to comply with WP:COLOR (""Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information"). These maps use only colored circles to differentiate the intensities. The intensity should instead be conveyed by different symbols for each, and a key should be present on the images to aid readers. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Such as the season summary map at the top of the page? - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and the individual ones for each storm. -- Netoholic @ 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- As I mentioned elsewhere, this is impracticable at the resolutions the track maps are made, and introduces internationalization issues. Additionally, the track maps are not the only way the data in the track maps is presented; the prose of the article indicates when and where the storms reached important intensity thresholds. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Repeating what I said there: Like almost all our guideline pages, ACCESS has been written assuming that people will follow the instructions: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." So, guideline pages typically don't try to anticipate every exception. They expect editors to figure out not to add numbers that would be too small to see to an image, and not to remove the single-pixel hues that are there on the theory that someone might not see them. I applaud anyone who's working on ACCESS issues, but this isn't the right call to make. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
-
original version -
accessible version
- To answer Titoxd's suggestion that this change is "impracticable" or that it would produce illegible results, I've put together a mockup of one way to make the indicators more accessible without impacting the current functionality. To the side is a track map from this article, and my mock-up - can you tell the difference at first glance? At thumbnail resolutions, you can see that the difference is almost indistinguishable, and I am sure with some work on the actual track generation program, the impact would be even less. The noticeable improvement, of course, is seen when the image is expanded to higher resolutions, where the addition of numbers (which correlate to the Saffir-Simpson scale used).
Dank above makes the case that there can be "occasional exceptions" to the guidelines, and that is true, but in this case, the large number of track maps means this is far more than "occasional" and the fact that the change can be accomplished without a negative impact means this should not be an exception. -- Netoholic @ 05:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- This change actually makes the data points darker, decreasing contrast with the background, and makes the image less legible for all users. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was talking about the season summary map at the top of the page. I'm not taking a position on the ACCESS issue per se ... I completely agree that it's a good thing to make images as widely accessible as possible, and of course, that tends to happen gradually as Wikipedia evolves, so I have no problem that you're raising the issue. There are people who are smarter about ACCESS than I am, so I generally just ask around when I don't know what to do. But for the map I was talking about, in the size it's going to appear to most readers (and readers don't click, most of the time), what you want would literally mean changes to individual pixels (on most screens) ... and that gets us to a different issue, the feasibility of what you're asking for. It may help to try to bring more people into the discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- To answer Titoxd's suggestion that this change is "impracticable" or that it would produce illegible results, I've put together a mockup of one way to make the indicators more accessible without impacting the current functionality. To the side is a track map from this article, and my mock-up - can you tell the difference at first glance? At thumbnail resolutions, you can see that the difference is almost indistinguishable, and I am sure with some work on the actual track generation program, the impact would be even less. The noticeable improvement, of course, is seen when the image is expanded to higher resolutions, where the addition of numbers (which correlate to the Saffir-Simpson scale used).
I'd like to add a note to the FA coordinators. It appears that User:Netoholic has a bit of a quarrel with the tropical cyclone project, resulting in requests for admin action, unilateral edits to heavily used templates, and numerous discussions questioning the user's edits, with regards to hurricane articles. I hope that is taken into consideration with any future action in this FAC, and that instead of having this discussion on four different pages (or more?), that this can continue without too much disruption and instead be focused on an article that I am very proud of, and one I believe should be featured! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Poisoning the well immediately after I changed my vote to oppose? Yes, I do hope FA coordinators all this into consideration. Is this how we treat people that bring legitimate MoS concerns up? -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you added your formal oppose after I implored that discussion would continue not on this page, for the umpteenth time, due to the many discussions elsewhere. I have argued that perhaps it is not a legitimate MoS concern (based on the comments by User:Dank), and since it is debatable (and indeed is being debated elsewhere), that perhaps this is not the best place for the discussion, especially in light that it has not been a problem in previous FA's, and it is not something only limited to this article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Translation: "Well, yes I poisoned the well, but only because I couldn't convince you using other means." Really? -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to point out to the FA coordinators that Netoholic is engaging in a textbook case of WP:FORUMSHOPping, with no less than three discussions (including this one) all dealing with the same issue. The emerging consensus is the same one since 2012: avoid the use of links in tables that use colored backgrounds. More eyeballs from more editors would be appreciated, but the best place for that discussion is not in the middle of a FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion is to bring the WP:COLOR MoS failing of this article to the attention of the FA process... which I am sure wants to know any MoS problems related to a FAC. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Colors.3F.3F.3F is a general discussion area - the section was not started by me, so I don't see how you can accuse me of forumshopping. And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks#Wikipedia:Manual of Style.2FAccessibility.23Color compliance is a discussion about the technical implementation of the fix - you yourself replied in all three threads with nearly the same comments in all three places. If I was really forumshopping, I'd be putting this on a Village Pump thread or Jimbo's talk page or other widely scattered places.
Now, can one of the FAC clerks please close off this section devoted to nothing less than an series of attacks on my motivations for opposing, so that relevant discussion about this FAC in particular can continue? -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion is to bring the WP:COLOR MoS failing of this article to the attention of the FA process... which I am sure wants to know any MoS problems related to a FAC. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Colors.3F.3F.3F is a general discussion area - the section was not started by me, so I don't see how you can accuse me of forumshopping. And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks#Wikipedia:Manual of Style.2FAccessibility.23Color compliance is a discussion about the technical implementation of the fix - you yourself replied in all three threads with nearly the same comments in all three places. If I was really forumshopping, I'd be putting this on a Village Pump thread or Jimbo's talk page or other widely scattered places.
- I would like to point out to the FA coordinators that Netoholic is engaging in a textbook case of WP:FORUMSHOPping, with no less than three discussions (including this one) all dealing with the same issue. The emerging consensus is the same one since 2012: avoid the use of links in tables that use colored backgrounds. More eyeballs from more editors would be appreciated, but the best place for that discussion is not in the middle of a FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Translation: "Well, yes I poisoned the well, but only because I couldn't convince you using other means." Really? -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you added your formal oppose after I implored that discussion would continue not on this page, for the umpteenth time, due to the many discussions elsewhere. I have argued that perhaps it is not a legitimate MoS concern (based on the comments by User:Dank), and since it is debatable (and indeed is being debated elsewhere), that perhaps this is not the best place for the discussion, especially in light that it has not been a problem in previous FA's, and it is not something only limited to this article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Since the above discussion is pretty much a rehash of discussions I've voiced an opinion on in other locales, I'll be skipping down here to list my qualms with this article so far. I have not covered the "Storms" section yet, but I have read through the other sections thus far – TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The 2002 Pacific typhoon season was an active, - an active... needs a subject here.
- Meant to put one. Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Overall, there were 37 tropical depressions, of which 26 became named storms; of those, there were 15 typhoons - Since you're using the official tally for named storms and typhoons, I think the count for tropical depressions should be changed since I believe that includes the unofficial PAGASA tropical depression Dagul.
- Specified that some were unofficial. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- During most of the year, sea surface temperatures were above normal near the equator for most of the year - Saying "most of the year" again is quite redundant
- Ack, removed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- floods left about $1.8 million (P94.2 million PHP) - Substitute the peso symbol in for the 'P'
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The last paragraph of the seasonal summary section feels incomplete. It begins in January and talks about storms up until September when the summary just ends abruptly with a little factoid on Kammuri.
- Added mentions of Higos and Pongsona, how they were farther east than the barrage of China landfalls through September. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- "mid-latitude trough" in the Caloy section could use a helpful link to an appropriate article
- Well, it'd basically just link to trough, which is already linked elsewhere in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Within the North-western Pacific Ocean, both the JMA and PAGASA assign names to tropical cyclones that develop in the Western Pacific - Western or North-western, but not both.
- Made it "northwestern". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- They became Typhoon Ele and Typhoon Huko keeping their original name and "C" suffix. - You could probably indicate that the JTWC uses these suffixes here as well since there's no guidance on what the JTWC does in regards to naming in the Storm names section
- Ya, noted. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The names Matmo, Nuri, and Noul were chosen to replaced
- Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Some rows in the Storm Effects section are given inline citations, others are not.
- Well, the refs there cite the damage or deaths. No cite was added for each of the storms, since that's just rehashed from above. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The majority of the notes (having to do with currencies being converted to US$ using Oanda) can be simplified by using just one broad note that covers for all of them.
- I personally think it's easier having them separate, just to clarify the original currency right next to the abbreviated versions (such as "₱522 million PHP"). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
-- TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the review! It's good to get specific comments on the article instead of an abstract argument. I hope I addressed your concerns here properly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the dates of the storms be taken from the JMA best track. There are a few that use JTWC dates or that are incorrect. Supportstorm (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, taken care of. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support. I have no issues with this being considered a Featured Article.--12george1 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support. But I think is better using "Renminbi" to replace "Chinese yuan" at Note 4.--Jarodalien (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, will change. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Support Comments. I'll add comments as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two -- not sure how much time I'll have tonight. For the record, the debate above about accessibility of the colours used for the storm track dots doesn't incline me to oppose. I'm OK with waiting for a consensus from the project and I'll assume that it will be implemented in good faith when it happens. I do have a different comment about the colours further below, however.
- First, thanks for the review! As far as the debate, it's largely settled now, as we removed the WP:ACCESS issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is not correct. The Track map color dots are still a major issue. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've now completed a pass through; comments are below -- quite a few, but they're either minor or they're questions.
"In March, Typhoon Mitag became the first super typhoon on record in the month": from the body of the article it's apparent that this means that no super typhoon had ever occurred in March before this, but I wasn't clear when I read it that that was the intention. How about "Two months later, Typhoon Mitag became the first super typhoon ever to be recorded in March"?
- Yea, I spent a lot of time tweaking with that sentence. Yours works well. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I see from a look at some of the other typhoon season articles that the paragraph in the lead starting "The scope of this article ..." is common to most or all of them. I've no objection to some such text being repeated in each season article (though it would be nice to avoid the slightly self-referential "this article"), but I don't see any reason for this to be in the lead -- surely this belongs in the body, in an introductory section on scope, or background? It doesn't seem to meet the goal of a lead: summarizing the body of the article. The part of this paragraph that defines the scope of this article could be added to the first sentence (e.g. "The 2002 Pacific typhoon season, covering Pacific storms that form north of the equator and west of the International Date Line, was an active one ..."); the rest of the paragraph is probably not strictly necessary at all if you do that, but I think it would be OK in either a scope or background section, or as definitional phrases attached to the "See also" lines. And you also made me curious: what about storms that form south of the equator? What are they called, and what articles would cover those?
- I omitted the bit about "this article" by saying "The Western Pacific basin covers the Pacific Ocean...". I still think it's important to say just where the boundaries are. It's an introductory section that helps clarify what's going on. I don't want to front load the information too much. Mostly likely, those who visit the article will know where the storms are, but for those who don't, I want a proper clarification on all of the agencies and what's going on. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK on including all of that; I agree the reader needs the information. But why is it in the lead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mostly I thought it was the most logical location. The first paragraph dealt with the season activity as a whole, the second dealt with individual storms, and the third clarified just what the season was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I read through again and I think it's OK as it stands; I'm not used to seeing leads do this but I can't really see anything wrong with it. I think the last sentence should be moved to the "Storms" section, though; see the next point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mostly I thought it was the most logical location. The first paragraph dealt with the season activity as a whole, the second dealt with individual storms, and the third clarified just what the season was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK on including all of that; I agree the reader needs the information. But why is it in the lead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I omitted the bit about "this article" by saying "The Western Pacific basin covers the Pacific Ocean...". I still think it's important to say just where the boundaries are. It's an introductory section that helps clarify what's going on. I don't want to front load the information too much. Mostly likely, those who visit the article will know where the storms are, but for those who don't, I want a proper clarification on all of the agencies and what's going on. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Storms that form to the south of the basin/Equator are called tropical cyclones and are covered by the Australian and South Pacific cyclone articles.Jason Rees (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I've ever reviewed a storm FAC before, which is amazing considering how long you and I have both been doing this, so this might be a question you've answered on other FACs: surely the colour key for the dots on the storm track should be somewhere in the article, and not only in the picture when you click through to it?
- Interesting that's never come up! And it's especially interesting considering we had a discussion about this on the template for Storm path to change the text. I used that text and put it at the end of the 3rd lead paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's helpful, but can we say something about the colours too? E.g. "... blue indicates a tropical depression, and intensifying colours of yellow through red correspond to the [[Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale] from 1 to 5"? As above, I think this should not be in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's a bit too much detail and self referential to the article. The text now matches what's used in the storm path template, used on individual storm articles, which was the result of this discussion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think the sentence should be moved to the "Storms" section; it describes something that is not really visible in the composite picture, and is directly relevant to the Storms section, where it would look fine as an introductory sentence before the first storm. I think you could add some form of the sentence I suggested about colours, too: as the discussion you linked to points out, the scale doesn't make any colour recommendations, so the reader can't understand what is presented without a click. I don't think that's ideal; and it's fixable with half a sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I think that would work. And as far as my talk page message, usually I just use the colons, so thanks for the heads up on how to do it differently :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's a definite help to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I think that would work. And as far as my talk page message, usually I just use the colons, so thanks for the heads up on how to do it differently :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think the sentence should be moved to the "Storms" section; it describes something that is not really visible in the composite picture, and is directly relevant to the Storms section, where it would look fine as an introductory sentence before the first storm. I think you could add some form of the sentence I suggested about colours, too: as the discussion you linked to points out, the scale doesn't make any colour recommendations, so the reader can't understand what is presented without a click. I don't think that's ideal; and it's fixable with half a sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's a bit too much detail and self referential to the article. The text now matches what's used in the storm path template, used on individual storm articles, which was the result of this discussion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's helpful, but can we say something about the colours too? E.g. "... blue indicates a tropical depression, and intensifying colours of yellow through red correspond to the [[Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale] from 1 to 5"? As above, I think this should not be in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting that's never come up! And it's especially interesting considering we had a discussion about this on the template for Storm path to change the text. I used that text and put it at the end of the 3rd lead paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"which was risen further" is a bit ugly. The problem is that "which" refers to the forecast. How about "The group increased their forecast twice more; in April to 29.6 storms, and then in early May to 30.5 storms"?
- I love it :D ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"The group was largely accurate in its predictions": you've just used "the group" as the subject of the previous sentence. How about "These predictions proved to be largely accurate"?
- That works, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"The JMA issued forecasts and analyses four times a day, beginning at 0000 UTC and continuing every six hours": "continuing" doesn't seem right. It would be more technically correct as something like "at 0000 UTC and every six hours thereafter", though that's just as inelegant. How about "The JMA issued forecasts and analyses at six hour intervals each day, beginning at 0000 UTC"?
- I still want to emphasize there being four a day more than the every six hours, so I changed it to...
- "The JMA issued forecasts and analyses every six hours four times a day, starting at 0000 UTC and based on a climatological tropical cyclone forecast model."
- This also address the below comment, I believe. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Two consecutive sentences begin with "The JMA issued forecasts"."The agency began with several meteorologists leaving": might be better as "Several meteorologists left the agency near the start of the year".
- Done, good call. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"slightly below the normal of 26.7": I think this should be either "slightly below the norm of 26.7" or "slightly below the normal value [or number] of 26.7"."Of the storms, 15 became typhoons, which was a slightly higher than normal proportion of storms becoming typhoons": a bit repetitive, with "storms ... became typhoons" quickly followed by "storms becoming typhoons". How about "15 of these 26 storms became typhoons -- a slightly higher proportion than normal".
- I largely did that, but changed the beginning so not to violate MOSDATE and starting a sentence with a date. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I had to scroll up and down in the article a bit to figure out what Agaton and Basyang meant, in parentheses after the names of the storms. I did recall the earlier statement that "This can result in the same storm having two names", which helped. Perhaps that statement could be expanded to something like "This can result in the same storm having two names; in these cases both storm names are given below, with the PAGASA name in parentheses".
- Thanks, added. This is very useful, as this is the first time a typhoon season article is up for FAC, so I appreciate comments like these especially. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"The storm influenced heavy rainfall": this would mean that there was already heavy rainfall, which the storm then influenced. I'm sure the repetitive nature of these storm description means that you reach for the thesaurus, but I think just "caused" would be fine here.
- "Caused" is so boring :P I changed it to "induced", hehe. Thank you thesaurus.com! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"forcing the other 15 crew members to be rescued": needs to be rephrased; the storm put them in a position where they needed to be rescued, but it didn't force their rescue.
- Reworded to - When the typhoon washed a freighter ashore, four people drowned while the remaining fifteen were rescued. Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Damage totaled $700 million, which was one of the five costliest storms on Guam": needs rephrasing; $700 million wasn't one of the costliest storms.
- Changed "which was" to "making it". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You have "considered the system as" and "considering the system as" in the article; I don't think "as" can be used in this way with "consider". You could maybe drop the "as", or perhaps use a verb that does take as, such as "regarded", though I think the intended meaning is what the agencies classified the storm as, not what they regarded it as.
- Reworded all three. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"quickly dissipating by the next day": "quickly" and "the next day" are redundant here; I'd cut "quickly".
- Reworded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Every month had tropical activity, with most storms forming from June through August": per the chart, this doesn't appear to be right -- July through October seems more like it.
- Actually, check the table under "Seasonal summary and predictions". It shows that there was a depression in every month. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but I count three forming in June, eight in July, seven in August, five in September, and five in October. Shouldn't it say "July through October"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ooh, yea, good point. I changed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, check the table under "Seasonal summary and predictions". It shows that there was a depression in every month. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there any way to tell by looking at one of the storm track graphics which end represents the start of the track? It would seem natural that there should be a way.
- That is one of the limitations of the track map program, which doesn't have that sort of feature. However, when read with the text, the start and end should be obvious. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to strike this because I agree the text makes it clear, but I did notice that File:Changmi_2002_track.png, for example, has triangles that indicate direction. Another track map I looked at had this just for the very first marker, which might be a cleaner approach -- you only need one arrow to indicate direction. Any reason this couldn't be done for all the track maps? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, that's because Changmi became extratropical toward the end (basically a different type of storm), which is why the arrow changed. As for why it couldn't be done for all track maps, the track maps use the data from the warning centers, but that data doesn't indicate direction. It would be a lot of extra work to add a symbol that really isn't visible unless you click on the image. It's technically doable, but that's a lot of extra work for fairly minimal payoff, IMO. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- It does, and as I say above I'm not going to oppose, but I think it would be a nice touch, if ever an OCD member of the Wikiproject wants to edit several thousand track maps to add this .... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, that's because Changmi became extratropical toward the end (basically a different type of storm), which is why the arrow changed. As for why it couldn't be done for all track maps, the track maps use the data from the warning centers, but that data doesn't indicate direction. It would be a lot of extra work to add a symbol that really isn't visible unless you click on the image. It's technically doable, but that's a lot of extra work for fairly minimal payoff, IMO. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- That is one of the limitations of the track map program, which doesn't have that sort of feature. However, when read with the text, the start and end should be obvious. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
In the image File:2002_Pacific_typhoon_season_summary.jpg, one of the storm tracks appears to disappear off the eastern edge of the map -- shouldn't it be included?- Yes and no - the track that "disapears of the map" is acctully only just entering the WPAC from the Eastern Pacific region.Jason Rees (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You use "the PAGASA" a couple of times, though it's mostly just "PAGASA"; I assume these are errors and should be fixed.
- Dropped "the". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Given that " ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee" just redirects to the WMO, I think you should list the 14 members in a footnote; there appears to be no other way for a reader to figure out who they are or what the geographic area is (or what "ESCAP" stands for).
- Changed the link to WMO, and added the 14 members in a footnote. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Tropical Cyclones are named from the following lists by ..." why is "Cyclones" capitalized? And this makes it sound like a general statement about all years, whereas this list is specific to 2002, isn't it?
- No idea how "Cyclones" got capitalized, but I fixed that. And true, I removed the "following lists" part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"The Japan Meteorological Agency's RSMC Tokyo — Typhoon Center ..." The RSMCs are mentioned a few sentences later and linked then; I think they should be linked on first appearance, and since it would be good to spell it out on first appearance, why not abbreviate JMA, as the article generally does to this point, and make it "The JMA's Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC) ..."?
- Hmm, no real reason. I shortened it to JMA and added the RSMC link. Regarding the below, I adjusted where I put RSMC and Typhoon Center so they weren't right next to each other. It is correct that the JMA has "center" while RSMC has "centre". I think it's clearer now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Also re the above: I can't quite parse "... Tokyo — Typhoon Center", for a couple of reasons. First, the spelling of "Center" is inconsistent with the spelling in RSMC -- is that correct? Second, making it "RSMC Tokyo — Typhoon Center" makes it sound like that's the official title of the centre, which isn't how you refer to it later in this section -- there you just say "the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre in Tokyo".I don't think you need to mention twice that PAGASA has a list of ten spare names; I would remove the first mention.
- Thanks, agreed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Listing the unused names in grey makes them almost invisibly different. This is not an accessibility issue, since you do have "(unused)" next to them, but I can't imagine anyone finding the colour a quicker visual check than the parenthesis.- I brought it up to the project whether they should be greyed or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK; struck since it's not an issue for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I brought it up to the project whether they should be greyed or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Each of the 14 nations or territories submitted 10 names, which are used in alphabetical order, by the English name of the country." I'm not clear what this means -- each of the 14 nations does this each year, and this is the 2002 list? That can't be right; there should be 140 names. So maybe it means that there are 140 names, and they are cycled through so that the only repeat every four or five years? And the order within the 140 is alphabetical, by submitting country? It doesn't seem to be alphabetical by storm within that, if so.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yea, it's a rotating list every five years or so. But looking at it again, it doesn't really matter about the 10 names each, or alphabetical, so I cut a lot of it out to make it simpler. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Additional comments. One more read through.
You have "Northwestern Pacific Ocean" and "Western Pacific" sometimes with capital N and W, and sometimes lower-case. I think it should be lower-case throughout.
- Standardized, agreed! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
"As part of its duty as Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC)": should this be "as a Regional"?
- Yea, that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm still a bit confused by the naming. What's the origin of the "0201" naming convention? Who assigns these? I'm guessing it's the JTWC, but unless I missed it you don't say that.
- Clarified that JMA does the numbering. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like an editing error or vandalism in the Philippines storm name list; the T storm is named "File:FE" at the moment.
- o.O Fixed ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Is PAGASA's naming scheme re-used each year? So there'll be an Agaton every year? Seems unlikely but you don't mention that this is just the 2002 list.
- It's rotated every four years, added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You got rid of one mention of ESCAP, but there's another -- can it be linked or footnoted?
- Meh, the ESCAP is pretty useless, I cut it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I think several of the external links should be cut, per # 19 in WP:ELNO. The JTWC, JMA and PAGASA, for example, all have links within the article text to their Wikipedia pages, and those pages all have links to the external websites. There's no need for the external sites to be linked on pages where they're just mentioned.
-- That's really all I can see; I look forward to supporting once we're done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I cut all but those three agencies. I think it's useful actually to show the home page for the three main agencies in the basin, but some of the others are a bit useless. Thanks so much though for the review! The article is much better now with your assistance :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I hate to be picky, but I think WP:ELNO is pretty clear on this, unless I'm misinterpreting it somehow. It says "one should generally avoid providing external links to ... websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered". Do you feel this guideline doesn't apply here? Personally I think this is a good guideline; it's easy to add this sort of link, but when we direct people away from Wikipedia to a page on a topic with an article, we should usually only do it from that article, because that way we can give additional context to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, ok, good point. I opted to leave that Youtube link, and removed the other three links, and added a link to the page that documents every storm in the basin since 1951, which I believe is valuable as further reading. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've switched to support above; congratulations on a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, ok, good point. I opted to leave that Youtube link, and removed the other three links, and added a link to the page that documents every storm in the basin since 1951, which I believe is valuable as further reading. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I hate to be picky, but I think WP:ELNO is pretty clear on this, unless I'm misinterpreting it somehow. It says "one should generally avoid providing external links to ... websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered". Do you feel this guideline doesn't apply here? Personally I think this is a good guideline; it's easy to add this sort of link, but when we direct people away from Wikipedia to a page on a topic with an article, we should usually only do it from that article, because that way we can give additional context to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I cut all but those three agencies. I think it's useful actually to show the home page for the three main agencies in the basin, but some of the others are a bit useless. Thanks so much though for the review! The article is much better now with your assistance :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Image check - all OK
- images are PD "own work", NASA or USGov - OK.
- sources and authors provided - OK.
File:FEMA_-_7423_-_Photograph_by_Andrea_Booher_taken_on_12-13-2002_in_Guam.jpg - the source link is dead, and the Wayback machine doesn't have the link archived. However i am going to AGF on this one - the photographer has made a lot of similar photos and there is no real reason to doubt the source info (if you happen to find a replacement link, great)- OK. GermanJoe (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I fixed it :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Duh, i searched for "Booher" at the site and saw no matching hit - oh well. Thanks for finding it. GermanJoe (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Image comment
- Note: i haven't considered the previous lengthy discussion for the image check itself. Complex policy disputes should be resolved in their proper discussion boards, not during an active FAC (imo). Thankfully IANAC, so i'll leave that point to the FAC-coordinators' decision. GermanJoe (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the review!! It was very thorough, and I believe it's especially polished right now :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support - what strikes me most about this article is the remarkable variety of sources it uses to create a rich account of each storm. It's a bit difficult to seamlessly blend huge government reports, scientific journal articles, and locally relevant headlines, but this article does it masterfully. The individual storm sections seem weighted appropriately, and the 'background' section goes above and beyond by presenting the storms as part of a single season, instead of just listing a fact or two about each one. No significant issues that I can see, so happy to offer my support. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Note -- Several of the rows in the last table are missing refs, is there a valid reason they should not be cited like the others? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I added the refs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "The JMA issued forecasts and analyses every six hours four times a day, starting at 0000 UTC, and is based on numerical weather prediction (NWP) and a climatological tropical cyclone forecast model.": Several issues here. Short version: I'd like this changed to "The JMA issued forecasts and analyses every six hours using numerical weather prediction (NWP) and a climatological tropical cyclone forecast model." Any objections? - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- No objections really. I kinda wanted to indicate when exactly they happened, but it is kinda trivial. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- No objection to adding "starting at midnight UTC". - Dank (push to talk)
- No objections really. I kinda wanted to indicate when exactly they happened, but it is kinda trivial. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "operating from Pearl Harbor in Hawaii to represent the interests of the United States Armed Forces in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.": I don't know what that means.
- The agency was in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. And they pretty much only existed to help the military. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- How about "... to supply forecasts to the US Armed Forces ..."? - Dank (push to talk)
- The agency was in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. And they pretty much only existed to help the military. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "The JTWC had a backup facility in Monterrey, California for the first time in 2002, having moved from Yokosuka, Kanagawa in Japan.": I don't know what that means. Did they move their backup facility from Yokosuka to Monterrey?
- Yep. I reworded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Several meteorologists left the agency near the beginning of the year, although the new forecasters compensated for their inexperience by relying on the consensus of various forecast models.": I don't know ... that's not a particularly nice way to put it. (Being nice isn't mandatory, but I'm not sure if the tone was intended.) You could say that the new forecasters put more reliance on the models of other experienced forecasters after several experienced meteorologists left.
- Well, it's better than what the agency said. "Given the significant turnover in personnel, ...the season was entered with some trepidation. The effective use of the
consensus forecast approach helped to mitigate the break in forecaster experience." Really, they're quite lucky that they didn't have more problems given the change in staff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "compensated for their inexperience" is a slightly more negative tone than "the break in forecaster experience." Your call. - Dank (push to talk)
- "have complete sections below": I don't know what that means. It might help to be more specific, something like: "The following is a list of (certain) storms, together with (whatever features constitute a "complete section"). - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- They have an actual section with an infobox, as opposed to the other minor storms in the "Other storms" section. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I won't object, I'll just note that it's just not the way most wikiprojects do it. More tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 01:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- They have an actual section with an infobox, as opposed to the other minor storms in the "Other storms" section. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oops, there's a lot of editing going on so it's not a good time to make edits directly to the article, I'll make my suggestions here, sorry for the extra work:
- "model. The agency estimated 10 minute sustained winds and barometric pressure is based on the Dvorak technique and NWP. The JTWC also issued": model, and used the Dvorak technique and NWP to estimate 10-minute sustained winds and barometric pressure. They issued
- I think the sentence becomes a bit long at that point, but I'll change if you insist. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Beginning in 2002, the JTWC began experimenting with forecasting to five days in the future.": In 2002, the JTWC began experimenting with five-day forecasts.
- "which was the easternmost since": the easternmost point since - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not attached to either, so I went with yours. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Damage totaled $150 million, mostly from the crop damage.": Damage totaled $150 million, mostly to crops.
- That works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "There was one death related to the storm's aftermath.": There was one death in the storm's aftermath. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. There have been many people who died since that storm. Simply saying "there was one death" removes any connection that "related" has. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm coming up with a long list here, so I'm going to pause to clarify three things. 1. There are lots of judgment calls here, and the relevant wikiprojects (WP:TROP, mainly) are in the best position to make these judgment calls, especially since there are a lot of fine writers and copyeditors interested in TROP articles. 2. The better copyeditors try to base recommendations on actual usage metrics and actual testing for reading comprehension and flow, rather than just repeating what other copyeditors have said. There hasn't been enough of this kind of testing, and I can't back up everything I'm saying with data ... a lot of it does come from copyediting lore and from what Wikipedians have preferred so far. But I'm interested in setting up testing on everything we can test, and I'm always open to changing my recommendations if testing doesn't back them up. 3. Every extra rule places an extra burden on writers, and that's a bad thing (and writers generally push back regardless) ... so I try as much as possible to limit my advice to the kind that can be automated. I'd like to discuss my copyediting automation project with anyone at WP:TROP who's interested. Okay, back to the grind:
- Thanks so much for the copyediting! No worries about the long list. I apologize for taking so long to reply, as I've been moving and working a lot lately. I kinda doubt there will be much testing, as people don't generally leave comments about the specific prose of the article. Mostly, from what I've observed, people glance through the article mostly for relevant stats and figures. But that doesn't mean we can't do that :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "1 minute winds": 1-minute winds
- Eek, fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "while the storm was located about 610 km (380 mi) east": Delete "while the storm was located"
- In previous FAC's, copyeditors suggested not getting rid of those statements. Otherwise, there could technically be confusion if the JTWC was located 610 km east of that location. Best to be clear IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- ", with the latter agency naming it "Caloy".": This needs testing on readers ... until we get that done, you're safer with ", and PAGASA named it "Caloy"."
- No worries, I changed it to your suggestion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "due to a ridge ... Due to strong wind shear": Avoid back-to-back "due to", and use fewer of them in general. See WP:Checklist#because.
- Gotcha, changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Subsequently" (throughout): See WP:Checklist#chronology.
- Thanks, removed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "quickly intensified, developing an eye feature later that day.": Drop the "quickly", unless it means something different than "developing an eye feature later that day".
- Yea, that's a key feature. Storms can develop eyes randomly and at random intensities. Usually, as in this case, the higher intensity results in the eye feature, but it can't hurt to clarify. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "entrained": uncommon word, easily replaceable
- Why? It perfectly describes what happened. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "after having weakened": Most style guides recommend "after weakening", but you also see "after having weakened" a lot.
- So does it need to be changed? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "with a broad circulation and developing convection": Avoid using a participle as an adjective when it could be read at first as a participle.
- Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "The JMA only estimated peak 10-minute winds of": This seems clear enough to me, and there's even an argument that it's best, but some copyeditors feel strongly that "The JMA estimated peak 10-minute winds of only" is more logical and better.
- I'm not sure I agree. This sentence shows that the JMA disagreed with the JTWC. Usually a defined eye means it's a typhoon intensity, but JMA thought not. I wanted to emphasis that it's something in opposition to the previous statement as soon as possible. Otherwise, the "only" rather late in the sentence, as in your example, just seems like ordinary boring prose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "The threat of the storm prompted school closures and for officials to cancel 20 airline flights": What does "for officials" modify? "... and cancellation of ..."
- Shortened. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Rammasun developed around the same time as Typhoon Chataan, only further to the west.": I'd go with: "Rammasun developed to the west of Typhoon Chataan, at around the same time." Your "only" has a sense of "except" that doesn't really fit the meaning here.
- I kinda like the sentence structure that was here. I changed it to "but farther to the west." Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "killing one person from high waves": You can "die from" something, but you can't "kill from" something. I'd go with "killing one person in high waves".
- I don't think that works either, IMHO. Simply changed the "from" to "due to". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "leaving [or left] X million in damage" (throughout): I'm not sure. "Leaving behind" is more idiomatic than "leaving", but this phrase is a bit metaphorical so I recommend not using it as often as you do. Also, assuming this was an estimate, maybe "leaving behind damage estimated at X million" would be less ambiguous.
- I'm still not sure what's wrong with "leaving". It's used in many tropical cyclone articles. It's a way not to say "caused X million in damage" 20 times in one article. Your suggestion, while less ambiguous, does seem a tad verbose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "near the same location as Chataan": Does this mean "near where Chataan originated"?
- That works well! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "relief efforts from Chataan": relief efforts following Chataan
- Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "although it still passed near Okinawa with strong winds": although its winds caused widespread power outages on Okinawa [in part to avoid repetition of "strong winds" with the next sentence]
- I like it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "allowed for all water restrictions to be removed": I think I'd go with "eliminated all remaining water restrictions".
- Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "four people drowned while the remaining fifteen were rescued": at the same time as the others were being rescued, or whereas the others were rescued? "while" is ambiguous here (and it's especially important to avoid ambiguity when talking about death). [But see below for a different fix.]
- Heh, this is the second time dealing with this pesky sentence. The sources didn't really say whether the people died at the same time the rescues happened, but yes, it appears it was the same general time. The ship went down, some died, some were rescued. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "in the country. In the country,": repetition
- Eek, majorly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "leaving $4 million (¥475 million JPY), in crop damage." No comma, and "leaving" is getting overused.
- Removed both. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "When the typhoon washed a freighter ashore, four people drowned while the remaining fifteen were rescued.[59][60] The typhoon produced strong winds and heavy rain in the country.[9] In the country, Fengshen dropped heavy rainfall and produced heavy rains,[61] causing mudslides and leaving $4 million (¥475 million JPY), in crop damage.[62][nb 5] There was an additional death in the country.": The last sentence feels tacked on. Now that I see this, I might go with: "Four people drowned when the typhoon washed a freighter ashore, and one was later killed [inland? Or better yet, give a few words of description]".
- Sadly, the source didn't give any description about that death. I opted to combine it with the mudslides and crop damage sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Moderate shear caused the thunderstorms to be scattered": Moderate shear scattered the thunderstorms [or another word, if this sounds too much like "scattered thunderstorms"]
- How's "dispersed"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "the system gradually organized.[10] It tracked northwestward due to a ridge to the north,[9] and organized": repetition
- Changed other one to "becoming." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "The depression dropped heavy rainfall in the Philippines during its passage,[9] only weeks after several consecutive tropical systems caused deadly flooding in the country. The rains forced 2,400 people to evacuate due to flooding": Repetition (rains, flooding, rains, flooding ... all for the same events)
- I dropped the last "due to flooding". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Three people were electrocuted, and flash flooding killed at least two people.[63] Tropical Depression Juan killed 14 people and injured two others.": ... In all, Tropical Depression Juan killed ...
- I'm not sure what you mean by the comment, but I added the "In all". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "two others. There were 583 houses that were damaged or destroyed, and damage": I get that you didn't want to have to spell out "583", but adding the expletive "there" isn't the fix I would have gone with ... expletives test poorly for flow and comprehension. I'd go with: "two others, and 583 houses were damaged or destroyed. Damage" - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that works best though, since it would have two "and"s in the sentence. That's something I always try and avoid. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Fung-wong turned to the south": It turned to the south
- "imparted weakening": an uncommon and kind of old-fashioned word, and its connotation is wrong for "weakening"
- Daw, I tried using some fancy wording and I got kicked in the butt... just like grade school! (changed "imparted" to "caused") ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "0600 UTC": 06:00 UTC per MOSNUM (and search for UTC throughout, adding colons)
- Oops, changed. Yea, that came up in a previous FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "made landfall with late on August 4": ?
- Eugh. Sorry. Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "to evacuate due to flooding and after 6,810 houses were destroyed.": Were the houses all destroyed by the flooding?
- Not necessarily. I added a comma. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "60 ha (150 acres)": spell out "hectares" at first occurrence (or rather, get the convert template to spell it out)
- Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Kammuri killed 153 people, most of them related to the remnants": ?
- The deaths were largely related to Kammuri's remnants. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "A tropical depression developed on August 10 the east of the Philippines.": ?
- Dropped "the". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "After affecting the country, the tropical depression dissipated in the South China Sea on August 14.": Delete "After affecting the country".
- Why? I changed "country" to Philippines. I think it's a great start to the paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Soon after it dissipated, it dropped heavy rainfall across the region": The idea is fine, but the words are contradictory. Maybe: ... the remnants dropped ...
- Clarified that the circulation dissipated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "killing twelve people due to landslides": This is one of many examples where the sentence would be better without "due to". "... in landslides".
- I'm just not a fan of that style. "in landslides" just sounds wrong to me. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "due to a weakening ridge, and dry air caused rapid weakening. Passing southeast of Japan, it weakened": repetition
- Changed around. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "24 hour total": 24-hour total
- Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "The typhoon later became extratropical over eastern Russia on September 1": Delete "later"
- "Rusa also destroyed large areas of crops in the country already affected by ongoing famine conditions.": Add ", which was" before "already".
- "Officials made many preparations for the storm, although damage ended up being minimal on the island. Two people were killed on Taiwan, however." "preparations" is an abstract noun, not a count noun ... that is, you can't make "one preparation" (here), so you also can't make "many preparations". (You could say "extensive preparations", but I won't. You could also say something specific about the storm preparations.) Also, avoid "although ... however" unless you need it, and you don't, here. So: "After storm preparations, damage ended up being minimal on Taiwan, but two people were killed."
- Meh, I just cut the clause about preps and said damage was minor there with the death bit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "produced a record wind gust": a record for what area and over what period?
- "Since records began" is what the source said, so I think "Record wind gust" works fine. And the first part of the sentence is "there", referring to the landfall point of Wenzhou. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "destroyed several piers and a large boat. High rainfall and winds from Sinlaku destroyed 58,000 houses, and large areas of crops were destroyed.": repetition of "destroyed"
- Made one "wrecked". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Ele continued strengthening, intensifying to winds of 205 km/h (125 mph) before crossing": Ele's winds intensified to 205 km/h (125 mph) before it crossed
- Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "1–minute": hyphen, not dash.
- Where? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "the JTWC estimated the storm attained peak 1–minute winds of 165 km/h": Either make it "the JTWC estimated the storm's peak 1-minute winds at 165 km/h", or add "that" after "estimated", both because it sounds better that way in Commonwealth countries, and because "estimated the storm" could mean various things ... until you reach "attained", so it's best to avoid the misdirection. Also make one of those two changes for "the JMA estimated Ele attained peak 10-minute winds"
- Ah, gotcha. Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "and dissipated on September 13": and dissipating on September 13
- "quickly weakened into a tropical depression.[8] The JTWC quickly": Lose one "quickly".
- "Promptly" ok? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "offshore Hong Kong": off Hong Kong, or off the coast of Hong Kong. "offshore" isn't normally a preposition.
- Let's make it simpler and just say "near Hong Kong" :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Due to the storm moving along the coast of China for several days, Hagupit dropped heavy rainfall": Graham (the FAC coord) and some grammarians call the first bit a "fused participle". I don't care much for the boilerplate fix ("the storm's moving"), particularly here. Go with: "Hagupit dropped heavy rainfall along the coast of China for several days."
- Not sure about fused participle, but I'm tired, so I'll go with what you put :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Further west in Jiangxi, floods from the storm destroyed 3,800 houses and 180 bridges; in the province, there were 25 deaths.": Further west in Jiangxi, floods from the storm destroyed 3,800 houses and 180 bridges and caused 25 deaths.
- I disagree, as I don't like having two "and"s. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Offshore, one boat sank, prompting helicopters to rescue the crew of 25.": Helicopters rescued a crew of 25 after their boat sank. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "TCFA": hasn't been defined
- Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "however ... however": It's always a sign that the writing could be improved when two howevers are this close together.
- Dropped one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "and it gradually became more intense": and gradually became more intense
- "soon after dissipated": "dissipated soon after" is probably better. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- "shortly after striking Hokkaidō, Higos became extratropical on October 2": shortly after striking Hokkaidō on October 2, Higos became extratropical. If time adverbs are referencing the same time, keep them together.
- Thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Damage in the country totaled $2.14 billion (¥261 billion JPY), and there were five deaths in the country.": Drop the second "in the country".
- "killing seven people involved in two shipwrecks offshore Primorsky Krai.": killing seven people during two shipwrecks off Primorsky Krai.
- Respectfully, I think it works better as it is. I'm not sure why you don't like "offshore" being a preposition, but it works well, and I think "involved in" works better than "during". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "around a circulation": That's probably okay, but it has a redundant sound to it. You may want to fiddle with it.
- Added "single" before circulation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "on October 8. ... Early in its duration, the system produced gale force winds on Kosrae in the FSM.[100] Late on October 9,": I don't see why we need "Early in its duration", since we know it's on the 8th or 9th, unless the narrative is out of chronological order.
- Changed to "Around this time". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "International Date line": International Date Line (unless you're talking about a place for meeting international dates)
- Changed, heh :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "in the United States": Looks like it's technically correct, but it's ambiguous. "in the United States and its territories".
- Yea, good point. Most people probably don't know Guam is part of the US. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "were declared federal disaster areas, which allocated federal funding": ..., making federal funding available
- "United States federal government": In the US, it's "US federal government", "federal government" or "US government" at least 99% of the time in print (in part because that's what AP Stylebook recommends). It's widely assumed on Wikipedia that "United States" is always okay and somehow less US-centric than "US", but I'm betting testing will show that our readers are much more used to seeing "US" as an adjective (though "United States" is always fine as a noun).
- Dropped United States. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "The day prior,": The day before,
- Okay, that's it. There's a lot to do if we're going to automate most of this advice, but I'm on board if TROP is willing to work with me on this. I'd rather not have to do all this by hand for a lot of FACs. (Now you can see why I generally make the edits directly ... and I started to do that today, but there was a vandal making edits today, so it was too dangerous ... I use Visual Editor, which doesn't have section editing, for big jobs.) These are the few edits I made directly. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Awesome! I think I got it all. Thanks so much for all of the comments here. :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Short version: I'm happy with the article now, but I'd appreciate feedback on my last edit ... those are the minimal changes that will work for me, in light of your comments above. If those changes don't work for you, I need to know. It would also be nice to know if the changes don't make sense, so that I can ask at WT:TROP for feedback. You did a great job in your responses above. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Closing comments -- I'll promote this now, thanks all for your input. HH, couple of parting things: we shouldn't need to link modern countries like Japan, China, etc; also there's some white space on my 14" widescreen between the first section header and the table that follows it, so not sure if you can put it further down (spacing issues change from device to device so there may be no ideal solution)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 01:15, 20 September 2014 diff.
- Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Flight Unlimited III is not a well known game. It bombed commercially and helped to bankrupt its developer, Looking Glass Studios. Even the company's management, and publisher Electronic Arts, seemed uninterested in it. Still, it was technologically advanced for its time, and reviewers loved it.
Now that Flight Unlimited II and Thief II: The Metal Age have been promoted, I only need to get this page through FAC in order to upgrade the Looking Glass Studios Good Topic to a Featured Topic. Because I wrote this article before the other two, it might be a bit weaker; but I'm ready to address any concerns that may arise. Thanks for reading. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Review by PresN
- A solid article, as per usual; you're a great writer and I hope you keep finding interesting project to work on, either in LGS or outside. I'm generally worse at prose/grammar than you, so lets see if I can come up with anything in that regards in this review.
- Well, I feel better already: "Flight Unlimited III is a 1999 flight simulator video game developed Looking Glass Studios" - developed by
- I've read that sentence 500 times. No idea how that got there. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- "However, the game was well received by critics." - Using however as a transition word for such a short sentence sounds weird to my ears. Maybe it's just me.
- "several reviewers lauded its simulated physics. Certain critics commented that the physics lacked precision" - since these two statements seem to contradict each other, you might want something acknowledging that dichotomy- "certain other critics", or "certain critics, however,"
- I rewrote the whole passage in an attempt to address both of your criticisms. See what you think JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good now. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I feel morally obligated to frown whenever I see someone not using an oxford comma ("Beechjet 400A and five planes")
- I think it's a matter of taste. As most of the articles I've worked on suggest, I prefer to leave it out. I don't think there's a guideline either way, as long as the usage is consistent. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- There isn't, it's left up to the editor. I frown nonetheless, but it doesn't really matter and I'm not counting it against the article. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- "mid-air collisions.[2][3][1]" - ref ordering
- "and the player may select which weather" - what weather, or which weather options
- "how many people [were] quitting."" - period outside quote
- The period is part of the original quote. I haven't read WP:MOS in years, but I'm fairly certain that a period is supposed to go inside quotation marks when the quoted passage ends with one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I only realized a few months ago, so apparently I've been doing it wrong for years, but MOS:LQ says that you only leave the period inside the quote if you're quoting the whole sentence, even if your quote fragment ends with a period. What it doesn't say is apparently this is the British method; I was taught in American school to leave in the period, and replace it with a comma (still inside the quote) if you're continuing the sentence on after. The MOS does not approve of that. I'm fine with it if you want to leave it as-is; it's not exactly the best-followed MOS rule. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Any reason the GameRankings average isn't in the review table?
- Seemed redundant to have it in the prose and the table, and I couldn't move the score to the table without losing clarity in the prose. I could try to figure something out if you think it's important. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not, just making sure it was purposeful. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- "graphically glamorous, and lots of fun."" - period outside quote
- Period appears in the original text. See above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- "experience you can get for a PC." [4]" - same, and remove the space before the ref
- You use a lot of quotes, which I'm certainly guilty of quite often myself, but I think the single-word quotes e.g. 'the flight physics "good" in general but "overly gentle" for' could be easily paraphrased or left unquoted as too short
- I thought I was doing better about overquoting this time. Oh well. I changed quoted "good" to unquoted "solid", and added a paraphrase to Saltzman's review, but I'd prefer to leave the rest of the superlatives to the reviewers. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not one to complain; I once brought an article to FAC where the reception section was about 60-70% quotes by volume. (Someone complained, of course). --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, you're italicizing online sources in the references, but not the prose. These should really be consistent, unless you add publishers to the references- Ziff Davis for IGN, CBS Interactive for GameSpot, etc. Either that, move the sites from work= to publisher=, or italicize them in the prose.
- You shouldn't put "staff" as the author if an author is not specified; it's implicitly assumed (who else would it be?), so you just leave it blank. (refs 22, 23, 27)
- Ref 27 is the only magazine cite you give a publisher for, and that and ref 15 are the only ones with locations given- try to be consistent. Not to mention you wouldn't need to specify that southern San Fransisco is in the United States anyway; you don't do it for Orlando, Florida
- That ref was added by another user. Fixed it to be consistent with the others. Ref 15 has a location because it's a press release. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your redirecting links all seem intentional (like PC Gamer UK, Flight Simulator 2000) with the exceptions of: square miles and Seattle, Washington
- --PresN 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Source review- Passed
-
- Sources all look good; they're mainly the same ones as at Flight Unlimited II, which I source reviewed last month. Did a few spotchecks for form's sake, and they were clean. --PresN 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and kind remarks. I've always respected your work as well, between the lists, music articles and multiple featured topics—you've contributed a ridiculous amount to Wikipedia. Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support - made a few remarks inline for optional changes, but I'm satisfied with the article. You've contributed a ton, too- the LGS (soon-to-be) featured topic is amazing, and the online print archive has supported tons of articles. Glad I've gotten to work with you on some articles/lists! --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Tezero
[edit]Today's my last day in town before I head back to college, but I'll at least start reviewing by the end of today. Tezero (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Does airspace need to be linked?
- Removed the link.
- Likewise with "artificially intelligent" - actually, "computer-controlled" might be a better choice, although "AI" is used later - just something to consider
- If memory serves, I've wikilinked artificial intelligence in every video game article I've ever worked on, up through FU2 and Thief 2. Not sure why it would need to change now. As for "computer-controlled", I'm not in love with that phrase. Technically, the computer controls everything that happens in a game, even though some of it is influenced by user input. "Artificially intelligent" is a phrase I used in FU2 without incident, and I think it's clearer than the alternative, so I'd prefer to stick with it.
- Determinism, eh? Alright, that's fine; it was just a stylistic qualm, a minor one. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- "the player may select what weather to encounter before a flight" - What or which? In other words, can you choose multiple weather effects? Elaborate a bit.
- Did some work on it. See what you think.
- "wanted to move on to Flight Unlimited III, while others wanted to create Flight Combat" - Had these projects and their titles already been decided on, or is it just that some wanted to work on a sequel to FUII and others a wholly new IP?
- Flight Combat and Flight Unlimited III are both explicitly named in the survey.
- Development's a bit thick - keep the information, that's fine, but consider splitting it into subsections.
- Added a subsection. How's that?
- That's fine. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll be back when you've addressed these/when I get around to returning. Tezero (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- "He left after the game's completion to join Flightsim.com" - can you elaborate a bit on what this is?
- Done.
Everything else looks fine, I think. As always, I do prefer issue-by-issue reviewing rather than reviewer-by-reviewer, but as far as the latter format goes Reception is fine. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Last issue addressed; many thanks for the review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Subbord 5/5 breddy gud :DDDDDD Tezero (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Review from czar
[edit]Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.
- Copyedited a bit
- Thanks. I edited a few parts that weren't true to the sources, or that otherwise made the content less grammatical or harder to understand. (Also, as a note, "due to" and "because of" are not interchangeable.) JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Caption phrases do not need final punctuation
- Fixed.
- While I'm not blown away by the content, I see the importance of having this article pass FAC for the featured topic
- Really have no idea what you're talking about. Clarify and I'll take steps to address it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- not sure the "imported" wikilink to porting is proper
- What do you recommend instead? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Dev could use more expansion on why they were split and what Flight Combat is
- There is no more information on why they split. Added an explanation of Flight Combat. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- "The contract also stipulated that any advances provided by Electronic Arts were to be paid back from the royalties of both games." Is this necessary? It seems like foreshadow that this becomes a problem later but it isn't
- It did become a problem later, but it's generalized in the discussion of FU3 using up SS2's profits. I went ahead and removed the line. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Need citations immediately following direct quotes. I only tagged one such spot of several
- I've never encountered this in 8 years at FAC, right up through last month's Thief II. Guideline link? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- "the next few days were spent finding out how many people [were] quitting." this is abrupt. Why were they quitting? The prior complaints seem limited to retrospection post-release, not immediately after going gold
- Not sure what you mean. The section clearly details struggles during development. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Wikilink going gold as jargon
- Is this really the best screenshot available? I feel like it doesn't tell me much about the game unless this is the usual view...
- I've been wondering when someone would bring it up. That's an awful image left over from the article's original form, before I revamped it. I've never played and don't own FU3, and the screenshots available online are either lousy or watermarked, so I couldn't replace the screenshot. If you think it's a big deal, I can try to pull something together. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Add GameRankings to the reviews box, remember to only use two digits of precision, per the template
- As I said to PresN, it needs to be in the prose for that sentence to work. Adding it to the template as well is just redundant. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Removed a lot of ", because" instances—something to watch in the future as the pauses didn't make sense
- Not sure what you mean, and your "due to" replacements were ungrammatical, so I've reinstated most of the uses of "because". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- [...] → ... per MOS:ELLIPSIS
- Wikilink frame rate
- The Reception is a little dry and disparate. It could be improved by aggregating the common ideas behind the reviews into a single sentence
- Those sentences are common, but they're blatant original research. I omitted them for that reason. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Otherwise the prose is in great shape
- Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do an image review. (Perhaps take a look at their FURs first and clean 'em up?) I'm also looking for feedback on the Fez FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 17:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know the first thing about writing a FUR. The ones present look fine to me. Anyway, @Czar: I responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- For import/porting: Import and export of data. Citations immediately following quotes comes from WP:MINREF (part of the good article baseline criteria). Re: "finding out how many people", the section details the individual's unhappiness with the company's handling of the game—particularly post-release—so it is abrupt to hear that the staff was planning to leave even before the final word about sequels and whatnot came from the management. It just needs to be clarified in context of the rest of the section. I think the screenshot is worth recapturing—perhaps you can request one on a relevant forum? Someone is going to add GameRankings to the box eventually—the point of the box is to have easy access to the reviews. Either way, it should use two digits of precision.
your "due to" replacements were ungrammatical, so I've reinstated most of the uses of "because"
: could you explain why? The "comma because" appear to make much less sense. I could understand removing it because it misrepresents the source, otherwise... Frame rate still needs wikilink. Aggregating sources that say the same thing into one sentence is not original research any more than having those same sentences from multiple sources spelled out in succession. The FUR on the screenshot should be expanded upon, but that will change anyway if it's being replaced. czar ♔ 22:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)- First, you misread MINREF. It says that "direct quotations" should be sourced. That is the case in this article: Peter James's quotes are cited at the end of the paragraph, because all of that material is from one source. Second, all of the material from James relates to pre-release marketing, management and team morale; he left almost immediately after the game's release. His claim that the rest of the team left follows up on his claims about the game's rocky development. James's stray comment about his FU4 designs is the only extant source that discusses FU4 or its cancellation, to my knowledge, so I can't add anything else. Third, I'll see what I can do about a screenshot. Fourth, I removed the digits. Fifth, "due to" is interchangeable with "caused by"; "because of" is interchangeable with "on account of". Source: [14]. Your recent rewrites of the "because of" sentences are fine, barring the addition of another improper "due to" construction, which I've now fixed. Sixth, sentences that use phrases like "many reviewers thought X", even when followed by fifty citations, violate WP:WEASEL when used outside of the lead. More general phrases like "the game's X was praised" are full-on OR unless they are followed by a citation that summarizes, specifically, that "the game's X was praised". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Look, I'm familiar with MINREF. The standard is to directly cite after every sentence that contains a quotation because the idea is that any sentence that can be challenged should have an immediate ref. I ran the cost/CD-ROM "because of" instance past my English rhetoric grad student colleagues, and they said that "due to" made more sense. I understand that you're generalizing from that StackExchange source, but it didn't apply in this one instance. If you want, I can run the other instances past them, but I'm sure about this one you last reverted. The "many" in "many reviewers X" example would be a weasel word since it makes a broad claim unable to be confirmed, but to say "reviewers X" without the "many" wouldn't make such a claim, as the claim would only hold to the critics cited. If it were original research to aggregate claims, we wouldn't be able to say a game received positive reviews without sourcing Metacritic, etc. However you fall on that issue, it's an extreme stance to say we cannot summarize critical opinion given current practices. About James, the issue wasn't adding something else but rephrasing to clarify that they were unhappy during development and planned to leave, and then follow with his retrospective comments. The sense of time is just wonky as is. czar ♔ 02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- #1 Again, I have eight years of experience at FAC (nine on Wikipedia in general) and I've never seen anyone required to use citations in this way. Not even the four most recent VG FAs (Secret of Mana, Thief II: The Metal Age, Lost Luggage and Development of Grand Theft Auto V) follow the rule. Further, MINREF itself does not actually say what you claim it says. The discussion you linked is also completely inconclusive: it features one guy who shares your opinion, one who shares mine and a third who suggests following guy 1 to save time. This is clearly a case of personal preference rather than guidelines or policies, so I'm going to leave the article as-is on this count. #2 Regarding "due to", you're still using it improperly. Let me cite more sources.
- Grammar Girl, "[I]f you find yourself agreeing with traditionalists—or if your writing will be judged by one—use 'due to' if you can substitute 'attributable to,' 'caused by,' or 'resulting from.'"
- BBC Manual of Style, "This means caused by, not because of."
- Economist Style Guide, "When used to mean caused by, due to must follow a noun, as in The cancellation, due to rain, of... Do not write It was cancelled due to rain. If you mean because of and for some reason are reluctant to say it, you probably want owing to. It was cancelled owing to rain is all right."
- #3 "Reviewers" is still a weasel word when used beyond the lead section. Again, see WP:WEASEL, which offers the words "scholars" and "experts" as examples. A generalized word like "reviewers" is acceptable only when it "accurately represent the opinions of the source" (bold italics in the original), i.e. when the source itself refers to "reviewers" as a whole. And yes, it is original research to say that "X received positive reviews" unless that claim is backed up directly by a source (such as Metacritic or GameRankings). This is not at all extreme. #4 I tried to address the timeline issue. See what you think. #5 I'll see what I can do about the screenshot, but it might be a few days before I get any bites on the relevant forums. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Czar: New screenshot in place. See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Expanded the FUR. --PresN 06:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Image-related stuff has always been a blindspot of mine on Wikipedia. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- It seems that Czar is uninterested in continuing his review. Pinged him here and dropped a note on his talk page, but haven't heard from him in four days even though he's been editing elsewhere. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Same happened with Sonic X, which is now in limbo at one support and czar's incomplete image and source review. He passive(-aggressive?)ly mentioned on my talk page that it can be tedious to check what's been done on reviews, but when FACs are waiting on you, four days is a little much, I think. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- AGF, please. I have less time to edit during the week and my reviews have almost exclusively been done over the weekends. And that any review hangs on my immediate response (or my complete review at all) is hyperbolic. czar ♔ 05:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry; didn't realize that was a pattern. We can both wait. Tezero (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Czar: had you responded at all on your talk page, I would have known to wait. I assumed from the total lack of a reply that you'd dropped the review for some reason—perhaps because of personal business or the innumerable GAN reviews you're doing. AGF wasn't even an issue. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry; didn't realize that was a pattern. We can both wait. Tezero (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- AGF, please. I have less time to edit during the week and my reviews have almost exclusively been done over the weekends. And that any review hangs on my immediate response (or my complete review at all) is hyperbolic. czar ♔ 05:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Same happened with Sonic X, which is now in limbo at one support and czar's incomplete image and source review. He passive(-aggressive?)ly mentioned on my talk page that it can be tedious to check what's been done on reviews, but when FACs are waiting on you, four days is a little much, I think. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- It seems that Czar is uninterested in continuing his review. Pinged him here and dropped a note on his talk page, but haven't heard from him in four days even though he's been editing elsewhere. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Image-related stuff has always been a blindspot of mine on Wikipedia. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Expanded the FUR. --PresN 06:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Czar: New screenshot in place. See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- #1 Again, I have eight years of experience at FAC (nine on Wikipedia in general) and I've never seen anyone required to use citations in this way. Not even the four most recent VG FAs (Secret of Mana, Thief II: The Metal Age, Lost Luggage and Development of Grand Theft Auto V) follow the rule. Further, MINREF itself does not actually say what you claim it says. The discussion you linked is also completely inconclusive: it features one guy who shares your opinion, one who shares mine and a third who suggests following guy 1 to save time. This is clearly a case of personal preference rather than guidelines or policies, so I'm going to leave the article as-is on this count. #2 Regarding "due to", you're still using it improperly. Let me cite more sources.
- Look, I'm familiar with MINREF. The standard is to directly cite after every sentence that contains a quotation because the idea is that any sentence that can be challenged should have an immediate ref. I ran the cost/CD-ROM "because of" instance past my English rhetoric grad student colleagues, and they said that "due to" made more sense. I understand that you're generalizing from that StackExchange source, but it didn't apply in this one instance. If you want, I can run the other instances past them, but I'm sure about this one you last reverted. The "many" in "many reviewers X" example would be a weasel word since it makes a broad claim unable to be confirmed, but to say "reviewers X" without the "many" wouldn't make such a claim, as the claim would only hold to the critics cited. If it were original research to aggregate claims, we wouldn't be able to say a game received positive reviews without sourcing Metacritic, etc. However you fall on that issue, it's an extreme stance to say we cannot summarize critical opinion given current practices. About James, the issue wasn't adding something else but rephrasing to clarify that they were unhappy during development and planned to leave, and then follow with his retrospective comments. The sense of time is just wonky as is. czar ♔ 02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- First, you misread MINREF. It says that "direct quotations" should be sourced. That is the case in this article: Peter James's quotes are cited at the end of the paragraph, because all of that material is from one source. Second, all of the material from James relates to pre-release marketing, management and team morale; he left almost immediately after the game's release. His claim that the rest of the team left follows up on his claims about the game's rocky development. James's stray comment about his FU4 designs is the only extant source that discusses FU4 or its cancellation, to my knowledge, so I can't add anything else. Third, I'll see what I can do about a screenshot. Fourth, I removed the digits. Fifth, "due to" is interchangeable with "caused by"; "because of" is interchangeable with "on account of". Source: [14]. Your recent rewrites of the "because of" sentences are fine, barring the addition of another improper "due to" construction, which I've now fixed. Sixth, sentences that use phrases like "many reviewers thought X", even when followed by fifty citations, violate WP:WEASEL when used outside of the lead. More general phrases like "the game's X was praised" are full-on OR unless they are followed by a citation that summarizes, specifically, that "the game's X was praised". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- For import/porting: Import and export of data. Citations immediately following quotes comes from WP:MINREF (part of the good article baseline criteria). Re: "finding out how many people", the section details the individual's unhappiness with the company's handling of the game—particularly post-release—so it is abrupt to hear that the staff was planning to leave even before the final word about sequels and whatnot came from the management. It just needs to be clarified in context of the rest of the section. I think the screenshot is worth recapturing—perhaps you can request one on a relevant forum? Someone is going to add GameRankings to the box eventually—the point of the box is to have easy access to the reviews. Either way, it should use two digits of precision.
- I think the pulling of rank was inappropriate in this case. If you don't agree with my interpretation of minref, that's fine, you just had to say so. In the tradition of GA reviews, the phrase is "If the article contains any of these five types of statements, then some sort of inline citation system must be used for those specific statements." I've never seen minref read in your interpretation and just because it hasn't ever been questioned doesn't make me confident that it's correct. On "due to" and "because of", I see the sources you reference, but I'm going from the recommendation of the two foremost editors I know, both English lit doc students and university writing tutors. (Perhaps it's more of British English thing?) Again if you disagree, that's fine, but your tone in doing so has been off-putting. On your interpretation of original research, I just went through a number of GANs in the last week and they all make claims about the positive/negative content of reviews and then go on to combine those judgements on the whole as "X received positive reviews". I'm not interested in debating whether or not your interpretation is extreme, but I will say that in my experience, WPVG articles do not abide by that standard and I do not think a WT:VG discussion on the topic would affirm your stance. These things aside, the new screenshot is much better. It needs to be reduced to <100k pixels and its FUR needs to remove reference to the airplane (which is no longer there) and it'll be fine. I can support this nomination on prose, minding my ideological disagreements on the issues interpreted above, and I would have been able to have done so sooner (as not much has changed) had the bolding and policy-caps retorts been more generous in tone.
czar ♔ 01:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Czar: Thanks. And I'm sorry if my tone came across as harsh or insulting; when I'm at FAC, I often handle disagreements in spare, blunt language to avoid wasting time. Add to that my irritation at your usage of "due to"—which was mine, too, before I was set straight by another Wikipedian—in your copyedit, and even I can see where I went over the line. Apologies. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Image Review - Pass
- File:Flight Unlimited 3 cover.jpg - Fair use, small res, extended FUR- pass
- File:Flight Unlimited III.jpg - Fair use, small res, extended FUR- pass. I've gone ahead and deleted the older, larger version.
- File:Space Needle002.jpg - Free (PD) - look at that classy city.
- All three images pass; no other media present. --PresN 19:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg){kind=link}
_Map.png){kind=link}
_in_biogeographic_regions.png){kind=link}
