text:
Bob Graham Round

The Bob Graham Round is a fell running (hill running) challenge in the English Lake District. It is named after Bob Graham (1889–1966), a Keswick guest-house owner, who in June 1932 broke the Lakeland Fell record by traversing 42 fells within a 24-hour period. Traversing the 42 fells, starting and finishing at Keswick Moot Hall, involves 66 miles (106 km) with 26,900 feet (8,200 m) of ascent.

The Round was first repeated, in a better time, in 1960 by Alan Heaton. Since then over 2800 individuals have completed the Round with the fastest time being 12hr 23m set by Jack Kuenzle in 2022, surpassing Kílian Jornet's record by almost 30 minutes. The women's record is 14hr 34m set by Beth Pascall in 2020. The Lakeland 24 Hour record has also been improved with the current holder, Andy Berry, successfully reaching 78 summits in the allotted time.

Along with the Paddy Buckley Round and the Ramsay Round, the Bob Graham Round is one of the classic big three mountain challenges in the United Kingdom. Some fifty-six individuals have completed all three.

Early developments
Before the Bob Graham Round, many shorter rounds of the Lakeland fells were developed. These are chronicled in the Bob Graham Club's Story of the Bob Graham Round, in the fell-walking section of M. J. B. Baddeley's Lakeland guidebook, and most recently in Chapter 15 of Steve Chilton's It's a Hill, Get Over It: Fell Running's History and Characters.

Some of the more notable rounds:

 * 1864: the Reverend J.M. Elliott of Cambridge traversed the summits around the head of Wasdale in 8.5 hours
 * 1870: Thomas Watson of Darlington covered 48 mi with over 10000 ft of ascent in 20 hours
 * 1902: S.B. Johnson of Carlisle completed a 70 mi, 18000 ft round in 22.5 hours
 * 1905: Dr Wakefield of Keswick completed the same round in 22h7m (recorded in The Sedberghian)
 * 1920: Eustace Thomas, at age 54, covered the same round in 21h25m

Dr Wakefield codified the essentials of the challenge: "To traverse on foot as many tops over 2000ft and return to the starting point within 24 hours". Wakefield specified the start/finish point as Keswick's Moot Hall.

Bob Graham's initial Round
On 12–13 June 1932 Bob Graham extended the 24-hour Lakeland peak bagging record to a total of 42 peaks in a time of 23 hours 39 minutes. This was recognised as the new record, despite several tops claimed not reaching 2000 ft in altitude. The approximate distance of the new record (determined using current technology) was 66 mi with 26,900 ft of ascent. At the time the distance was claimed (not by Graham) to be in excess of 130 mi though the given amount of ascent was close to the currently accepted figure. Several 20th Century sources (including the 42 Peaks booklet ) erroneously state the distance to be 72 mi.

The first repeat
The first attempt at beating the record came from Freddie Spencer Chapman who managed the round in 25 hours. This was believed to be the only attempt until after the Second World War. The next attempts were not until the 1950s, with some coming close to success.

In the early 1960s, at a time when the veteran walker Dr Barbara Moore was gaining publicity for doing the John o'Groats to Land's End walk, the Lakeland writer Harry Griffin noted that "You didn't need fitness for such walks, you could get fit whilst undertaking the challenge. The Lakeland 24 hour record on the other hand." As a result, Maurice Collett and Paul Stewart made an attempt starting from Langdale but, experiencing rough weather, completed the round in 27 hours 20 minutes. Also interested were the Heaton brothers from Lancashire who systematically set about attempting the record. After several attempts Alan Heaton finally broke the record in 1960, completing the circuit in 22 hours 18 minutes.

Bob Graham's original round included four tops that are not in what is now called the Bob Graham Round. These were:

 * High White Stones (an area just to the north of High Raise)
 * Hanging Knotts (a subsidiary summit of Bowfell)
 * Looking Stead (a prominence on the ridge between Pillar and Black Sail Pass)
 * High Snab Bank (a minor prominence on the ridge to the north of Robinson)

Alan Heaton replaced these with:

 * White Side
 * Helvellyn Lower Man
 * Ill Crag
 * Broad Crag

It is these along with the other 38 tops that are now called the "Bob Graham Round" and are listed below.

Subsequent developments
Heaton's new record inspired the addition of extra tops with the intent of extending the 24-hour record. As it was soon discovered that the route of Bob Graham's round was not optimal for attempts on the absolute fell record, the two are regarded as separate challenges and have slightly different rules. The 24-hour record has now been extended to 78 tops.

The Bob Graham Round is now a standard fell-runner's test-piece having been successfully completed by 2,818 people as of the end of 2023. Solo rounds have been accomplished but most contenders are accompanied by at least one runner in support, a requirement for acceptance of membership of the Bob Graham Club. The vast majority of attempts are undertaken close to mid summer to make use of maximum daylight. Nonetheless, as of the end of December 2023, fifty three individuals have successfully completed a winter round of the standard circuit four of whom have done two winter rounds.

The route
The round may be attempted either clockwise or anti-clockwise, provided that the start and finish is at the Moot Hall, Keswick. Predicted times for each stage of the round can be determined using an adaptation of Naismith's rule.

Record circuits
The succession of fastest rounds by men for the standard 42 tops is:
 * 1960: Alan Heaton – 22:18
 * 1971: Peter Walkington – 20:43
 * 1973: Bill Smith & Boyd Millen – 20:38
 * 1976: John North – 19:48
 * 1976: Billy Bland – 18:50
 * 1977: Mike Nicholson – 17:45
 * 1982: Billy Bland – 13:53
 * 2018: Kílian Jornet - 12:52
 * 2022: Jack Kuenzle - 12:23

The progression of fastest ladies' rounds is:
 * 1977: Jean Dawes - 23:27
 * 1978: Anne-Marie Grindley - 21:05
 * 1979: Ros Coats - 20:31
 * 1988: Helene Diamantides - 20:17
 * 1989: Helene Diamantides - 19:11
 * 1991: Anne Stentiford - 18:49
 * 2012: Nicky Spinks - 18:12
 * 2015: Nicky Spinks – 18:06
 * 2016: Jasmin Paris - 15:24
 * 2020: Beth Pascall - 14:34

The progression of these record times is shown in the graph. Building on the basic Bob Graham Round, later runners raised the number of peaks traversed within 24 hours still further:

 * 1962: Alan Heaton – 54 peaks in 23:48
 * 1963: Eric Beard – 56 peaks, involving 88 mi with 34000 ft of ascent in 23:35
 * 1964: Alan Heaton – 60 peaks in 23:34
 * 1971: Joss Naylor – 61 peaks in 23:37
 * 1972: Joss Naylor – 63 peaks in 23:35
 * 1975: Joss Naylor – 72 peaks involving over 100 mi and 37000 ft of ascent in 23:20
 * 1988: Mark McDermott – 76 peaks in 23:26
 * 1997: Mark Hartell – 77 peaks in 23:47
 * 2020: Kim Collison – 78 peaks in 23:45
 * 2023: Andy Berry - 78 peaks in 23:23

The sequence of ladies 24-hour records (for the number of peaks traversed within 24 hours or for the same number of peaks in a faster time) is:
 * 1977: Jean Dawes – 42 peaks in 23:37
 * 1978: Anne-Marie Grindley – 42 peaks in 21:05
 * 1979: Ros Coats – 42 peaks in 20:31
 * 1979: Anne-Marie Grindley – 58 peaks in 23:20
 * 1994: Ann Stentiford – 62 peaks in 23:17
 * 2011: Nicky Spinks – 64 peaks in 23:15
 * 2020: Carol Morgan - 65 peaks in 23:57
 * 2021: Nicky Spinks - 65 peaks in 23:45
 * 2022: Fiona Pascall - 68 peaks in 23:26

The progression of the record for the number of peaks is shown in the graph.

Several later runners have successfully attempted 50 peaks at 50, and 55 peaks at 55. Notable achievements are:
 * 1997: Joss Naylor attempted 60 peaks at age 60 over 36 hours (first to last peak) to raise money for Multiple Sclerosis research
 * 2005: Yiannis Tridimas completed 60 peaks at age 60, in 23:52
 * 2006: Joss Naylor completed 70 peaks at age 70, covering more than 50 miles and ascending more than 25,000 feet, in under 21 hours

Double Rounds
A double round is two rounds (132 miles and 54,000 feet of climbing) on consecutive days. This has been achieved eight times, three times within 48 hours, with the record held by Dougie Zinis.

 * 1977: Boyd Millen - 52:30
 * 1979: Roger Baumeister - 46:34
 * 1995: Eric Draper - 50:35
 * 2016 May 14/15: Nicky Spinks - 45:30
 * 2018: Tom Hollins - 52:30
 * 2019 August 24/26: Stuart Walker - 51:18
 * 2020 August 1/3 Gwynne Stokes - 54:30
 * 2021 September 10/11: Dougie Zinis - 45:03

Baumeister and Spinks both started at Keswick, ran clockwise to Yewbarrow (peak 31 on a clockwise Round), reversed and ran back to Keswick, then continued anticlockwise to Yewbarrow (now peak 12 on an anticlockwise Round), before reversing again and completing the double traverse of all 42 peaks, once clockwise and once anticlockwise, at Keswick.

The Bob Graham Club 24 Hour Club
The Bob Graham Club was proposed in 1971 by Fred Rogerson. It exists to record attempts at long distance challenges over the Lakeland fells. The majority of the club's activity is related to the Bob Graham Round itself. While there is no requirement for those attempting the round to apply for membership most do so. The Club does not organise attempts on the Round, this is left to each individual.

The rules for gaining club membership are simple:

 * Starting at the Moot Hall in Keswick, traverse the 42 summits of the Round (or more) on foot and return to the starting point within 24 hours of the starting time.
 * The visit to each summit must be witnessed by a companion and the time of that visit recorded.
 * The times at each summit and names of companions are entered in the membership application form.

The second requirement effectively prevents solo rounds counting for club membership though several runners, both club members and non-members, have made solo rounds.

The club decided that from 1 January 2020, they will no longer accept rounds that use paid-for or commercial guiding services, in keeping with the ethos of the club of voluntary and mutual support.

title: Bob Graham Round


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thursday October Christian/archive1

Thursday October Christian
This article is now the most complete on the web about this subject. I have drawn together virtually all of the extant facts regarding this fascinating individual. GeorgeStepanek 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. It's been on VFD as the subject may not be notable. If it survives there, the article is nowhere near long enough and has no proper headings. It reads more like a list of what other people have said about him. Why isn't his date of death in the opening para? Readers have to struggle through the article to find it hidden. Dbiv 01:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is short, but there may be no more to be written. Further expansion would of course be great if possible, but I strongly support hard work on more obscure historical topics like this. Everyking 02:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object: It's far too small, and more importantly, far too slight. This is a figure from a partially literate generation with extremely poor history available.  The most important thing about him is his parentage and the fact that he had to mate with an older woman.  Beyond that, there is very little to say about a man like him.  If these are all of the facts on the individual, then there simply isn't enough to say about him. Geogre 03:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. This is far, far too short. Surely, there is more information on this person especially since several books mention him.  I also object to the VFD (and will comment there). Zerbey 03:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Since it's on VfD, some people obviously have problems with it. Also, it's too short and therefore unlikely to be a comprehensive article on the subject. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Nice VfD rescue, yes. Good article, yes. Worthwhile to have articles on "more obscure historical topics?" Yes. Featured article? Sorry, you gotta be kidding. Maybe you've dug up everything there is to dig up from secondary sources, but if so there just isn't enough known about this fellow. And to me the contemporary Pitcairn islanders like Steve Christian are far more "fascinating" (in a repulsive way). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In my view, we ought to consider an article featured when it has become about the best and most comprehensive we can reasonably expect it to be, short of perfection. Can this really become much better and more comprehensive? I hope it can, but I have my doubts. Everyking 10:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Ernst Otto Fischer

Ernst Otto Fischer (10 November 1918 – 23 July 2007) was a German chemist who won the Nobel Prize for pioneering work in the area of organometallic chemistry.

Early life
He was born in Solln, a borough of Munich. His parents were Karl T. Fischer, Professor of Physics at the Technical University of Munich (TU), and Valentine née Danzer. He graduated in 1937 with Abitur. Before the completion of two years' compulsory military service, the Second World War broke out, and he served in Poland, France, and Russia. During a period of study leave, towards the end of 1941 he began to study chemistry at the Technical University of Munich. Following the end of the War, he was released by the Americans in the autumn of 1945 and resumed his studies.

Training
Fischer graduated from TUM in 1949. He then started his doctoral thesis as an assistant to Professor Walter Hieber in the Inorganic Chemistry Institute, His thesis was entitled "The Mechanisms of Carbon Monoxide Reactions of Nickel(II) Salts in the Presence of Dithionites and Sulfoxylates".

Research career
After receiving his doctorate in 1952, he remained at TU. He continued his research on the organometallic chemistry of the transition metal. He almost immediately challenged the structure for ferrocene as postulated by Pauson and Keally. Shortly thereafter, he published the structural data of ferrocene and the new complexes nickelocene and cobaltocene. Near the same time, he focused also on the then baffling chemistry resulting from Hein's reactions of chromium(III) chloride with phenylmagnesium bromide. This effort resulted in his isolation of bis(benzene)chromium, foretelling an entirely new class of sandwich complexes.

Professional advances and recognition
He was appointed a lecturer at the TU in 1955 and, in 1957, professor and then, in 1959, C4 professor. In 1964 he took the Chair of Inorganic Chemistry at the TU.

In 1964, he was elected a member of the Mathematics/Natural Science section of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences. In 1969 he was appointed a member of the German Academy of Natural Scientists, Leopoldina and in 1972 was given an honorary doctorate by the Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy of the University of Munich.

He lectured across the world on metal complexes of cyclopentadienyl, indenyl, arenes, olefins, and metal carbonyls. In the 1960s his group discovered a metal alkylidene and alkylidyne complexes, since referred to as Fischer carbenes and Fischer-carbynes. Overall he published about 450 journal articles and he trained many PhD and postdoctoral students, many of whom went on to noteworthy careers. Among his many foreign lectureships, he was Firestone Lecturer at the University of Wisconsin–Madison (1969), visiting professor at the University of Florida (1971), and Arthur D. Little visiting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1973).

He has received many awards including, in 1973 with Geoffrey Wilkinson, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on organometallic compounds.

Death
He died on 23 July 2007 in Munich. At the time of his death, Fischer was the oldest living German Nobel laureate. He was succeeded by Manfred Eigen, who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1967 and is nine years younger than Fischer was.

title: Ernst Otto Fischer


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Googie

Googie
An interesting article about an unusual type of architecture that everyone knows, even if they don't realize that it has a name (think Jetsons. I am promised that more pictures are forthcoming. Certainly worthy of people's attention. Danny 00:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * An interesting article, indeed, but not remotely in the ballpark of featured status. Compare Palladian architecture. Ambi 00:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree; compare it also to the Googie Architecture Online site that it references to see how much more comprehensive it could be. Still, the topic is interesting and the article is a good start. —Steven G. Johnson 00:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object waaaay too early for this to be considered for FAC, has minimal information. Articles for FAC consideration should be comprehensive, this does not have that feeling. Alkivar 00:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Not comprehensive yet, but a good start. Try to compare to other architecture articles and expand. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:12, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object: This is not a bad page, and its an interesting and promising article, but it  needs a lot more information. A longer lead, then definitions or the rules of the form, or was it a  free style of an  era - that sort of thing.  Then more examples, and if possible illustrations and plans, of exponent architects and their work.  Was it domestic, civic, monumental or merely a gimmick?  Why was it not given credence in its own lifetime?  Is it confined to USA or known by an alternative name elsewhere? Why is it so called?  It would be great to see this bought up to featured standard, suggest the nominator withdraws it for a couple of weeks, and addresses and expands a few points Giano 13:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have just made a small re-write to the lead section, but above comments still stand Giano 14:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Object. The very first thing I wanted to know when I glanced at the article was "who coined the names Googie and/or Populuxe, what is their derivation, and what are they supposed to evoke?" The article doesn't say. Compare Art Deco... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Stall This is premature. The entry is still just a sketch. Great images are needed, and they are all around us. --Wetman 00:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Sediment

Formula
If we assume that r is the radius of the particle, the constant in the formula should be 2/9 (4.5) rather than 1/18, because this is true for the diameter being squared in the formula.

The Stokes forumla only applies to small particles (fine sand and smaller), in which the wake behind the settling particle is laminar. For large particles (coarse sand and gravel), an emperical equation to account for flow turbulence should be used over the Stokes formula (e.g., see Dietrich, 1982).

 * The Settling article agrees with you, don't know why the difference. Settling through still fluid as opposed to a flowing fluid? hmm... no reference given. I'll change it and see if anyone disagrees. _Vsmith 00:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ferguson and Church (2006, I believe) have a new formula that analytically gives the same result as Dietrich (1982)'s result and fits all of their data by combining the drag law with Stokes' law, and connecting the two with a transition zone. And if we start talking about sediment transport and bedload vs. suspended load, we should talk about fall velocity and about shear velocity and the Rouse number. Maybe in order to actually do the subject of sediment transport justice without muddling "sediment" with two much complexity, a new page should be made about it and "sediment" should link to it. Awickert (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm following up and re-vamping sediment transport. See this article and Sediment transport. Awickert (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is sediment a synonym to alluvium? /Habj 15:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Alluvium Vsmith 17:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge from Transportation (sediment) and Deposition (sediment)
These processes are very similar, and are already discussed in this article to some degree.

Also, this article doesn't have a clear distinction between transportation and deposition, as it is kind of mixed together in a mess. It would also be nice to mention the basic [latin] diagenetic types: colluvium, fluvium, alluvium, and eluvium. +mwtoews 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

i think this article needs more information like the diffrent types of depostion and crap like that

I agree with the last section, that the article on deposits would be more complete if their were sections focusing on the diffrent types of deposits. I do not think it would be wise to merge this article on depositation with that on sediment. I feel sediment is more about the movement, and deposits are what happens when sediment is no longer moving. Also, I was looking at this artice to get a basis for coal deposits, and don't think anyone would call it coal sediment. 129.15.107.142 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Separate article needed for Bedload
The topic of bedload needs its own article, since bedload often consists of pebble and gravel materials (which can be transported within the stream as well as deposited). Cuvette 19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really a B class article???
If you want to be minimalist, perhaps this is a b class article. It lacks the following: images of sediment deposits Description of sediment size classes and their properities Description of aeolian processes and examples of aeolian derived deposits. Description of soil movement. These are generally called landslides. Images would be helpful. Description of glacial sediment deposits. Description of the function of sediment in stream channels and floodplains. The equations for stream form are not included and only mentioned in an offhand way. There is a general lack or references in all sections. There is a general lack of links to other articles that either cover the above, or complement the subject at hand.

This article reads like an expanded stub. I would give it a C- if it were turned in as a composition.

This paragraph is totally spurious. It is more polemic than information. If it is useful then it needs to be complemented by descriptions of other sources of sediments in other places, such as clear cut, normal sedimentation rates, farm erosion in western europe and china....blah blah blah... If it is still in the article without other additions when I return next I will delete it.

"One of the main causes of riverine sediment load siltation stems from slash and burn treatment of tropical forests. When the ground surface is stripped of vegetation and then seared of all living organisms, the upper soils are vulnerable to both wind and water erosion.  In a number of regions of the earth, entire sectors of a country have been rendered erosive; for example, on the Madagascar high central plateau, comprising approximately ten percent of that country's land area, virtually the entire landscape is sterile of vegetation, with gully erosive furrows typically in excess of 50 meters deep and one kilometer wide.  Shifting cultivation is a farming system which sometimes incorporates the slash and burn method in some regions of the world.  The resulting sediment load in rivers flowing to the west is ongoing, with most rivers a dark red brown colour, also leading to massive fish kills."

Avram Primack (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with your point - there are a large number of problems that need to be addressed, and it should probably be reclassified as a somewhat extended stub. If you would like to edit this article, I'm sure it would be appreciated. I would, however, like to advise you that Wikipedia is a volunteer-created entity, and that while I agree with the deficiencies you outline, the wording of your comments are not in the proper tone of constructive criticism.

 * But to address what you say more specifically, I think that we could decide on one of two plans of attack. We could either make "sediment" a comprehensive page only about sediment itself, and as a general index with short introductory blurbs for modes of transport and deposition, etc., or we could make it be large and comprehensive. I would say that the former would probably be better, as it allows clear-cut categorization of articles. "Sediment" should probably be stripped down in its generality and beefed up in what it specifically says about sediment. The writing should be improved as well. This would address your concerns. By limiting the scope of the article "sediment" making those deficiencies the issue of other articles (many of which already address what you brought up), the reader would not expect to see what you were disappointed not to see.

 * Awickert (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture illustrating "sedimentation"
The picture of carbonate precipitation in a stream in Switzerland is not an example of sedimentation, but rather a chemical process due to chemical saturation. The picture should be removed, as it is not an example of mechanical sedimentation. 193.64.21.60 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

 * The Rhone/Lake Geneva image? Where does it state that is a carbonate precipitate? And even if it is, then it would be a chemical sediment - and still appropriate. Although the article doesn't discuss such chemical sediments. Vsmith (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

 * The caption was definitely wrong, so I changed it. The pale color of the waters of the upper Rhone is almost entirely due to glacial flour, not the product of poor land use or industrial development.  It is not chemical saturation either, the rocks of the high Alps along the upper Rhone valley are not high in carbonate content.  See the Wikipedia writeup on the Arve River for a similar image of high sediment loads from another high alpine source (and a correct explanation of their source). Douglas W. Jones (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sediment


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British House of Commons/archive1

British House of Commons
-- Emsworth 01:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Object for now - an excellent start, and I want to support, but there are lots of details that could and should be added, such as: (i) introduction of radio and television broadcasting of proceedings; (ii) times and dates when the House usually sits (and emergency sessions); (iii) State Opening (Black Rod, the debates on the Queen's Speech); (iv) debating tactics and procedures such as points of order and programme motions (the "guillotine"); (v) the recent modernisation of procedures (e.g. the end of the hat for points of order during votes and changes in sitting times); (vi) other (in)famous disruptions of proceedings such as Michael Heseltine wielding the mace and the absailing lesbians; (vii) recent proposals in increase security (e.g. barriers to prevent strangers throwing items into the chamber); (viii) geography of the chamber (e.g., why the chamber has rows of seats down the sides (it used to meet in a chapel); where the Clerks sit; that and why there are lines on the carpet). Also, some sections seem long enough to deserve sub-sections (particularly history).  The page is also rather long already (38k), and adding this sort of detail will expand it even more: it may be worth moving the longer sections, such as history, to their own "main articles" and summarising the main articles here.  -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a lot to be written about the House of Commons. However, I feel that one must be more selective: only the more important details need to be included. The days on which the House sits, emergency sessions, the tradition of Black Rod knocking on the door, points of order, the guillotine, modernisation of procedure, and the geography of the chamber are all important, and information on these has been added/expanded. I do not feel, however, that security arrangements and the like warrant additional discussion (but I will add Heseltine's famous mace wielding incident). Radio and television information, as well as information on debates on the Address-in-Reply to the Queen's Speech, relate to Parliament as a whole, and would fit in the Parliament article rather than this article. As to subsections, I feel that they would cause the Table of Contents to become overwhelmingly large. As to splitting information, I do not feel that it is necessary here; the present 40k size is not too large, especially for a topic that is this important. Thus, I hope that I have taken the suggestions of objections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, and that I have addressed objections 1, 6, and 7. -- Emsworth 17:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a lot to be written: hence my suggestion of expansion and spawning of subsidiary articles. However, I'm glad you have taken in many of my points.  I still think it is worth mentioning the intrusion of the broadcast media, if only because most people will never actually visit the Houses of Parliament but may have seen or heard parts of debates being broadcast:  I think television is really a House of Commons rather than a Parliament issue because (if I remember correctly) the timetable and details differ between the Houses - the Lords were televised first as a guineapig; it may also be worth mentioning new Parliamentary practices, such as "doughnutting" the speaker.  My mention of debating tactics was really directed at the rather ineffective and often boisterous style of Parliamentary debate, with an atmosphere that can resemble a rather poor school or univerisity debating society (cheap points scored through points of order; ineffectual debate airing the issues but getting little done).  The new proposed security arrangements are topical, given recent disruptions that were not effectively prevented by the screens in the Strangers' Gallery; I still can't see mention of Tarzan's mace wielding.  In addition to the abolition of the hat, the "I spy strangers" tactic went in 1998 too.  However, if you are still strongly opposed to my remaining objections then I will beg leave withdraw. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that I have addressed all, except the objection on present security arrangements, which I do not agree with. -- Emsworth 20:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Support now. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the current composition of the House should be moved to a separate article (perhaps included in another existing one). The information about the current composition is just about as relevant as any composition of the house in history, and these aren't listed either. The article does a great job of telling a general, encyclopaedic, story; this part doesn't belong in there IMO. Jeronimo 13:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The current composition section only shows at a glance what the present status of the parties is. It does not list all the Members of the House. I feel that this information is certainly relevant, and does not require a separate article. -- Emsworth 17:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Can we get a colour picture of the House? Johnleemk | Talk 13:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support-- minor objections above noted but they are all easily correctable. 172 19:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, a little bit more polishing can be done, but overall outstanding. --  user:zanimum


text:
Devla

Devla/Del/Devel, Devlam, Devles, Devleske or Dovel is the word used when directly calling or praying to God in the Romani language.

Names
Devla basically means "God". It cannot be confused with the English word Devil, because the word for "Devil" in Romani is Beng. Interestingly some villages in India are named "Devla", as example Devla, India.

These Roma words existed in the Roma language centuries before any Roma adopted Christianity or Islam. That is, "Devla or Del" is a common noun meaning "a god". It is based on the Sanskrit word deva, related to the Latin words deus ("god") and divinus ("godly, godlike"), Greek Zeus, Lithuanian Dievas and the name for the sky god *Dyēus present throughout Indo-European religions and cultures.

Devlaism
After the Yugoslav Wars, some Roma of different groups, like the Arlije and Gurbeti, created their own ethnic religion, based on their folk beliefs of their old Romani folklore, but there are few believers, their holy days are named Djisatedimi. Rites like infant baptism (bona) and religious male circumcision (sunet bijav) maintained from Christianity and Islam and is performed.

title: Devla


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Medal of Honor

Medal of Honor
This is a comprehensive article about the US military's Medal of Honor. I have contributed to it, but so have many others. It is a partial self-nom. It went through peer-review a month or so ago. Ydorb 21:39, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * Support Extensive research and lists have made the article very informative and it is a popular topic, given the prestige of the U.S. Medal of Honor Husnock 22Nov04
 * Object. 1) Insufficient lead section, should be a summary of the article. See Lead section. 2) The first section is confusing, I don't know what the name of this medal is, or what is should be. 3) The "Marine Corps and Coast Guard" stands out a bit, and might be merged with Evolution of awarding criteria. 4) It seems better to combine the two sections regarding the official statutes, viz. "Privileges to awardees" and "Authority". This would also make the latter section a bit larger. 5) The links in the statistics "By conflict" should link to the actual conflict, rather than country. Perhaps a table would be nice to present this information, but it is OK as it is now. 6) The list of recipients seems rather random, and some soldier do not even have a reason listed. I would suggest to spin off the list to a "Recipients of the Medal of Honor" article (which probably should eventually list all of them). Extremly remarkable recipients (such as the only woman) should be mentioned in the "Statistics" section. 7) The quotation should probably be moved to WikiQuote. 8) The WP:MOS suggests a different style for web references; please consider using it. In addition, a book reference would be nice, or a further reading if no book reference was used. 9) The image of the medals says the medals are in the public domain, but this is conterindicated by the article (if I understand it correctly), so perhaps the image usage note should be adapted. Jeronimo 22:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * All these points have been addressed in the article in response to your useful comments. Ydorb 20:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Jeronimo 13:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Support, none of my other objections are critical. Object. The lead section needs expansion. If it mentions the most recent awards in detail, it probably should also mention when the first awards were made.  The sentence in Congressional Medal of Honor starting "Most recently, Congress passed legislation mandating the award..." lacks any sort of context.  Are these meant to be more recent awards than the "most recent" 1993 awards?  While mentioning the unknown soldier awards, it might be worth mentioning the reciprocal award of the Victoria Cross to the American unknown soldier.  I would prefer the statistics to be presented in a table (but that's just me) and call me sexist but the "by sex" list seems a bit redundant, given that the only female recipient is mentioned straight afterwards.  I don't mind including a list of remarkable/famous recipients in the article but I think the current list could be ruthlessly pruned.  I don't know why the computer game is included in the See also section. Geoff/Gsl 00:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There should be at least some disambiguation for the computer game which is found at Medal of Honor (computer game)--Enceladus 02:19, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * When I made the comment there was disambiguation text at the top of the article, which is sensible and I have no problem with. But I can't see why someone interested in the Medal of Honor medal should "also see" the Medal of Honor computer game. Geoff/Gsl 05:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. No information about Medal of Honor impostors (see ) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: that is just too arcane a sidesubject to have. This is an article on the "medal of honor" itself. Some comments on those actually awarded it are appropriate, but no need to devote any time to those who have not been awarded it. jguk 23:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If you feel it's too arcane to be included in the article, then at least they should be a companion article with a summary and wikilink at the main one. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:34, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I left dicussion info about MOH Imposters. There is information in the article about federal crimes regarding MOH imposters and the penalities for wearing it.  Putting up a list of MOH imposters, however, has some problems with the idea.  See Talk:Medal of Honor for more info -Husnock 26 Nov 04
 * Support GeneralPatton 18:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support--Evil Monkey 22:07, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reginald Maudling/archive1

Reginald Maudling
Self-nom. I surprised myself when rewriting this article that he came out as a more interesting character than I had expected. A 'nearly man' of British politics. Dbiv 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral My specific objections have ben largely addressed by a lengthy re-write and a large improvement in organisation. I don't know enough about the subject to be able to support it, though - it could have factual errors or omissions which I am in no position to analysie. Psychobabble 02:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Object. Far from brilliant prose (sorry to sound like a broken record) and a few things don't make sense to an ousider. What does "read law" mean? What was the conservative party's extensive rethink? Where did he stand in the latter movement? To an outsider this seems to be missing a fair bit. Psychobabble 01:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As for "Far from brilliant prose" this is insubstantial and I don't know how you suggest it should be changed. The term 'reading' for studying at a university is a standard expression which you really ought to know. The Conservative Party's rethink was into party policy after the loss of the 1945 election which is a far more general topic than this one article; I've started to cover it in the Conservative Research Department article. Maudling's position in the Conservative Party was much too subtle to be classified as 'Left' or 'Right'; as the article explains he was to the right of Edward Heath when defeated by Heath for the Conservative leadership in 1965. Dbiv 01:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll give eg's then. "Ministerial office in the 1950s" is a long, meandering one sentence paragraph and "experience of preparing economic policy" doesn't sound right to me. "Maudling's defeat was a surprise although feeling in the country and in most newspapers was in Heath's favour." "Maudling's tendency to reassuring calmness" and the first paragraph under "scandal" all read badly. It needs a close copyedit imo, much of the writing doesn't flow well at all. Psychobabble 02:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for 'reading' a subject, I dispute it being a common term outside Britain. I've been studying law for 3 years in Australia and I've never heard the term and Australia is, obviously, much more similar to Britain than the rest of the world.Psychobabble 05:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Let me take these points one by one. 1) "Ministerial office in the 1950s" has three sentences, not one. 2) Maudling did have "experience of preparing economic policy" in the CRD in the late 1940s - what does "doesn't sound right to me" mean? 3) I've redrafted some of the paras you 'don't think flow well' although this is again an insubstantial objection. 4) It is acceptable to use the variety of English relevant to the context of the article according to Manual_of_Style. See sample google searches at, changing 'history' for any other subject. Dbiv 14:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I also dispute the term "reading" is widely enough used as to be acceptable. I've certainly never heard it in the US. If most of the English speaking world would not understand a phrase then it does not matter whether it is British or American English or whatever, it should be exchanged for a more well known term. Or put the more well known in parenthesis. This is also the case for a number of other phrases in that section.  What does "called" mean in that context.  What is a barrister? It should be noted inline, not forcing the reader to read the linked article. If there are that many in one paragraph, I'm assuming there are many more throughout the article. Clarity is more important than using British colloquialisms. - Taxman 18:04, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Undecided: Sorry to but into the argument, but I think as a potted political biography this is OK. I would like to support it. However,  I think it needs a copy edit, perhaps Dbiv you have stared at it for too long,  my grammar isn't good enough to do it, but I do see some of the points Psychobabble is making.  The facts and dates are all there, it just needs a little more information and explanation.  Reading for studying is particularly British, but could stay if about an Englishman (see votes for FA John Dee). The final section 'Death' at one and a half lines is far too short, he must have done something else besides die, dug his garden, walked to the off licence; and some less than romantic, or catholic souls may not know the date of Valentine's Day. Yes I know it says it at the top, bit is this significant?  Was he a great lover?  This could be the umph this page need!Giano 18:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) This is much better now, but still needs more information on the man, what made him tick etc. Giano 17:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think I have addressed these concerns with the latest rewrite. The date of Reggie Maudling's death is in the first line for anyone who doesn't know what day St Valentine's day is. So far as is known Reggie Maudling was not a notably good lover (although he did have four children). Dbiv 14:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Support: I think is a pretty good article and it's turned out much better than I ever thought when I started it. Come on, give it chance.  james_anatidae 01:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Have attempted to improve the written style of this article.  However, reverts by DBiv have ensured that while the facts are there the English and vocabulary remain basic to say the least.213.122.195.196 13:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have done no reverts. We evidently disagree on what constitutes the best prose and written style. I found your edits flowed rather badly and lacked some necessary punctuation; they also tended to introduce new concepts: for example, did Macmillan retain Maudling in 1957 because he 'recognised the potential of a rising star'? Or did Butler persuade Macmillan to retain his ally? I don't know, which is why the article did not speculate. I'm afraid I also thought your edits included a number of clichés. Dbiv 15:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Support Good article. But it would be better to recast the Bar/barrister bit so it can be understood by an international audience. jguk 15:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. Dbiv 15:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Support--ZayZayEM 07:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Support assuming those sources were really used to come up with the material in the article and or fact check it. Not terribly interesting to me, but that is just because it falls entirely out of my areas of preference. It seems like a well written article, if anything it is a little scant on his personal life. We don't need much since that is not why he is famous, but what about his personal interests or similar. Object. No references. Was all this material made up out of thin air? - Taxman 04:01, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * It does have references. What do you think the autobiography and biography are? Dbiv 12:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Listed as they were they could have just as easily been referring the reader to biographies about him, but never actually looked at by editors of the page. - Taxman 18:08, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I confess to not having seen Michael Gillard's 1980 book about Poulson. I requested it at the British Library but it had gone missing. However I know of its contents and they have been added to in Lewis Baston's book which has the benefit of having some recently disclosed extra documents. Dbiv 21:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, have added some more, and also some more interesting points. Dbiv 15:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Vegard Ulvang

Vegard Ulvang (born 10 October 1963) is a retired Norwegian cross-country skier who won three Olympic gold medals, two silver, and one bronze. At the opening ceremony of the 1994 Winter Olympic Games, he took the ceremonial Olympic Oath on part of all the athletes. In addition to his Olympic achievements, he received the Holmenkollen medal in 1991 (shared with Trond Einar Elden, Ernst Vettori, and Jens Weißflog), and won the World Cup in 1990. He has also won nine gold, six silver, and two bronze medals in the Norwegian Championships. He earned nine World Cup race victories. Ulvang also won the 50 km at the Holmenkollen ski festival in 1989, 1991 and 1992.

After retiring from professional skiing, he started his own clothing line.

On 25 May 2006, Ulvang was named chairman of the executive board of the International Ski Federation's (FIS) cross-country committee, taking over from Peter Petriček of Slovenia, who decided to step down after four years in the job.

Ulvang was also a part of Norwegian TV 2's television travel-series Gutta på tur, together with fellow skier Bjørn Dæhlie, TV personality Arne Hjeltnes and chef Arne Brimi. He is also the creator and organizer of the Tour de Ski.

Cross-country skiing results
All results are sourced from the International Ski Federation (FIS).

Olympic Games

 * 6 medals – (3 gold, 2 silver, 1 bronze)

World Championships

 * 8 medals – (2 gold, 2 silver, 4 bronze)

Season titles

 * 1 title – (1 overall)

Individual podiums

 * 9 victories
 * 34 podiums

Team podiums

 * 9 victories
 * 23 podiums

Note:   Until the 1999 World Championships and the 1994 Olympics, World Championship and Olympic races were included in the World Cup scoring system.

title: Vegard Ulvang