Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
VoxelBot (talk | contribs)
52,137 edits
Creating this month's log
 
Add 4
Line 1: Line 1:
{{-}}
{{}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in the Congo/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Posen/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Throffer/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George S. Patton/archive1}}

Revision as of 14:15, 7 September 2013

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Tintin in the Congo

Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk) and Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

We are nominating this for featured article status because it has achieved GA status and we believe that it now also meets FA criteria. After the recent promotion of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets to FA status, we feel that it is time that its successor volume, Tintin in the Congo, did too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is certainly a good candidate for FA status. I do, however, have some severe reservations about one phrase, which I admit has been used word-for-word elsewhere. "According to Tintinologist Harry Thompson, such political ideas were common in Belgium at the time, where "patriotism, Catholicism, strict morality, discipline, and naivety were so inextricably bound together in everyone's lives that right-wing politics were an almost inevitable by-product."" I do not doubt that Mr. Thompson does say this, but it's also undeniably untrue - or at least not quite as authoritative as it is made to seem. Granted that the Catholic Party (and later, but to a lesser extent, Rex) was dominant through almost all this period, it neglects the equally large number of people who voted Liberal, Socialist or Communist. Some acknowledgement that Mr. Thompson's comment refers to a certain class, locality etc. in Belgium in which Hergé mixed at the time would remedy this I'm sure.Brigade Piron (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very interesting point Brigade Piron; it is true that Thompson was no historian. Maybe we could think about rephrasing this. Perhaps something like "Conservative ideas revolving around ""patriotism, Catholicism, strict morality, discipline, and naivety" pervaded Herge's milieu" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, I think that would cover it nicely, though I think the politics of the newspaper itself could be helpfully emphasized in the same sentence? Otherwise I think the article would be a good adition to the FA and, to me at least, seems extremely well done.Brigade Piron (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made the alteration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - fair-use OK some issues (fair-use). A topic like that can have more than 1 fair-use image, but the current usage needs some work:

2 GA-reviews for an article with 5 fair-use images did not even comment on this aspect. But that's a problem outside of FAC and certainly not the nominators' fault. GermanJoe (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking very strong. A few comments:

  • "Muganga pleads mercy" - I've never heard the phrase "plead mercy"- is it definitely standard English? If so, I'm happy for it to stay.
  • Is Coeurs Vaillants notable? Don't be scared of redlinks!
  • I assume it was originally published in French? I ask because you don't mention translation with the syndication.
  • Again, is Henry de Doncker notable?
  • "English publishers stubbornly refused to publish" I think calling it "stubborn" is a little judgemental.
  • "its controversial content" - What content specifically?
  • "while Tintin was portrayed throughout as a Scout, reflecting Hergé's "moral debt" to Wallez" I don't really understand what is meant here.
  • The Simon Kuper quote seems a little tacked-on; I think it would fit a little better in the first paragraph in the section
  • "In November 2011, UK bookseller Waterstones" Funny little point, but at that stage, the shop was still called Waterstone's (with an apostrophe)

The prose is generally excellent, but I am a little concerned about some of the images. (I now see that GermanJoe has raised basically the same concerns above- I endorse Joe's comments. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Generally a great-looking article, and I'm sure I'll be happy to support once these issues are dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the article had no image reviews, now it has two :). No worries, and i agree with deleting the old fair-use versions (i guess, it can be done by adding "subst:furd", even if it's not a reduction). GermanJoe (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments J Milburn! I have linked to Coeurs Vaillants and specified that the story was first serialised in French. I think it worth including the name of Henry De Donkcer, but not worth linking it, as (as far as I am aware), he did nothing else to achieve notability in his life. I agree that "stubbornly" shouldn't be in there (I don't think that it was my addition in the first place), so I've removed it. I've replaced "controversial" with "alleged racist". I've tried to clarify the "reflecting Hergé's "moral debt" to Wallez" sentence. I've moved the Simon Kuper quote as you have suggested, and altered the spelling to "Waterstone's". Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, on the condition that the source check comes back OK. I'm satisfied with the resolution of the issues I raised, confident that the small fixes recommended below can be looked into. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed the two images that the two reviewers above deem to not be Fair Use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - tagged the 2 images and one old version of a valid fair-use for deletion. They are usually only deleted after a week (at 19 August), if you still need them for other purposes and want to change the tag and FUR. GermanJoe (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated status on my review (all OK), could you clarify the minor mismatch 1931 <-> 1932 in the caption and summary of the "Opening" image? GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its 1931; "1932" was probably a silly error on my behalf. Thanks for your review GermanJoe; much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Cliftonian

Resolved comments from Cliftonian
This looks pretty promising. Well done so far! Here are some pointers I hope will help on the way to FA status.
Infobox
Lead
Synopsis
History—background
  • When did Hergé start work at Le Petit Vingtième?
  • "of fictional Belgian reporter Tintin" again, I think "of the fictional Belgian reporter Tintin" is better. I would even favour a reword to "revolving around the exploits of a fictional Belgian reporter named Tintin"
  • "Wallez insisted he write a story set in the Belgian Congo" Did he insist he write the Congolese story instead of the American one, or simply that a Congolese story be produced? If the former, I would reword to "Wallez insisted that he instead write ..."
  • "the Belgian Congo (modern-day Democratic Republic of the Congo), then a part of the Belgian Empire" Kind of clunky; maybe reword to "the Belgian Congo, then a Belgian colony and today the Democratic Republic of the Congo"
  • "Belgian colonial regime" — "regime" is, to me, a loaded word that implies illegitimacy, oppressiveness and general negativity. I think "He believed that Belgian colonialism needed promotion" or "He believed that the Belgian colonial government needed promotion" would do just as well
  • "when memories 'were still fairly fresh' of the publicised 1928 visit to the colony by the Belgian King Albert and Queen Elisabeth" I presume this visit was considered a positive thing? A few words of explanation would help here
  • "He already had some experience in illustrating Congolese scenes; three years previously, Hergé had provided two illustrations for the newspaper that appeared in an article celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Henry Morton Stanley's discovery of the Congo" I would recommend rewording to something like "He already had some experience in depicting Congolese scenes; three years previously, when Le Petit Vingtième [or was it Le XXe Siècle itself?] published an article commemorating 50 years since Henry Morton Stanley's discovery of the Congo, Hergé had provided two illustrations". Or something like that
  • "Hergé depicted a native Congolese individual bowing before a European colonialist" — "individual" is not necessary ("a native Congolese" would do just as well) and why not just "before a white man" or "before a European"?
  • "almost solely on a single source" I think "almost entirely" would be better
  • "he used limited source material to learn about the country and its people" I think the tail end of this ("to learn about the country and its people") could be clipped without affecting the meaning
  • "from the 'Jungle Jim-type serials'" where is this quoted from? what were "Jungle Jim-type serials"? half a sentence of background here and an attribution for the quote would help
    • This is a quote from Lofficier and Lofficier 2002, which is used as a source straight after. If I'm perfectly honest, I don't fully understand what they are, hence why I chose to simply quote the source here, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seeing the Blacks as big children" Why does "Blacks" have a capital "B"? I guess it is in the source like that but I still find it quite jarring
History—Original publication
History—Second version
  • "visually fitted in" maybe "fitted in visually"
  • "the new Tintin stories that he was creating" maybe "his newer Tintin stories"
  • "Tintin in the Congo was one of these books" maybe clarify, "Tintin in the Congo was one of the books that was redrawn"
  • "Hergé cut the page length down from 110 plates to the standard 62 pages, as suggested to him by the publisher Casterman. He also made several changes to the actual story, cutting many of the references to Belgium and colonial rule" maybe merge these two sentences ("Hergé cut the page length down from 110 plates to the standard 62 pages, as suggested to him by the publisher Casterman, and also made several changes to the actual story, cutting many of the references to Belgium and colonial rule")
  • "a more plausible"—is this in the source?
  • "watching a crowd surrounding Tintin as he boards a train and commenting that it "Seems to be a young reporter going to Africa..."" slightly clunky. maybe "watching a crowd surrounding Tintin as he boards a train. "Seems to be a young reporter going to Africa..." one of them comments"
  • "In the same frame, Hergé also inserted illustrated depictions of both himself and his friend Edgar P. Jacobs (who was the colourist who worked with him on the book), as members of the crowd seeing Tintin off." maybe "In the same frame, Hergé inserted illustrated depictions of himself and his friend Edgar P. Jacobs (the book's colourist) into the crowd seeing Tintin off".
History—Later alterations and releases
  • "When The Adventures of Tintin's Scandinavian publishers first released Tintin in the Congo in 1975" Maybe "When Tintin in the Congo was first released by the series' Scandinavian publishers in 1975"
  • "to page 56, where Tintin drills a hole into a live rhinoceros, fills it with dynamite, and blows it up" I don't think they objected to the whole page, did they? Just the scene where this scene occurs. Perhaps clarify to "to a scene on page 56, wherein Tintin drills a hole into a live rhinoceros, fills it with dynamite, and blows it up"
  • "more suitable for their young readership" why not just "more suitable for children"?
  • "the scenes of animal abuse and big game hunting" Describing Tintin's activities in the book as cruelty to animals in Wikipedia's voice could be a NPOV problem. Perhaps just "the scenes of big game hunting" or "come to regret the scenes of big game hunting in the work, which he saw as animal abuse"
  • "stated his belief that, by publishing the original 1931 black and white edition, it would cause less controversy than its later 1946 counterpart would" Maybe "stated his belief that publishing the original 1931 black and white edition would cause less controversy than releasing the 1946 colour version". Or something
  • "the last of The Adventures of Tintin was published in English" I get what you are trying to say but this is not quite clear. Perhaps reword to "an English edition of Tintin in the Congo was finally published in the United Kingdom; despite being the second book in the series, it was the last to be released in English". If the source supports this, of course
  • Does this mean it wasn't translated into English until the 1980s?
  • "appeared in English in 2005" In the UK or the US (or elsewhere?) I guess the UK, right?
Critical analysis
  • does "Scout" need a capital S? If you're referring to Boy Scouts (or similar), why not wikilink?
  • ""nothing spectacular" with some "incredibly cumbersome" monologues, but he thought that the illustrations were "a bit more polished" than in Tintin in the Land of the Soviets" slightly reword—"nothing spectacular, with some "incredibly cumbersome" monologues, but that he thought the illustrations "a bit more polished" than those in Land of the Soviets"
  • "but parodied past European militaries" perhaps "but a parody of past European militaries"
  • "In contrast" perhaps "By contrast"
  • "having no plot or characterisation" clarify that this is his opinion only; "having, he said, no plot or characterisation"
  • "being "poorly drawn" and "largely plot-free"" I would change to "being, in his opinion, "poorly drawn" and "largely plot-free""
  • Farr believed that the 1946 colour version was a poorer product than the black and white original, having lost its "vibrancy" and "atmosphere" with the new depiction of the Congolese landscape being unconvincing, appearing more like a European zoo than the "parched, dusty expanses of reality." I would split this up. "Farr saw the 1946 colour version as poorer than the black and white original; he said it had lost its "vibrancy" and "atmosphere", and that the new depiction of the Congolese landscape was unconvincing and more like a European zoo than the "parched, dusty expanses of reality"."
  • "Commenting on Tintin's exposure of Muganga as a fraud, McCarthy compared the scene to that in which the character of Prospero exposes the magician in William Shakespeare's The Tempest" Why not simplify to "McCarthy compared the scene where Tintin exposes Muganga as a fraud to that in in which the character of Prospero exposes the magician in William Shakespeare's The Tempest"
Criticism—racism
  • "it was only following the collapse of European colonial rule in Africa from the 1950s to the 1970s that typical western attitudes towards Africans became more positive" Perhaps "it was only following the Wind of Change and decolonisation, which occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, that Western attitudes towards indigenous Africans shifted"
  • "Instead, Assouline claimed that Hergé" reword to "Assouline claimed that Hergé instead"
  • "Thompson claimed that the book remained hugely popular in both the Belgian Congo and, after it achieved independence in 1960, in its successor nation-state, Zaire" maybe reword to "According to Thompson, the book remained hugely popular in the Congo even after its independence in 1960". Zaire wasn't the name for another few years, so the old wording is a bit misleading
  • "In July 2007, human rights lawyer David Enright" I would make clear that he's British. "In July 2007, the British human rights lawyer David Enright"
  • "with his black wife and two sons" Mentioning the colour of his wife could be seen as racist. Why not just "with his family" or "with his wife and two sons"?
    • I personally was uneasy with including their racial identity, but the source did so, and I though that it might be of some relevance. However, I'd personally rather remove it, and seeing as you agree, I'll take that as confirmation! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it contained "hideous racial prejudice" by depicting Congolese who "look like monkeys and talk like imbeciles."" why not "it contained "hideous racial prejudice" and depicted Congolese who "look like monkeys and talk like imbeciles".
  • "attempts at banning the book" → "attempts to ban the book"
  • 4000% should be 4,000%
  • "only permitting access by appointment" perhaps "permitting access only by appointment"
  • "the book's publishers Casterman and the Moulinsart company which control Hergé's estate" should be a comma before "which". also, do both the companies control Hergé's estate, or only Moulinsart (I presume the latter?) If so, it should be "controls"
  • "historical authors like Charles Dickens or Jules Verne" I would reword to "historical authors, such as Charles Dickens and Jules Verne"
  • "In February 2012, the court ruled that the book would not be banned. It was "clear that neither the story, nor the fact that it has been put on sale, has a goal to ... create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, or humiliating environment" and therefore did not break Belgian law" Maybe reword to "The court ruled in February 2012 that the book would not be banned, deciding that it was "clear that neither the story, nor the fact that it has been put on sale, has a goal to ... create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, or humiliating environment", and that it therefore did not break Belgian law"
  • "South African comic writer Anton Kannemeyer has parodied the perceived racist nature of the book in order to highlight the continuing racist undertones of South African society. In his Pappa in Afrika (2010), a satire of Tintin in the Congo, he portrays Tintin as a white Afrikaner with racist views of the indigenous people." A few issues here
Criticism—hunting
  • "Tintin in the Congo shows Tintin taking part in "the wholesale and gratuitous slaughter" of animals by shooting several antelope, killing an ape to wear its skin, ramming a rifle vertically into a crocodile's open mouth, injuring an elephant for ivory, stoning a buffalo, and (in earlier editions) slaying a rhinoceros with dynamite" Who describes it as "the wholesale and gratuitous slaughter" of animals? Better to describe all of these things first, then say "X describes all this as "the wholesale and gratuitous slaughter" of animals"". Also make clear that he doesn't just kill the rhinoceros with dynamite, he actually drills a hole in it, drops the dynamite in and blows it up from the inside. Even for somebody like me this seems a tad excessive!
References
  • Looks okay to me
Categories

I hope this helps on the way. Let me know if there's anything I can do to lend a hand, and well done again for your work so far on this excellent article! —Cliftonian (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cliftonian! Looks like I've got quite a lot to look through here! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say a big thank you to you, Cliftonian, as I think that your comments have made a major positive contribution to this article! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's really no problem Midnight, I'm glad you found them helpful and very much like the way the article is shaping up now. I'm happy to back this now for FA, and have supported above. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk

I'll add some comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the summary, why is there a single direct quote form the dialogue? Seems a bit arbitrary: "and a local woman bows down to him, saying, "White man very great! Has good spirits ... White mister is big juju man!"
  • What is the meaning of this: "tarantara, tarantaraboom"
  • "Henry Morton Stanley's discovery of the Congo" ... River?
  • "Hergé biographer Pierre Assouline believed that Hergé's drawing became more assured throughout the story without losing any of its spontaneity." In which version?
  • " Philippe Goddin thought the work to be "more exciting than ever" Ever? In relation to what?
  • the infobox only lists Egmont as the publisher, what about Casterman?
  • "which contain similar stereotypes of non-Caucasian ethnicities." Link to "Caucasian race", or simply write white instead? The term is not widely used outside the US, it seems.
  • I'm not sure. I tried to find something and couldn't. I think it would be enough just to do as you said originally and say it was one of the few not made for TV. Incidentally, I found this feature interesting. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heheh, nice. Around here, they sell tiny Tintin figures for huge sums of money. "Hand painted" for sure, but I bet these are a lot cheaper, and a lot more work gone into making them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there FunkMonk, and thank you for commenting. In regard to the singular quote from the book in the synopsis, I included it so as to give an example of the sort of patronising attitude towards the Congolese that is exhibited throughout the comic. I can understand the argument that it is arbitrary, but I do feel that it has value for the reader. 2) As for "tarantara, tarantaboom", I think it refers to the Abbé making a big scene out of his views on the issue of colonialism in the Congo, but I am not entirely sure. 3) I'm just going by what the source said here, and it stipulates "Congo"; which I assume refers to his discovery of the area that we now call "the Congo" (and not the area of the historical Kingdom of Kongo, which is of course in modern Angola). 4) the first version, presumably. I will make that clearer in the text. 5) In relation to the earlier Adventures of Tintin (i.e. Tintin in the Land of the Soviets). Again, I shall try and make that clearer. 6) Very good point, I shall make the correction there. 7) Very well, "white" it is. 8) The problem is in finding a reference that actually states that; if we have one, then of course I shall use it, but unfortunately I am unaware of one. Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look nice. If "tarantara, tarantaraboom" means nothing to any of us, perhaps it won't mean anything to the average English speaking reader? In that case, seems it could be cut without losing anything. But perhaps someone else can chime in? FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed it was supposed to be an onomatopoeic fanfare of trumpets, with a bass drum at the end. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nice article, hope there will be more like it. The issues I raised that could be fixed have been fixed. The remaining are mainly due to the sources themselves being unclear, which is not Midnightblueowl's problem. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

SMS Posen

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The final German dreadnought to appear at FAC, this is the end of an era of sorts. Granted, a few more articles will have to come here to bump the topic up to 50%, a project over 6 years in the making. I wrote this article in 2010, when it passed GA and A-class reviews; it has since waited in the queue for FAC. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the FA criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • Congratulations; feels like the end of an era :) I see I did a lot of editing on this a long time ago, so I'm probably commenting on some of my own work here from back when I was a naive lad, I haven't checked.
  • "night-fighting against British light forces. In the confused night actions ... later in the night": It might be a little better to lose one "night". Maybe "In the confusion" or "In the darkness".
    • "In the confusion" seems best to me.
  • In the third paragraph, "Posen" is the subject of 4 out of 6 sentences.
    • Alternated a few of them.
  • "standard load": I'm not sure what that means pre-1920. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a minor comment:

  • "In 1919, following the scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow, she was ceded to the British as a replacement for the ships that had been sunk." (in the lead) and "On 11 November 1918, the Armistice took effect; according to its terms, eleven battleships and five battlecruisers were to be interned in Scapa Flow for the duration of negotiations for the peace treaty.[37] Posen was not among the ships interned, and she was instead decommissioned on 16 December. The ships in Scapa Flow were eventually scuttled on 21 June 1919, and as a result, Posen and the other battleships not interned were seized as replacements for the ships that had been lost." (in the main text) - this didn't make sense to me until I clicked on the link and found that the Germans had scuttled their own ships - the "eventually" probably threw me off a bit. It would be good to perhaps clarify this in the main text, e.g. "The ships in Scapa flow were scuttled by the German commander to prevent them being divided among the allies," or some phrasing like that? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Generally, this has the same issues I raised with Nassau
    • Namesake citation
      • Added.
    • armor section cite / no deck armor?
      • Added.
    • main/secondary battery links
      • Done.
    • fix rationale for triple reciprocating vs. turbines
      • Added.
  • Complement uncited; also, define 2nd command flagship somewhere.
      • Done.
  • The note and boats in the infobox are uncited.
      • Cut both - neither are particularly important details for the infobox
  • Add the royalty present at the launching and christening. Kirk (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm dependent on MisterBee for that information, since HRS is difficult to get here in the US. I pinged him, but he doesn't appear to be all that active at the moment. Thanks as always, Kirk. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought it was easier to get that than - isn't there another book we found with that info?
        • Nope - I can't find a copy outside of Germany (well, this one has a copy in the Netherlands). Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't aware no libraries in the US have those books, too bad they are out of print or I'd put in a request that we would acquire them. The Great Naval Game: Britain and Germany in the Age of Empire By Jan Rüger was the other book which is in english and has some of the details, but none for Posen. Kirk (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - You're welcome! In closing, as I mentioned with Nassau the class article needs some attention & hopefully MisterBee can help with those gossipy details. Kirk (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the class articles all need some work - they were among the first articles I wrote in this project, and as such were all sort of experimental. And of course they were written before Staff's books were published, so they're missing those at very least. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments based on HRS volume 6, MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Delegate comment -- Dab link:lnn? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was re-targeted this morning. Thanks for catching that, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Throffer

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support this article and I'll support yours. Oppose this, and I'll get you blocked. That's a throffer: it's a mix of a threat and an offer. This is my first philosophy-related FAC: The term was invented by a philosopher, and while there has been plenty of back-and-forthing in philosophy journals, it has also seen some more practical usage. In this article, I address both the conceptual issues of interest to philosophers, and the practical issues which interest academics from other disciplines. I hope you enjoy the read and I look forward to your thoughts. (Also, I would like to thank The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) for his review at GAC!) J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Stfg

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate that my writing is a long way from perfect, and that I'm sometimes a little wordy. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I couldn't do a more thorough review and help with copy editing. Unfortunately, personal circumstances will prevent me doing so for several weeks yet. I do recomend getting an independent copy edit, though. It would definitely help. --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The norm" is referred to 10 times, but not defined. If it means the situation that would exist if the intervention was not made, then say so. If it doesn't, you see my misunderstanding, so a definition is needed :)
    • I'll look into this. That's not what's meant, but I'll check the source again before clarifying. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glad I waited, as I misread your question. I've clarified this now- hopefully it's clearer. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it the quote "the description of the normal and preducable course of events, that is, the course of events which would confront the recipient of the intervention were the intervention not to occur"? I think that's saying what I said. Could something less jargon-like be included in the lede? --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, done. I'm going to have a very close look tomorrow to make sure I'm capturing the subtle differences between Steiner and Stevens- it's pretty clear to me, but I don't know how well I articulate it in the article... J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is poor, and I recommend getting a good copy edit. Just in the first paragraph there are:
    • Right at the start: "In political philosophy, a throffer is a proposal (also called an intervention) that mixes an offer and a threat. A person presents a throffer when they make an offer that is wedded to a threat which will be actualised if the offer is not accepted." This is very verbose. Better: "In political philosophy, a throffer is a proposal (also called an intervention) that mixes an offer and a threat that will be actualised if the offer is not accepted."
    • Next sentence: "The term was first used by political philosopher Hillel Steiner, in the 1970s ..." Why the comma?
    • Next sentence: why "however"? There are several further dubious instances of "however" throughout the article.
    • Next sentence: why "Though"? The fact that "the threatening aspect of a throffer does not need to be obvious, and may not be articulated at all" is unrelated to the fact that the given example is overt.
      • I do not follow. How would you phrase it? J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something like: An overt example of a throffer is "Kill this man and receive £100—fail to kill him and I'll kill you." The threat element of a throffer is often less obvious than this and is sometimes not articulated at all. --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indopug has rephrased this a little. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • This rephrase doesn't solve the problem I was alluding to. If I say, "Though there are apples in the supermarket today, I bought fish fingers", my "though" is making a false contrast. The fact that there are apples makes it no more or less likely that one might buy fish fingers. Similarly, the fact that sometimes the threat is non-obvious or not expressed has no bearing on the fact that in your example it's overt. It makes sense to say that some are overt and some are not, but not to say that some are overt though some are not. Apologies for failing to make my comment clear. --Stfg (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I really don't see the contrast as false- the fact that some are not overt contrasts with the fact that the example is overt. "Though my house is rented, not all properties on the street are." Or would you object to that sentence as well? If what you're saying is right, I honestly don't think I've ever been taught how to use the word "though" correctly. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origin and usage: "and he has been cited in place of Steiner". By whom? Why?
    • I've rephrased slightly. Though Taylor himself cites Steiner, I'm assuming that some academics didn't think reading the work of a philosopher they hadn't heard of was worth their while, preferring to use a prominent political scientist. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next sentence: why is controversy scarequoted?
  • Steiner's account: "This means that it is not the case that an offer necessarily exerts less influence ..." Less verbose: "Thus an offer does not necessarily exert less influence ..."
  • Rhodes's account: In the numbered list, inconsistency as to whether the period goes inside or outside the closing quote (and one closing quote missing altogether). (The article generally needs checking for compliance with MOS:LQ.)
    • I've tweaked the way I quote Rhodes- there wasn't actually an inconsistency, as I didn't quote the whole of one of Rhodes's definitions. Hopefully it'll be clearer now. I'm pretty sure the article is MOS:LQ-compliant, though it wasn't at one time. Is there a particular quote you're worried about? J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • MOS:LQ is a hornets' nest, but it does say "When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside." I don't see how represents a situation which is preferred to the norm, for example, can be said to "communicate a complete sentence". Whether there's a full stop after "inside" in the source seems to me to be irrelevant. In the article, the sentence containing that text begins with "For an offer", so that whole sentence, not the quoted fragment, is what needs to be terminated with a full stop. I can't see how it can be consistent to put the full stop inside in that case, but outside in (for example) By contrast, if the proposal was a final proposal, it would take the form of "if and only if you fetch the paper for me, you'll get candy". --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was under the impression the period always goes within when the source has a period there, and always goes outside when the source does not. I've now adjusted it so that the period only goes within when "the fragment communicates a complete sentence". That actually makes a lot more sense than how I had previously interpreted the policy, and is closer to how I write outside of Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • New point: talking about the threat being "actuated" feels like jargon. Carried out? Executed? --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the lead—it's clear that all those people in the lead are philosophers of some sort, so no need to describe them as such each time. On second thought, do you even need so many people, I count 13, in the lead? It bulks up the lead and adds little to the lay readers' understanding. Just have the main people and the key ideas.—indopug (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the lead a little as you suggested. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support Comments from Jim Fascinating and readable

  • Purely as a style thing, I don't like the links to publishers and publications in the cited texts. They are unnecessary since isbn/doi/jstor do the same job, pointless when there is only a redlink, and seem vaguely spammy. I'll support if you change and oppose if you don't (: Really, I won't lose sleep if you don't do anything Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand why you dislike this. I've lost the publisher links and redlinks, as I agree they're not so useful. I've kept the others, but can trim further if you feel it's needed. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Business section, should there be an indication that the rewards and penalties are disproportionately greater than would be expected from a purely piecework system, since the level of production in such a system affects income anyway?
    • Rather than just "we give you 2 coins for every item you produce", it becomes "beat the expectation, you get many coins; fail to meet the expectation, you get few coins". I could expand, but I worry I would be drifting into OR territory- Clancey makes the point as an interesting aside, rather than the subject of heavy analysis- he's a management scientist, not a philosopher.
  • Is the reduction in sentence in return for a guilty plea a throffer? the certainty of conviction set against a lighter penalty — I'm not suggesting you include this, just a thought.
    • Interesting question. I suspect not; if it takes the form of "plead guilty for a lower sentence, or don't plead guilty and face a fair trial", given as you would be facing a fair trial anyway, that's probably an offer. If it took the form of "rather than present you with a fair trial which may result in 5 years in prison, you can plead guilty for a 3 year sentence or we can lock you up for 8 years" then that is pretty clearly a throffer. (I think that's why sex offenders are such an interesting example- once presented with the throffer, they may lose any chance of a "normal" sentence, and get either a shorter or a longer sentence.) Of course, this kind of analysis is going to depend on whose conception of throffers we buy. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, changed to support above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.... compared to the normal course of events which would have come about were no intervention made. - I think it is a "that" not a "which" here....
Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
whether performing and not performing the requested action was more or less preferable than it would have been were no intervention made. - "whether performing or' not performing the requested action was more or less preferable than it would have been were no intervention made."?
Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He concludes that the two are differentiated based on how the consequences of --> " He concludes that the distinction is based on how the consequences of"
Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
when compared with "the norm". -de-quote - also clarify "normal behaviour", is it?
I've left it as it is for now- I clarify what I mean by "the norm" immediately following, and I thought the quotes showed that's what I was doing. Perhaps I could shift the second part of the paragraph (from "Steiner observes" to "to occur") to immediately following "the form of an offer", as this would mean I had defined "the norm" before I first mention it? (See a similar concern above.) J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, my head is swimming with all the conditional clauses - which is I suppose to be expected given the subject matter. I have no idea about the completeness as am unfamiliar with the topic area and will read it through a couple of times more to get my head around it......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, I really appreciate it. I certainly understand that this is a difficult and weird topic; that's exactly what attracted me to it in the first place! I'm afraid I'm moving house (involving flights and ferries...) tomorrow, and I'm attending a several-day conference in a week or so, so I'm going to potentially have very limited access to Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. Any further thoughts you have would be appreciated, and they will be seen to as soon as I am available, but that may be a while. Thanks again! J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, real life has a habit of intruding on these things - more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Philosopher John Kleinig sees a throffer as an example of an occasion when an offer alone may be considered coercive. - would the subjects be better switched? The emphasis is funny - is it "Philosopher John Kleinig sees an occasion when an offer alone may be considered coercive as an example of a throffer."?
No, it's definitely right as it's written now. There's a lot of literature out there about whether there is any such thing as a coercive offer (it sounds counter-intuitive, but consider the case of the lecherous millionaire). Kleinig, who's very prominent despite his lack of Wikipedia article, says that the case of throffers proves that there are; a throffer is an example of an offer which is coercive. (I think he's wrong; as far as I'm concerned, a throffer isn't an offer, and so it can't be an example of a coercive offer. But there you go.) J Milburn (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would give some descriptors before the first mentions of some of these people such as Robert Stevens, Michael R. Rhodes and Kristján Kristjánsson, to clarify who they are in context to what they are saying (eg American philosopher - professor etc.)
Stevens and Rhodes are pretty obscure, but Kristjánsson's fairly prominent and definitely notable. Gave a rough introduction to each one. (I didn't mention nationalities- I know that Stevens studied in Australia and Rhodes studied in the US, but then Steiner studied in the UK but is Canadian.) J Milburn (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Dr.

Lead
  • What is "received wisdom"?
    • It's a term to refer to those things generally assumed to be the case, especially when there's been prior thought on the matter. The OED defines "received" in the following way: "Generally adopted, accepted, or approved as true, authoritative, or standard. Freq. in received opinion, received wisdom." Do you think it's too colloquial? J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did think it was, but it's OK I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several writers have also considered throffers presented to people convicted of crimes, and, in particular, sex offenders, who can face more lenient sentences if they accept medical treatment. ", I'd reword it as "Several writers have also observed that throffers presented to people convicted of crimes, particularly sex offenders, can result in more lenient sentences if they accept medical treatment."
Origin
Throffers and coercion
  • " Joel Feinberg consider the offer coercive" - considers?
  • "For a throffer to be coercive, they claim, the threat must meet three further conditions; firstly, the person making the throffer "must be intentionally bringing the threat to bear on X in order that X do something, Z1", secondly, the person making the throffer must know that "X would not otherwise do or wish to be constrained to do" Z1, and, thirdly, the threat part of the throffer must render "X's option of doing Z1 more eligible in X's eyes than it would otherwise be". " -could use a citation.
If you could.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Practical examples
  • "Such compulsion serves to reintegrate people into the labour market, and serves as a kind of "new paternalism". " -citation needed I think, seems a little OR without.
Could you just add one citation for that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they have multiple implications in regard to coercive mechanisms from implicit curtailments of freedom to ascription of vulnerability. The former would include threats to personal autonomy, instilling fear in regard to a potential loss of freedom, an increase of dependency with mistrust of one's own capabilities to manage the business of living and, hence, an increase of feelings and attitudes of helplessness. The ascription of vulnerability overrides the principle of equality between the partners, constitutes and invasion of privacy and impacts on the positive rights of individuals." -is this a quote?
  • Business section is rather short. Given that it's a broad topic is there not anything else in sources which documents other examples or examples of it in the business world? What about things like advertising or promotion? Can you elaborate a bit if possible?
    • I'd love to, and I have no doubt that there is potentially a lot of interesting analysis to be done here, but I'm afraid the citations just don't exist. Only a few thinkers outside of political philosophy have really started using the term- I've no doubt that in ten years, I could expand this article significantly, but, right now, I don't think that's possible. In my search, I did come across another article by David Wilson (I missed it originally as it was in the popular press, rather than in an academic publication) which I have added to the article. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, you can only go on what exists of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highly impressed with this piece, clearly meets FA criteria in my opinion, and represents the sort of authoritative professional writing piece we generally lack on wikipedia on such topics. Very interesting to me, not to mention that it illustrates that the Godfather is even more influential than people had thought!! I await your response. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your thoughts and kind words. I have just moved house, and so I lack regular Internet access; I'll hopefully be in a position to reply to these comments at the weekend. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- I think this nom has been open long enough, and if there are still some minor points to be resolved we should be able to AGF that they'll be actioned. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

George S. Patton

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 19:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. —Ed!(talk) 19:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by PumpkinSky My initial impression is quite good.
Images...File:Patton Monument West Point in new location 2009 upright.JPG, is on Commons as CC, but as it is of a statue in the USA, where there is no FOP, I think it should be on en wiki as Fair Use. File:Pattonphoto.jpg needs a source. Other images look ok to me.
More later. PumpkinSky talk 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the photo fails fair use criterion #8, which calls for "Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This article: Patton Monument (West Point) tells us that the statue was initially erected in 1950. Very likely it was erected without a copyright notice, which would make it {{PD-US-no notice}}. Or if it was erected with a copyright notice that was never renewed, it would be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. So there's a chance that the statue is PD, but we don't have enough information at present to determine that for sure. That article has two pics of the statue and one of Luxembourg statue. I'm not sure of Luxembourg law. PumpkinSky talk 02:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sculptor was Fraser, his work has come up before on Commons, see this CFD there. Let me poke around some more so we can get all his work properly marked. PumpkinSky talk 02:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This statue does in fact seem to be free of copyright, see CFD on Commons, as Work for hire for the US Gov it'd be PD, it was unveiled in 1950, per the New York Times, 13 May 1951, Most Famous Unknown Sculptor by Aline B. Louchheim, there is no copyright registration record refering to any work of James Earle Fraser in the 1950 volume of the catalogue of copyright entries, Works of Art etc. (available at archive.org here, and no renewal of copyright found (see CFD). I'll fix tags later. Still need a source for the other image. PumpkinSky talk 11:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pinged the original image uploader, hoping he will help. —Ed!(talk) 02:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's been editing and hasn't done squat. You can find it with an image search. PumpkinSky talk 23:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, someone has come back to me with a source and I've added it in. —Ed!(talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • "after the end of the war": after the war
  • "but performed exceptionally in appearance": I don't know what that means.
  • "In his plebe year at West Point": The word has entered the English language (and was never Latin to begin with), so no italics. It's a judgment call whether it's too informal.
  • "Fearing this assignment a dead-end career": I'm not sure what you're saying.
  • "a weapon which would": a weapon that would
  • "Patton remained in Mexico until the end of the year, however, the expedition became hampered by politics. President Woodrow Wilson forbade the expedition from conducting aggressive patrols deeper into Mexico, and so the expedition remained encamped for much of that time.": Patton remained in Mexico until the end of the year. President Woodrow Wilson forbade the expedition from conducting aggressive patrols deeper into Mexico, so they remained encamped for much of that time.
  • This is looking pretty good. I'm sorry, I won't have time for a complete prose review, but I did get down to George_S._Patton#World War I. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made all of the above fixes. Thanks for your review. —Ed!(talk) 01:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. Controversial public figures are notoriously difficult to elevate to FA, but this article is well written, intriguing and a thoroughly researched summary of a fascinating character. The article is a fine achievement on what many WWII followers would see as one of the most important articles of all. Good work by all those involved! Ctatkinson (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- Not as much commentary as I would have expected by now, and a subject like this really needs a fair few eyes to do it full justice. Bit odd considering the MilHist ACR was reasonably well patronised. Just scanning the Legacy section, I spotted a few places where the prose could be tightened, so if Dan doesn't feel able to continue his walk-through then I'd like to see another copyeditor pick up where he left off. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patton was the military governor of Bavaria after the war before being relieved of this post, then he commanded the Fifteenth United States Army for a time. - last segment of this sentence reads weirdly and needs rephrasing.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better though now the sentences are a little short - will fine tune this.
He also joined the football team but was repeatedly removed after injuring his arm - how was he repeatedly removed? was it one injury or several..?
He injured his arm multiple times and was removed from the team because of it each time. I couldn't figure out a way to write it without seeming redundant. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The injury almost forced Patton out of active service - reword to avoid using "injury" like in the previous sentence. Really it was the wound plus infection, so maybe "episode"?
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two high-profile incidents of Patton slapping subordinates during the Sicily campaign attracted national controversy following the end of the campaign. - I'd change this "slapping" to "striking" - (1) to reduce repetition of the word, and (2) the word "striking" captures the controversy of laying hands on another person in an aggressive manner.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patton railed against cowardice and issued orders to his commanders to discipline any soldier complaining of battle fatigue - I'd change last bolded bit to "making similar complaints" - to vary up the prose a little.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The general public remained mixed on the matter hmm - change to "The general public remained undecided on the matter" or "Views of the general public remained mixed on the matter" or something similar
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Later that month, Patton, Bradley and Eisenhower toured the Merkers salt mine as well as the Ohrdruf concentration camp, an incident which caused Patton great disgust. - confusing - was it the tour that caused disgust or the camp?
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The writing gets better as one goes down the page - I like the legacy section. I think the prose is engaging overall and has the right amount of colour to make an interestingread. Nice article. Can't see any content gaps but am not hugely familiar with the subject. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments. Enjoyed reading it!

  • "Patton was the military governor of Bavaria after the war; he was relieved of this post." - this left me wanting to know a little bit more to make sense of the second half of the sentence. How about "Patton was the military governor of Bavaria after the war; he was relieved of this post because of his public statements on denazification." or something like that?
  • "But his philosophy of leading from the front and his ability to inspire his troops with vulgarity-ridden speeches, such as a famous address to the Third Army, led to new leadership philosophies in the U.S. officer corps." - repetition of philosophy - perhaps second one could be "new leadership approaches"?
  • "uniform and appearance inspections" - I wasn't quite sure if these were different things, or happened together (i.e. did he have uniform inspections, and appearance inspections, or does one have a "uniform and appearance inspection"?)
  • "He personally led a troop of tanks through thick fog " - I wasn't sure you needed "personally" here (a troop of tanks not being particularly large, I couldn't see how else you could lead it!) It is also used earlier in the para I think.
  • "He carried a flashy ivory-handled, Smith & Wesson Model 27 .357 Magnum." - repetition of "flashy" from the previous sentence (where I think it worked better than here)
  • "conspicuous desire... conspicuous actions" - ditto
  • Formatting of citation/reference 155 looks really different to the rest. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2013&oldid=571918268"