Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2013

Tales of Graces

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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

A82 road

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The A82 is one of the most important roads in Scotland, with some highly notable scenery. In my view, therefore, it's one of the most worthy to try and take to FA status. The article has already been assessed by representatives of WikiProject UK Roads and WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, and recently featured as a Did You Know? on the front page. In our view, it's now ready to undergo a thorough review as a Featured Article Candidate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. While a lot of effort has been put into the article, I do not believe that it meets the FAC standards. On a procedural note, this article has not been through GAN or WP:HWY/ACR, which does not by itself disqualify any FAC, but those venues are strongly recommended for preparation before coming here.
  • MOS:RJL - the article is missing a table of the major junctions, which all other road FAs have where the road is still in service. With over 50 road FAs having gone through FAC, it is generally established that to be "comprehensive" the article must contain one.
  • Prose and clarity:
    • "providing memorable driving experiences." - is that a good or a bad thing?
    • "The A82 has an extensive history." - not really worth saying, fluff
    • what does "detrunked" mean? "dual carriageway"?
    • "The road continues" starts two consecutive paragraphs
    • Overuse of "dual carriageway"
    • What is a "freeflow junction"?
    • "to a high quality single carriageway standard over the 1980s" - what makes it high quality?
    • "constructed between 1990 and 1992." yet your maps are 1990 and 1994...
    • "It is sandwiched between the shoreline of the loch and the mountains to the west, and it runs" - is the second "it" needed?
    • In fact, lots of "runs" too. Check for other repeated words throughout, and try to remove redundant words wherever possible, explain or link unfamiliar terms. Stopping here, skimming the rest of the article... please, have a copyeditor look at this.
    • Between Invermoriston and Drumnadrochit, there is a roadside memorial to John Cobb, who was killed on the loch attempting to beat the water speed record. - swimming? boating?
    • "Today" should not be used, see WP:DATED
    • Per WP:MOSITALICS#Quotations - "It is normally incorrect to put quotations in italics."
    • Lots of "The A82", use some variety.
    • "12 months" needs a nonbreaking space, please check for them throughout
    • The new road will be to modern day standards... constructed to?
    • What is a diversion route?
  • Comprehensiveness and structure: you say that specific sections were built starting in 1724, yet I never see that year mentioned anywhere else in the article - indicates that there's probably stuff missing. The history parts of the article are poorly organized; some of it is split into the Route section, and some of it is in the History section, making the history of the actual road hard to follow - it's hard to tell when the road was built since it's woven into the text. Also, one paragraph does not a subsection make, yet there are a few subsections like that in the history. Finally, after all you said it has an "extensive history" yet it's barely over a screen long - a bit contradictory…
  • Focus: I don't see anything unique about the Gaelic Signs section or any reason why it needs to be included in the article besides a brief mention, seeing as it could be copy-pasted to many other Scotland roads in the area (Wikipedia:Content forking). Also, signs should be lowercase.
  • Images: the map is huge and takes up half of the infobox. Also, what does green mean? What does red mean?
  • Captions: they should either be complete sentences or fragments, mixing both is not a good idea. If it's a complete sentence, it needs a period; if not, then don't include one.
  • Lead: the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, yet it seems that there is some stuff, including an entire source (source 5) that is not repeated anywhere else in the article.

Mostly minor stuff, but the prose issues, history issues and the missing junction list are an oppose for me as they are major parts of the article that are not present. --Rschen7754 12:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Too many minor prose and formatting issues; fairly easy to fix but cumulatively fail this at the moment. Also questions over scope; why a whole section on Gaelic signs? Why no mention of the M82? Needs too much work to meet standards. Also, this is not a "deer warning sign". What does "a number of" mean? Why is it better than saying "several" or "some"?--John (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think the problem is I've struggled to recruit a really good copyeditor for this - I'm getting better at Tony1's prose writing exercises but I can't hand on heart say I'm getting a pass over about 60% at the moment. Nominally peer reviews go by WP:UKRD but I don't really see anyone else tackling articles to even GA level. I have asked around a few of the other good copyeditors I know but most seem to be busy - in your case John, I assumed you were occupied with Ealdgyth on Battle of Hastings. Happy to close this for now, as the main reason I moved it from GAN to here is because the copyeditor thought it was great. I think also it would be good to get a co-nom if we decided to give it another go later. I know Farrtj has had similar problems trying to get KFC through FA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry- I did notice some of the issues, like the repetition, but I erred toward preserving the flavor of the prose when I should have edited more aggressively. What you really need- and, sorry again, but this narrows the field much further and won't make it any easier for you- is a British copy editor. There's a lot of British vernacular here that's unfamiliar to me, and you need someone more qualified to address that. Dementia13 (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment—given that the nominator has indicated a willingness to withdraw this nomination for now, I won't formally oppose, however if this FAC is left open, please register this review in opposition to promotion at this time. Based on a skim read of the article, I have the following issues:
  • There are dash formatting issues through the article. The subheadings are using spaced en dashes, "St George's Cross – Alexandria", when they should be unspaced per MOS:DASH. Entries in the prose include "Dalnotter - Inverness Trunk Road" and "Glasgow - Clydebank - Dumbarton - Alexandria - Crianlarich - Ballachulish - Fort William - Fort Augustus - Inverness" which are using spaced hyphens instead of the proper unspaced en dashes.
  • Referencing formatting is a mess.
    • Cartographers aren't indicated on maps.
    • Hansard' is linked in every footnote, which is WP:OVERLINKing; the first footnote that is sourced to the Hansard is all that needs to be linked. This also applies to other repeated sources like Ordnance Survey maps, or repeated authors. While correcting this, please audit all footnotes to make sure that the first instance as numbered has the link, and not the second, as done with The Guardian on footnotes 28 and 29.
    • Book citations lack city of publication; this isn't an issue, per se, but it isn't that common in my experience.
    • Date ranges and page ranges in citations should use en dashes. Even if that means changing a hyphen in a title (which is a minor typographic change).
    • Footnote 8: the title of the webpage should be "About Us" and "Transport Scotland" should be indicated as the publisher. We don't need to parrot the HTML title when the top of the webpage gives the simplified title, and we shouldn't omit a publisher because it is redundant to a portion of the title.
    • Newspapers that lack a city in their title normally have that location supplied for clarity. Footnote 23 links to "Daily Record (Scotland)", but it should display the city of publication in the citation.
    • Footnote 58 lacks attribution to the author.
    • Why is "BBC" in italics in "BBC News (BBC)"? Normally, a television network, or a division of a network, would be considered a publisher and rendered in roman (normal) type, while a specific program is a work and rendered in italics. Assuming BBC News is the name of a program aired on the BBC, the roman and italics is backwards; if BBC News is just the division of the network that produces the news, then the parenthetical is redundant and neither would be in italics.
    • Why is the BBC credited as the author on footnote 53, but not the publisher? Why is there a space before the colon in the title?
    • Footnote 69: wouldn't "Highways Magazine" be the name of a work, and shouldn't it be in italics?
    • Footnotes 75 and 76 should have |format=PDF inserted into the citation templates to indicate to a reader that the links are to PDFs. Reliance on the automatic PDF icon display has issues, and we should be explicitly supplying this information, even if its rendered a bit redundant.
    • Words like "Limited" or "Company" are normally omitted from publisher names in citations.
    • Another consistency issue: are we separating titles from subtitles with colons or dashes? This sort of typographical change can be made for consistency in our presentation without concerns over changing the titles the publishers used. To have both formats in use makes our article look sloppy and unpolished.

Unless or until these sorts of minor formatting details are fixed, this article can't be judged as part of "our finest work". Imzadi 1979 → 18:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak

Nominator(s): United States Man (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it passed a Good-article review fairly easily and with only minor problems. I feel that all of those problems have been corrected (although there may be a few hidden problems) and that this passes Featured-article criteria. If passed, this would be the first tornado outbreak article to be promoted to FA status, so there wouldn't really be a precedent for this page. However, I think this page is ready for FA status. United States Man (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Source for second half of second paragraph of April 27? Most of the second-last paragraph? End of April 28? First paragraph of Smithville? "Surveys indicated high end EF4 damage from the tornado in Birmingham's western suburbs"?

done

• Don't include external links inline

done

• Don't include entries in See also already linked in the article

done

• Why are we including that last section of External links?

done

• Why do some NOAA sources use domain name while others spell out publisher? Why do some NOAA sources spell out what NOAA stands for while others don't? Why do some NOAA sources include the USA.gov publisher while others don't? Check for consistency

done

• Dead links

done

• Check for consistency in italicization and wikilinking

done

• Where there is no named author, why is the publisher sometimes in the author position and other times in the publisher position?

done

• Compare footnotes 21 and 22.

done

Oppose and stopping there - significant cleanup and checks for consistency are required. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The majority of these problems were just left when activity died down about two years ago. The reference problems are easy fixes. United States Man (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that all of that is taken care of, do you see any problems in the structure of the article. United States Man (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'd love to see this article as an FA, since I understand and respect the significance of this outbreak and remember tracking it closely as it was occurring. That said, the article is ill-prepared. Substantial swaths of text (like the entire middle paragraph of the Philadelphia EF5 section and much of the Raleigh EF4 section) are copied word-for-word from the NWS event summaries. While that's not technically illegal, it's still about the laziest way to construct an article on a topic with so many potential sources of info. In the very plausible event that an NWS summary is the best account of a particular tornado, it would be advisable to summarize the info and of course continue to refer to the original source, perhaps with a meta-disclaimer somewhere that "more detailed descriptions have been issued by these NWS offices". For me, a featured article is one that is clearly the most informative and comprehensive description of its subject available anywhere. Currently, this article represents simple copy and pasting from other sources, so it can't reasonably be considered uniquely thorough. Juliancolton (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well said. I will work on that. United States Man (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Based on Julian's comment and the nominator's response, this article needs work that should take place outside the FAC process. I'd suggest, once that's taken care of, that the article go through a Peer Review before being renominated at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

Saltwell Park

Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A first visit to FAC for an article on a beautiful Victorian urban park in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, England. This article started as a stub before it passed a GAN undertaken by Eric Enfermero at the back end of last year. It was subsequently peer reviewed by Bald Zebra who kindly made some recommendations which have now been incorporated. Any questions/comments welcome...Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (Geograph project, own work). Sources and authors provided.

• File:Saltwell_Park_Overview.jpg - could you add a brief description (what exactly is depicted? in what direction? ...) to the image summary? Completely optional, but would be helpful for other users. GermanJoe (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem: done! Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Multiple pages should use "pp.", "p." for single
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
• FN49: publisher?
• BBC should not be italicized, The Journal should. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks – I think these have been addressed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - the article is well-developed and an interesting, informative read. Some minor parts contain unencyclopedic details (see points 7,9,10), but overall the tone is factual and descriptive.

1. lead "Upon opening, it became known as "The People's Park". => not critical info, but who coined that term? (same for section "Park use" later)
2. "...and is now considered "one of Britain's finest examples of a Victorian park". => HLF as a co-funder of the restoration can't be used as a neutral source here. I don't doubt it, but this subjective statement needs an uninvolved source.
3. Conception "...the Teams, Bensham and Low Fell" => some descriptors would help here, Is "Teams" a river or the valley? Bensham and Low Fells are suburbs?
4. "... and whose work can still be seen today in cathedrals at Chichester and Newcastle upon Tyne." => out of scope, remove (the focus is on the Park, not William Wailes).
5. "Redheugh" => red-link like Shipcote?
6. "Kemp's plans were implemented over a period of years by borough surveyor James Bowyer at a cost of around £11,000." => how many years? Approximately would be enough, if no exact value is available.
7. Design "It takes around one hour to walk around the park" => touristguide info, remove
8. "..."important feature in the history and development of the park"" => quotes like this need a direct in-text attribution, who said this?
9. "From the southern section, Saltwell Towers is hidden by the stone wall but once viewed it "dominates the park"" => unencyclopedic details, remove
10. "[Generations of visitors have stood at the side of the lake to "feed the ducks", but this is something of a misnomer – whilst] the lake has long been inhabited => remove the first part.
11. "Park use" - i'll have to trust your judgement here - are all those activities really notable beyond a local audience? Please double-check, only events of major interest should be listed.
12. map => Completely optional, but any chance for a park map? It would be a great help to visualize the park's layout. GermanJoe (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Responses
1. I don't know, sadly, and despite looking extensively in the past I can't find out I'm afraid.
2. I've found a couple of other sources but this one is essentially the tourist board so is no more uninvolved than the HLF and this one frankly looks like it is simply plagiarising the wiki article. The best I could find is this book which states that Saltwell park is "the nicest of all" parks in Tyneside but I can't think that is much use to an encyclopedia article, so I've simply taken the quote out.
3. No problem; done.
4. Okay, removed.
5. Done.
6. Again, I don't have that info I'm afraid: the exact words of the source are "Hancock declined and Kemp drew up a design which was submitted to the Council in 1876. This was implemented over the years which followed by the Borough Surveyor James Bowyer, who designed many of the park buildings." hence my own rather wishy-washy statement in the article. I'm not sure an exact figure could be given; the park was opened in 1876 but was routinely added to over the next thirty or so years and I'm not entirley sure it was ever 'finished' (if that makes sense).
7. Gone.
8. Added
9. Not entirely sure I agree with this one but I've removed nonetheless.
10. Done
11. All of the events listed received local media coverage and almost all received national media coverage so I think they can all stay.
12. I'd love to add one but there isn't a free map available so far as I can tell. There is this map but I'm sure it isn't usable. Any suggestions?

Thanks for taking the time to comment Joe. I've responded to your suggestions above. Meetthefeebles (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

1. and 6. No worries, when the sources are vague, the article has to reflect this.
12. It would probably be OK to make a simple re-drawing based on that map with less details and other graphical elements, but it would be a lot of work. For now i suggest to add the link as "External links" (it has a bit of advertisement, but also lots of useful information).

Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

13. (new) Not sure where exactly, but the awards should be mentioned in the main article body (per WP:LEAD). Conversely you'll have to summarize the section "Park use" in the lead aswell, maybe add 2-3 of the most notable events or add a general summary statement to the third lead paragraph. Make sure all non-trivial info from the lead is in the main article body and vice-versa all article sections are summarized in the lead. GermanJoe (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for these Joe, and apologies for the delay in responding (work came along and swamped me unexpectedly). I've made some changes and additions per your suggestions. Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• No need for two Tyne and Wear links in the lead.

Removed Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was originally going to say that the first word of "Race for life" should be decapitalized, but upon seeing the article on the subject I now think that the last word should be capitalized instead. Same goes for the body, in the awards section.

Agreed and done Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Conception and opening: "Whilst" → "While"?

Changed as suggested Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Principal attractions: Is "towers" supposed to be capitalized in the photo caption here?

It is capitalised in all of the sources, so I think yes. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Period needed after "raccoon" after a usage of ref 8. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting bud. I've made some changes as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- as this nom has been open for about six weeks with no consensus to promote and no comments for almost two weeks, I'll be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

List of AFC Wimbledon seasons

Nominator(s): Jodie25 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is a comprehensive list of all AFC Wimbledon seasons to date, and is referenced and detailed enough to meet the FA quality criteria Jodie25 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue. You should nominate this at WP:FLC. Graham Colm (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be closed ASAP; perhaps Graham will be willing to do the honors. Once this is done, bring it on over to FLC where it belongs. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

Vazgen Sargsyan

Nominator(s): Երևանցի ^talk 22:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Vazgen Sargsyan is one of the most inportant figures in the modern Armenian history, although he only lived up to 40 and was a public figure for less than a decade, he is widely recognized a national hero, founder of the Armenian army, the main commander of the Armenian forces during the Nagorno-Karabakh War with Azerbaijan and a dictator-like reign as Defence Minister and Prime Minister from 1995 until his assassination in 1999. During these four years he ousted Armenia's first President Levon Ter-Petrosyan and brought Robert Kocharyan into power and built an army which many describe as the strongest in the region and in the former Soviet countries. Sargsyan was a somewhat controversial figure in the 1990s Armenia, however, today he is perceived as a positive figure by most Armenians. I'm nominating his article for FA for the reasons I mentioned above. I completely rewrote the article from late March to mid-June of this year and it was promoted as a Good Article today and I do believe that the article is close to being high quality. Երևանցի ^talk 22:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - This nomination is premature, there are obvious problems with the prose that are immediately apparent even to the casual reader:

• "Few year after the election" - where is the article and the plural?
• "By early 1994, both sides have realized the devastating effects of the war and on May 5" - wrong tense.
• "of the total vote inf favor of the incumbent" - in favor?
• "Since 1995 until his resignation in February 1998, Ter-Petrosyan was being criticized for his alleged authoritarian rule." - wrong tense.
• "President Levon Ter-Petrosyan announced about his resignation on February 3, 1998." - why add "about"?
• "During the election campaign, Sargsyan pledged that he will spare no effort to make sure the elections are free and fair.." - wrong tense.
• "showed a decline in Human Development indicators" - what on Earth are "Human Development indicators"?

The whole article is riddled with grammatical errors. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and seeking a thorough copyedit. I am surprised that this has been elevated to GA status. Graham Colm (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL why so harsh? Nobody's grammar is perfect, especially of a non-native speaker's grammar. These mistakes are easy to fix, aren't they? Who said an article should be perfect by the time it gets to the FA nomination? Just take a look at already promoted Featured articles. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There are too many mistakes and the prose is not even close to FA standards. This is not the place to get basic errors fixed. I suggest a thorough copyedit by a native speaker followed by a peer review. Graham Colm (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I would've done it a long time ago, but I do no have much confidence in copy editors here. Sometimes they make changes that, at the end, worsen the whole article as they don't have much information about the topic they edit. If you know a user that will actually be helpful please give me their name(s) and I will ask them to look through. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive my bluntness, while it is clear that much time and effort has been invested in this contribution, the prose is poor and some parts are incomprehensible. The numerous errors in the article are so basic that a simple check using Microsoft Word would find many of them. I suggest that you withdraw the nomination and seek help here. Graham Colm (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Yerevancil, I understand your concern regarding detrimental feedback from uninformed editors; this is one of the fundamental challenges of collaborative authorship. However, the spelling and grammar errors in this article are so basic and so pervasive that a reader of any familiarity level would find them detrimental. As GrahamColm points out above, even the use of simple spellcheck software would greatly improve the readablity of this article. Such a step should be taken long before a FAC, not during it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I started doing some copyedits, but then information started to confuse me and I stopped. Unfortunately the article didn't had a proper GA review which read like a quick pass from a lazy reviewer which is a shame. I could do a complete review on this article, but it needs to be in peer review first, not here. Secret ^account 03:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn as suggested by three users above. Perhaps, peer review is the right place for now. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn and archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

Nominator(s): Hnygupta (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because as u all know she is the wonder full actress and the most beautiful women in the world Hnygupta (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Aishwarya Rai Bachchan/archive1

• Quick oppose – Leaving the prose aside, the article has plenty of problems with respect to sourcing alone. I see many incomplete refs, some of which are dead. Lot of work is needed to bring this article at least to GA level. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Quick oppose: The editor is notorious for making experimental edits on the page, and adding non-free images every single day. The article is far from ready for an FA. Being a principal contributor to this article, I suggest a quick close to this nomination. --smarojit ^HD 02:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose : Agree with Smarojit and Vensatry. This article is not ready for FA. -- Ssg2442 (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

Omak, Washington

Nominator(s): TBrandley (T • C • B) 06:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Since its previous nomination, Omak, Washington has obtained several through copy-edits from established contributors. A small city with 4,880 residents as of 2011, the Omak Stampede is a well-known factor in the municipality, serving as the commercial center of Okanogan County, Washington. The article is classified as good and is of significant quality. Thank you for your time, TBrandley (T • C • B) 06:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I had intended to just offer a review under a neutral "Comments" heading, but at this time I must register opposition to promotion. References

• There's a severe case of overlinking in the references. It's only necessary to link the publisher or publication name in the first reference.
  • See WP:OVERLINK, references are permitted to be repeated in references consistently and has been done on various occasions in other featured articles. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, it says, and I quote, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Please tell me how it is helpful to readers to repeatedly link to "Federal Communications Commission" in 11 consecutive footnotes. Additionally, as I read that sentence, links can be repeated between the body of the article, the infoboxes, the tables, etc, but not necessarily repeated in every caption, in every reference, etc. The constant relinking of publishers and such makes the footnotes a sea of blue, and it doesn't help steer the reader to the links that they would need, like the links to the actual webpages being cited. Imzadi 1979 → 08:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 06:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• The footnotes should also be audited for correct usage of publisher vs. work information. For an example, in the citations related to various broadcast stations, the "Federal Communications Commission" would be the publisher; the FCC is not the name of a website being cited.
  • I'll skim through the article and implant some changes. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 06:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The Weather Channel is a publisher, not a work.
      • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• There are other practices that are somewhat contrary to the usual methods of displaying citation information. The publisher of a newspaper is rarely necessary information for inclusion in a footnote, however, the city of publication when it is not included in the paper's name usually is. In other words, the fact that The Oregonian is owned by Advance Publications is immaterial, but the fact that it's published in Portland, Oregon, is normally included. Telling a reader that U.S. News & World Report is published by U.S. News & World Report, L.P. isn't very useful either, especially since it duplicates the publication name.
  • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure it's necessary to indicate that the convenience link to a copy of an article is hosted on Google News.
  • Fair enough, removed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Prose

• Just skimming through the prose, I found an instance of "4 miles (6.4 km)". The number 4 should be spelled out in this case, and there is {{convert/spell}} to assist with that.
  • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• "while Little Moses Mountain—5,963 feet (1,818 m) above sea level—and Omak Mountain—5,749 feet (1,752 m) above sea level—are adjacent to the Moses Mountain." this should probably use some other punctuation instead of em dashes to break off the supplemental material. Since there are converted values present in parentheses, they could be enclosed in square brackets, or the templates removed in favor of manually formatting "5,749 feet or 1,752 meters".
  • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• "of which 3.43 square miles (8.88 km2) or 98 percent is land and 0.07 square miles (0.18 km2) or 2 percent is water." I think that we can omit the "2 percent" from that sentence.
  • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• There are various details in the Economy section that seem to be tossed in without being too cohesive. The whole paragraph on the Walmart store seems quite jumbled to me. "The store, with Medicaid clients,[82] was later allowed to remain open for 24 hours per day.[83]" That sentence implies that because the store served Medicaid patients, it was allowed to operate 24 hours a day. Alternately, the information about the store serving Medicaid patients isn't particularly notable since all retail stores with in-house pharmacies should serve some people on Medicaid. These last two paragraphs in that section need to be rewritten.
  • Partly done, will complete the remainder soon. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 17:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Other significant events include the Omak Film Festival—inclusive of a variety of films at the Wenatchee Valley College and Omak Theater[105][106]—the Okanogan County Fair—an annual carnival at the County Fairgrounds[107]—and the Omak Western and Native Art Show—a Native American carnival.[108]" is another sentence with overusage of the em dash.
  • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Fishing and boating are available at Omak Lake,[122][123][124][122]" Why does such an uncontroversial detail nee more than one citation, let alone three. (And why is fn 122 appearing twice here?)
  • Already fixed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be much work to be done yet to polish the article to the FA standards. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Several points appear have to been corrected regarding the citations, however there are some error messages appearing for me, and some new errors have been introduced.

• For the "The December 1872 Washington State Earthquake" citation, an access date is supplied without a URL. No access date will appear without the link, so either the link has been overlooked, or the access date is superfluous. The same goes for "Washington – Offenses Known to Law Enforcement by State by City – Historical Records" from the FBI and "Table 15: Land Area and Population Density – 2000" from the Census Bureau.
• The location name isn't normally "New York City" but rather just "New York".
• I suppressed the extra linking in the footnotes that use {{google maps}} by adding |link=no to them.

Looking at prose, I'm still finding errors being introduced or retained. My previous comments weren't meant to be exhaustive of the issues in the article.

• "also run north-south" should have an en dash between the two directions.
• "(IATA: OMK, ICAO: KOMK, FAA LID: OMK)" isn't needed. Using that template introduces unnecessary boldface text into the body of the article. Such text is appropriate in the lead of the article on the airport itself, but it isn't needed here.
• "boosting the city's economy significant" should be "boosting the city's economy significantly" for instance.

Based on that, I'm still recommending a third party give this article a touch of polish before promotion as a FA. Imzadi 1979 → 02:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012

Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This article chronicles a failed presidential campaign of a colorful Congressman, which ends with the Congressman writing a TV pilot to "get over" the failure, and then having to resign his Congressional seat amid a fraud investigation. I created the article two years ago, and have worked on it since. It was promoted to GA status last year. I believe it meets the FA requirements.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:McCotter_logo.gif: who holds copyright to this image? Also, tweak on FUR: the image identifies the organization in the infobox, it doesn't "identify the organization Infobox". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I assume the McCotter campaign owns the copyright if one exists, but it's probably too unoriginal to even be copyrighted. I'll let someone with a better knowledge of copyright to make that determination.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I inquired at WP:NFR, and it seems the logo is too unoriginal to be copyrighted. I have changed the summary and license on image page accordingly.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "first received presidential speculation in April 2011 on Fox News' Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld"—is this ok, receiving speculation?
  • Rephrased as "was first speculated as a potential presidential candidate on an April 2011 episode of Fox News' Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld." --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• "and used the slogan Seize Freedom!, which derived from the title of his 2011 book"—I'd be happpier with "which was derived from" or ", derived from".
  • Applied the second phrasing removing the unnecessary "which".--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not thrilled with the en.WN links—and three of them? Why are the privileged over the ref list? Why can't we link to a reliable source, like the ones that the WN articles emblazoned are based on. WN itself isn't a reliable source. Rather than the boxes, it would be less visually disruptive to link to WN in the See also section. The first source link in the first WN link (Detroit News) appears to be dead. Tony (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Moved to the external links section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- I'm sorry this hasn't attracted more attention, and after remaining open alsmost six weeks I can't see it generating consensus to promote any time soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [10].

---

Titan (supercomputer)

Nominator(s): James086^Talk 16:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I was swamped and could not address the issues raised in the previous FAC in time. I will be able to attend to any concerns now and I believe I have already addressed those raised in the previous FAC. I have tried to use American spelling throughout, so please pick up on any British words used as I speak British-English. James086^Talk 16:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of initial concerns:

• "Titan is an upgrade of Jaguar, a previous supercomputer at Oak Ridge, to use graphics processing units (GPUs) in addition to conventional central processing units (CPUs)." "an upgrade... to use..." - there's something missing here.

• I'm afraid I don't see what's missing. Could you please explain why the sentence doesn't work? James086^Talk 17:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• The "to use" is hanging in mid-sentence; I'm guessing there's was supposed to be something like "the first to use..." there to link it to the previous bit, or alternatively that it should perhaps have read "which uses graphics processing..."? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've changed it and also requested a copyedit from the GOCE so once that is done I'll return for another stab at FAC. James086^Talk 20:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Titan is available for any purpose" - I'm no expert, but this seems unlikely. Could I request that Titan run programs? Or a hostile intelligence agency? A criminal gang? etc. (NB: um, not that I'm a foreign spy or a criminal!)

• Changed to "any scientific purpose". In theory a criminal gang could apply, but I doubt they have the proven code or the benefit to the scientific community to beat the other candidates and the spies already have another supercomputer at ORNL so they don't need it! See the "Eligibility" and "Selection" sections of this for more info on how to apply for use of Titan. James086^Talk 17:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Although Titan is available for use by any project, the requests for use exceeded the computing time available, so selection criteria were drawn up." - the tense changes here.

• Changed to "requests for use exceed..." James086^Talk 17:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Thirty-one codes will be run on Titan throughout 2013, typically four or five at any one time.[38][48] The code of many projects had to be modified to suit the GPU processing of Titan, but each code was required to still be capable of running on CPU-based systems so that the projects were not solely dependent on Titan." Again, a strange change in tense. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Changed (diff). Thanks for the comments. James086^Talk 17:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick fail It does not meet the good prose criterion of good articles. "Titan is an upgrade of Jaguar, a previous supercomputer at Oak Ridge, to use graphics processing units (GPUs) in addition to conventional central processing units (CPUs)." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose on prose for now. Needs some major work. --John (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [11].

---

Ain't No Other Man

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it's suitable for a featured article. HĐ (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor

• We have some shady links to be addressed.

• done

• I don't think the sampling controversy is a long enough section to warrant its own heading.

• It works per "Irreplaceable"

• "Background and recording",a "Development and writing", and "Composition" cover a lot of the same material. You should clean up the duplicate information and maybe merge the first two sections into a renamed "Background and development".

• doing

• I prefer the title "Commercial performance" over "Chart performance" to differentiate it from the "Charts" table sections below.

• done

• Misspelling of Aguilera in the music video section.

• done

• "Usage in media" is not long enough to need its own section, merge it with (maybe?) "Commercial performance".

• done I've merged it with "Live performances and cultural impact"

• The article as a whole may also benefit from a WP:COPYEDIT. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's just a slight c/e — HĐ (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Status

• About.com is not a reliable source for FA, so it should be removed (I would also suggest replacing, but since it's opinions, that cannot be done.)
• This article really needs a WP:COPYEDIT before going any further. A select few examples of issues include:
  • "Production was took by Aguilera..."
  • "...with Jordan Laws credited as assistant."
  • ""Ain't No Other Man" received generally acclaim from music critics."

 — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article has not been adequately prepared for FAC. Issues with prose and sourcing are readily found. Please withdraw this and re-nominate when these issues are fixed. Some random examples:

• Sourcing to About.com as noted above.
• "Bill Lamp for About.com said that the single also combines saxophone." Combines with...?
• "Several critics noted that the mixture was good" Mixture?
• "Jody Rosen from Entertainment Weekly found out that the jazzy melody from the track suited Aguilera perfectly" Use of "found out" is awkward and informal.
• Grammar: "Aguilera's vocal range on the track span from A♭3 to C5"
• Grammar: "Dorian Lyskey of The Guardian called the beats of the song 'brassy' and has the same 'aerobic oomph' as Beyoncé's 'Crazy in Love'"

These are all in just one section. Please get someone to copyedit this. --Laser brain (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [12].

---

Greed (film)

Nominator(s): Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it did not receive much feedback when it was recently nominated and I think that it is qualified to be FA. Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support (except 1a and 1c) As in the previous FAC, I support this article. However, I do not possess professional lvel of English skills, so I am not commenting on 1a. For an user with advanced level of English, the article is quite engaging, and lucid. I did not verify the references; so unable to comment on criterion 1c. Otherwise, the article is very nice, has a fascinating lead. It aroused in me a real interest in this exceptional film. Nice work, regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Echo Echo Echo Echo Echo Echo ... Anyone?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should notify the Wikiproject Film? El Matador (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "On April 10, 1924 the Goldwyn Company officially merged with Metro Pictures..." On this day a merger agreement was signed. Official merger of the Metro, Goldwyn and Mayer companies took place a week later, on April 17.
  • "In 1926 a British foundation of Arts and Sciences requested a copy of the original version of Greed to keep in their archive, but their request was denied." Denied by whom? MGM? El Matador (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe it's just me, but there is a sentence that is way too long (in the myths section): "These "sightings" include claims that a copy existed in a vault in South America that was only screened once a year for invited guests on New Year's Eve, that a copy in the possession of a Texan millionaire was sold to Henri Langlois of Cinémathèque Française, that a film society in Boston held a private screening of a print found by a World War II veteran in Berlin from a tip by Emil Jannings, that David Shepherd of the American Film Institute had found a copy at a garage sale, that the head of a film society in Redwood City, CA owned "the longest existing version of Greed (purchased in Europe)" and that Benito Mussolini owned a personal copy (which was reported by von Stroheim himself)." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I fixed this. Let me know if you think it still needs work. Great suggestion. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Excellent, interesting article about such old film. It meets all criteria. El Matador (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support All my knowledge of Greed comes from watching a documentary narrated by James Mason. I found the article fascinating. Some points:
  • Does the legacy section have to have five paragraphs in a row starting with "In (year)," ?
  • I don't think that it is really clear that when shooting a film, you normally shoot the same scene multiple times, from different angles, and edit them together. Even without retakes, the footage shot will be several times the length of the finished film.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Will need to see image and source reviews, requests for which I'll list at WT:FAC. Deoliveirafan, this'd be your first FAC (round 2 for the same article, of course)? In that case I'd also like to see a reviewer carry out a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• It should be said, a few users have worked on this article. I'm just the most consistent.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Image review
  • Poster (File:Greed3.jpg): has Fair Use tag.
  • File:Greed, 1924, 12 scale.jpg, File:Greed, 1924, 19 epilogo.jpg,File:Greed, 1924, 05 passaggio del carro funebre in profondità di campo.jpg, File:Greed, 1924, 06 banchetto.jpg,File:Greed, 1924, 10.1 rapacità.jpg: Says that it was published without a copyright tag, which seems incorrect, as the movie did have a copyright tag. But image is on Commons, so none of our business here.
    • I'm not sure what that means.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • File:Erich Von Stroheim 1 Motion Picture Classic 1920.png US work from 1920, so copyright expired (public domain) in the US.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Very long quotes (more than about 40 words) should be blockquoted
  • I'd rather just break them up if its all the same. Just a personal preference.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• FN42: publisher?
  • I'm not sure how to address this one. A different user pointed out that, despite cited sources claiming otherwise, it was unlikely that the temperatures got as high as stated and added this link, which I completely agree with. But, I'm not sure how to fix this.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• FN59: formatting
• Ranges should use endashes
  • I'll fix all these today.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles
  • I'm not sure what you mean.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• FN121: formatting
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books; if you do include them, be more specific than "Kentucky". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I always just used the information available inside the physical books, but I can do a web search. I assume you mean city and state?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Anything else that could be done? Or any other clarifications for the previous suggestions?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, but not far off. The article is very interesting. Humorously enough, I've been sitting on a digital copy of the 1999 TCM restoration for about two years and just haven't gotten around to watching it. I suppose I will now! Anyway, the article is very good but needs some work on fit and finish. There are also some consistency issues and awkward grammatical turns. Where I've mentioned examples below, please check the whole article for other similar problems.

• Why the mixture of referring to characters by first name ("Marcus") and last name ("McTeague") in the lead? I note later you start referring to Marcus as "Schouler".
• The difference between the terms "editing" and "re-editing" in the lead is unclear.
• "The uncut version has been called the 'holy grail' of film archivists" How is the uncut version an "archivist"?
• The blue quote boxes create a lot of visual noise. Why the color?
• The "Cast" section has quite a bizarre layout: three columns, none wide enough to avoid wrapping. Is this consistent with other film FAs? I've looked at a couple and I don't see anything like this.
• The use of slashes to join two words violates MoS ("Maria/Zerkow sub-plot", etc.). An en dash is more appropriate for this usage, although it will look strange with the later hyphen. Needs attention.
• Why link terms like "screen extra" but not "production assistant"? I'd say readers are just as likely not to know the definition of the latter.
• "albeit one with a reputation to go over budget and over schedule" Grammar
• "By this time Von Stroheim had been offered contracts with other film studios, with a number of offers having come in even before he was fired." What is the word "with" doing?
• The whole article needs review for compliance with WP:MOSNUM. Hodgepodge of "would be completed in fourteen weeks", "5 reel short film", etc. And shouldn't it be "five-reel"?
• Awkward: "To preserve authenticity, von Stroheim had no sets built in San Francisco"
• There are some half-marathon sentences throughout like this: "Another point where von Stroheim conceded his initial vision came during shooting of the bar confrontation between McTeague and Schouler; there, the director's desire for authenticity in having a knife thrower actually throw a real knife at Gibson Gowland's head was overruled by Gowland himself, who refused to allow such a dangerous stunt, and so a special effect shot was used instead." Please go through and break these up.
• Penchant for the vague "this" in many places: "He continued to use this for the Death Valley scenes with a harmonium and violin player." This what?
• "Soviet-style editing"?
• Mixture of "Norris'" and "Norris's". Also "Mathis'". Please decide on a style.
• "June Mathis was ordered to cut it down further and assigned an editor named Joseph Farnham to the job." The pairing of "was ordered" and "assigned" is pretty awkward. I spotted similar in other places on the page. Why not remove the passive voice and awkward verb pairing with something like: "The studio ordered June Mathis to cut it down further; she assigned the job to an editor named Joseph Farnham."
• "In May 1926 Greed was released in Berlin, where its premiere famously caused a riot" Explain?
• The 1999 version that aired on TCM was kind of a big deal among fans of the film—I think it warrants more than a brief mention. There must be other sources that talk about Schmidlin's process. Why do you put the term "recreate" in quotes? The term is not even used in the source provided.

Nice job. --Laser brain (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Source spot-check (Note: I do not have access to any of the book sources, so using whatever I can find.)

• Ref 94:

• Article text: "MGM executives screened Greed at full length once to meet contractual obligations. Idwal Jones, a San Francisco critic, attended the all-day screening and wrote that while some of the film's scenes were compelling, Stroheim's desire that 'every comma of the book [be] put in' was ultimately negative.
• Source text: Contains given quotation and supports context of its use.

• Ref 108:

• Article text: "Mordaunt Hall of the New York Times gave the film a mostly positive review in regards to the acting and directing while criticising how it was edited, writing that MGM 'clipped this production as much as they dared ... and are to be congratulated on their efforts and the only pity is that they did not use the scissors more generously in the beginning.'"
• Source text: Contains given quotation and supports claim.

• Ref 110:

• Article text: "The April 20, 1925 edition of The Montreal Gazette claimed it 'impresses as a powerful film' and described the 'capacity audience' screening as 'one of the few pictures which are as worthy of serious consideration...which offer a real and convincing study of life and character and that secure their ends by artistic and intellectual means rather than by writing down to the level of the groundlings.' The review went on to describe the direction as 'masterly,' citing 'its remarkable delineation of character development and the subtle touches which convey ideas through vision rather than the written word, an all too-rare employment of the possibilities of the cinema play as a distinct branch of art capable of truthful and convincing revelation and interpretation of life's realities.'"
• Source text: Contains given quotations and supports claims.

• Ref 119:

• Article text: "More recently director Christopher Nolan described the film as a 'lost work of absolute genius.'"
• Source text: Supports claim. --Laser brain (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing comments - This nomination has been running for a long time and I have decided to archive it. The reviews have generated many useful critical comments that should be addressed before re-nominating after the usual two weeks have passed. Graham Colm (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [13].

---

Diamond Trust of London

Nominator(s): hahnchen 21:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a video game article, but be not afeard! There are no monsters or aliens, you do not have to trudge through stupid convoluted plots or clichéd character profiles. It's a fairly short article about how one guy managed to manufacture and release a diamond smuggling game for the Nintendo DS. Instead of slaying dragons with your beard, you bribe UN inspectors with dirty money. This article is the most complete overview of the subject available. - hahnchen 21:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

*Comments - Looks very nice. Short, but I'm not sure the article warrants any more content. Here are some things I'm seeing as I review the article: Checklinks shows all references are active, no dead links are present. Per WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." We're pushing awfully close here with so many self-published sources, though notability is established in the reviews. If there's any more third-party reliable sources that can be added, it would strengthen the article's case. The article reads fairly choppy at some points, and could use some copyediting. Many sentences start with "Players" in the Gameplay section, including two paragraphs. This should be reworded a little bit to make it less awkward to read. "Rohrer disagreed with this move, believing that the smaller DSiWare market would limit the game's audience, Majesco on the other hand were not willing to invest in the manufacturing of cartridges without strong pre-order numbers." This is a run-on sentence, perhaps a semicolon would be more appropriate between "audience" and "Majesco", or separate them into two sentences. "And so, Rohrer turned to crowd funding platform, Kickstarter." Awkward way to start a sentence in an encyclopedic article. As it reads, the Reception section paragraphing does not properly illustrate why they are separated as such. For example, one paragraph appears to be focused on the reviews for the music, so make sure to think of the reader and state the obvious. This again will also help with sentence fluency and how the article reads. The lead paragraph in Reception is a little short. Can it be expanded more to talk about the general qualities reviewers noted? I wouldn't say this is all-comprehensive at this point, but this should get you started. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Some of your comments have been addressed by JDC's edits. The main point I wanted to address was WP:SELFPUB, it's something I thought about while writing the article. I use primary/self published sources. Where possible, I have doubled up the references with secondary sources, such as the gameplay section. The entirety of that section could have been sourced from the manual/game alone. There are some small sections where secondary sources were not available, I think where it stands out most is the third paragraph of the development section describing the procedurally generated music. There are secondary sources which mention the music, but none that discuss Rohrer's thinking behind this approach. But I thought it was interesting, relevant, and non-controversial. I used this reference to backup the claim that it was the first crowd funded DS game. No other claims supported by primary sources are controversial. They're usually used to specify dates, to give readers a more structured understanding of the timescales involved. hahnchen 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC) I don't have an issue with using self-published sources and can see they're used well and appropriately. I'm not saying it's too much; in fact, it does well to source the article, but it is pushing a large amount of self-published sources for an article. That being said, I've reread it over and I'm fine with it as it is for now, noting that there is pretty significant coverage across the board (I had failed to note the IGN article that was not a review the first time around). Everything else looks pretty good, but I will note one more quick comment, and that's that in the review section, most of the sentences start the same way, with the name of the reviewer. Some potential fixes for this could include varying the sentence structure and adding lead sentences to the two paragraphs other than the lead in the Reception section that illustrate the main idea of that paragraph, i.e. things that were criticized or things that were praised, etc. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 20:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Fantastic! Comments have been resolved. Now I'd say it's ready for FA status. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 14:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

1. In the lead, you may consider merging the first two paragraphs.
2. I've went through and done some copy-editing. You should seek someone else as well, preferably an experienced copy-editor.

I'll return later with more comments. --JDC808 ♫ 04:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the lead as is. I'm not sure if it needs the exact date of release in the lead, but I don't mind. I've taken some of your changes on board, but also reverted and tweaked some others. You can see the diff here, and the explanations in the article history. - hahnchen 00:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I figured since there is only one release date, might as well put it there. Read through the article again and have no problem with the other stuff. Like I said earlier, you may want to find a copy-editor more experienced than myself to be on the safe side. With that being said, I Support as I don't see any major issues, or any that can't be easily taken care of. --JDC808 ♫ 05:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
• Images are fine, see review on talk page.
• Support on prose and images. Good read, interesting concept, wish I had a DS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Compare formatting of FNs 14 and 16
• I see someone has raised the issue of WP:SPS above. It's fine for gameplay, but I feel it might still be a bit much in Development. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • 14 is the main Kickstarter project page. 16 is an update on that project. Let me know if you have a better format. - hahnchen 22:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Hahc21

• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — ΛΧΣ21

The article is amazignly written. However, I have a few comments: I think that the claim about the first successfully crowdfunded DS game should be cited in the lead Done. - hahnchen 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Both Inside a Star-Filled Sky and Sleep is Death wikilink to Jason Rohrer; I find t a bit unnecessary, don't you think? I'd think those could be Redirects with possibilities, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, well. I agree. — ΛΧΣ21 01:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC) As per Crisco. These are notable subjects that could have their own article. I would have kept the links had they been red. - hahnchen 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC) "alongside his limited edition, postage stamps and a coin from countries featured in the game, and four actual diamonds." why not rephrase to " Jason Cipriano at MTV Multiplayer received postage stamps, a coin from countries featured in the game and four actual diamonds alongside his limited edition."? It's been a while since I wrote the article, but I probably chose that sentence construction so that it would end with the phrase "four actual diamonds", which is surprising and memorable. - hahnchen 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC) And according to the quote above, there is more countries than Angola. This is not explained in the gameplay section. Any reason why? The countries are the UK and Belgium, the home of the competing companies. - hahnchen 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC) In the reception section, it is better of you write "Person X from GamesTM" rather than GamesTM only, to achieve proper attribution of comments. In my FAs, I use "An editor from..." if the name of the author is not available :) I generally name the publication, the writers are attributed in the citations. There are very few notable critics in the ames industry, readers generally follow publications, not the writers. If the critic is notable, I would have mentioned it in the text. I think using language such as "a reviewer from...", or "The Edge review..." is redundant given how obvious it should be. - hahnchen 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Everything else looks fine. I enjoyed reading this article. Good job. — ΛΧΣ21 22:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review, comments above. - hahnchen 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by DragonZero

• I find the inline citations to be disorganized. An example would be the last sentence in the development section. Only the final source backs up that sentence, the other two did not. The sources should also be in numbered order so reorganize them.
• I'm not sure if the structure for the reception is the best. The first paragraph is all the positive reception, followed by music reception (two sentences), then negative reception by the same reviewers of the positive reception. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I generally prefer my citations at the end of paragraphs rather than after every sentence or even in the middle of sentences, earlier versions of the article followed this even closer. The three references at the close of the development section are to show that he was packaging the units manually, the date of release, and an example's contents.
  • You could move the music paragraph down one, but I don't think it makes any difference. The general structure was gameplay-music-negatives-themes. - hahnchen 21:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. This prose is not up to FA standards—I found way too many simple grammatical errors. Some random pot-shots:

• "It was published by indiePub, and following a Kickstarter campaign, was released for the Nintendo DS on August 28, 2012." This reads like it is meant to be chronological. It was published, then it had a Kickstarter campaign, then it was released?
  • Indiepub struck a publishing deal, but didn't have the funds for manufacturing. Rohrer launched a Kickstarter campaign for the manufacturing, and it was released in August 2012. Despite having to crowdfund the manufacturing costs, Indiepub remained the publisher throughout. - hahnchen 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Awkward: "played between two players"
• "Set in 2000, before the implementation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme to curb the blood diamond trade, the player's aim" The player's aim is set in 2000?
  • The whole thing is set in 2000. - hahnchen 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• "In order to extract the most diamonds and win, players resort to a combination of bribery and deception." The phrase "in order to" can almost always be replaced with simply "to"; the term "resorted" implies that other things are tried before finally "resorting" to what's stated. Is that accurate?
  • Removed all "in order to"s. You can play the game without deception and bribery, but you'll probably lose. The reception section describes the gameplay as "one that encourages and maybe even requires misdeeds". - hahnchen 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe link the term "crowdfunded". I'm not sure how colloquial it is yet, and whether it's made its way into global English.
  • I considered this when writing the article, but I assume that readers are more likely to click on the Kickstarter links and find out how the campaigns work. - hahnchen 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Again the misplaced modifying phrase: "Set in 2000, the aim is to extract diamonds"
  • The whole thing is set in 2000. - hahnchen 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Another: "Consisting of nine turns, the winner is the one" The winner consists of nine turns?
  • "The winner is the one who finishes the game with the most diamonds after nine turns." - hahnchen 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Another "in order to": "Competing agents can be bribed in order to reveal inside information"
  • Removed all "in order to"s. - hahnchen 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please get someone to copyedit this. --Laser brain (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, comments above. - hahnchen 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes thus far, Hahnchen. Your responses to the items about modifying phrases indicate that you may not understand the underlying grammar—I encourage you to get an independent copyeditor. --Laser brain (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [14].

---

Leicester Abbey

Nominator(s): Rushton2010 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I first stumbled on the article about Leicester Abbey out of casual interest, knowing nothing about the abbey. Having discovered the article to be a copyright infringement I worked to get it cleared up. The subject then sparked my interest and I have enlarged the article from the reading and research I have done on the subject.

It was the first article I have ever nominated for GA status, and I have been courteously and gently guided through that process. FA seems to be the next stage of improving the article and so that is why I'm nominating it. I'm hoping for the same gentle guiding hand and polite courtesy I received during the GA. Thank you Rushton2010 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - The article has a wrath of rawlinks and heavily relies on reference 2. The referencing is often repeated needlessly such as: "...increasing their lands and endowments with acquisitions such as the manors of Ingarsby and Kirkby Mallory.[2] Clowne is described as having "friendly relations" with King Edward III, and used this to gain further privileges for the abbey, including being exempted from having to send representatives to Parliament.[2] However, by the late 14th century, the abbey had entered a difficult period, and its income began to fall.[2] and "Despite Abbot Sadyngton's apparent financial corruption, the abbey appeared to be financially stable: the abbey's monastic buildings had recently been extensively rebuilt and the Abbey had a substantial annual income of £1180.[2] Perhaps because of the large income the Abbot was sustaining, Bishop Alnwick appears to have not taken strong measures against the Abbot's indiscretions.[2] He ordered that the number of canons should be increased to 30 and the number of boys in the almonry increased to 16.[2] The Bishop also ordered proper accounts to be kept and forbade the abbot from granting favours without the permission of both the Bishop and the Canons.[2] The whole of "The abbey's layout" section relies solely on reference 20 and repeats it 21 times!

I've reduced the the repetitive referencing now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

At two paragraphs, I think the lead section is too short for an article that is 56,000 bytes in length and cannot possibly convey the history of a building that is 900 years old. File:Cavendish House and ruins c1906.jpg has no research in terms of trying to find the unknown author. I haven't looked at the prose in its entirety, but from what I have seen it doesn't look too bad. However, I think the article would benefit from a peer review which I should be happy to undertake if desired, but I don't think it is quite ready for FAC yet. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply

• I have used the standard university format where by anything which is not your own work is referenced. As wikipedia doesn't allow original research that means that basically everything but the very basic linking sentences were referenced; although I can cut it down to just the ends of the paragraphs if you think that wise. That format has also lead to the "raw link" as the standard templates could not cover all of the types of sources used and so had lead to different formats within the reference section which was criticised at GA- hence them being converted to the standard university footnote format.

Yes, you were correct to format it like that. Rawlinks are not good and look untidy. Using square brackets is a much desirable format to use with a title of the site that it comes off of. You could benefit in splitting the refences into two columns by adding a {{Reflist|2}} to the references section.Cassianto^Talk 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Done that now. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reference two is the most complete account of the Abbey's history. I had originally referenced the source documents (for example court rolls and letters, but was told to reference the source I found them in rather than the original source of the information, which meant that one gained a few extra references. I also used Leicester Council's account but their account is far from complete (it doesn't touch on details such as income and property that ref 2 does) but it may not appear as if I have used them as much as their's is spread across 4 or 5 websites.

:No doubt it is, but it suggests an over relience which is never too good. I havent got a problem with the source, I think the problem is the fact you have cited it too many times. You dont need to cite every other sentence. I would (and have done) allow three to four or possibly even five full stops before using it again.Cassianto^Talk 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reduced the repetitive referencing now. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The abbey's layout is referenced as such as it is the only reference that I have found that mentions it. It is the same standard layout seen at the majority of other monasteries and so I believe sources do not bother; especially seeing as it is plotted out on the site and anyone with even the smallest knowledge of monasteries will be able to identify the key features of church and cloister.

fine, but you dont need to repeat the same reference after every sentence or every other sentence. I reckon you could cut these down by a third and not worry. Just make sure that each para has a cite at the end. Cassianto^Talk 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reduced the repetitive referencing now. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I shall look at the introduction. I have tried to keep it succinct by briefly covering the key events of the abbey's history and the most notable figures associated with it, without repeating the detail within the article.

The lead section SHOULD contain a information from the body. I wouldn't worry about making it long as that can always be cut down through a copy edit. Being too brief however can cause a non-promotion at FAC. It should be nomore than four paragraphs in length. It should be a summary of the whole article. Cassianto^Talk 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've extended the introduction. Please let me know what you think. Thank you --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As for the photograph, it was suggested to me by the GA reviewer and I was not the one that uploaded it. The only image I created was the simplified plan. With it being a postcard, the person who took the photo or manufactured the card is unlikely to have ever been recorded and no amount of research will discover them. I have quite a number of Victorian and WW1 postcards: none list a photographer or manufacturer and most (frustratingly) don't even tell you where the image is of. I shall email the individual who uploaded the picture, but I wouldn't hold out any hope of an answer.

I dont think that would be enough to survive an FAC. Sure, if you manage to speak with the uploader then you can request he does it. If not, then I would either undertake the research yourself or delete it from the article. If a gauge you correctly, then the GA reviewer in this instance was wrong to assume that as the picture was not upoaded by you then the research was not needed to identify the author. Also note, that GAC and FAC are two different process. What might be OK for GAC is not going to be sufficient for FAC. Cassianto^Talk 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, the chances of locating the photographer are practically nil. So I've changed it to another wiki-commons image, which is probably the easier option.

Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

14th century

• "Though the abbey was a religious house, it was attacked in 1326 by the Earl of Lancaster's soldiers, who seized property belonging to Hugh le Despenser, 1st Earl of Winchester, that was being kept at the abbey." -- Repetition of "abbey" at the end of the sentence.

• Fixed. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, abbey/Abbey is also inconsistently capitalised when referring to this particular institution Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• (tenure: 1345-1378) -- Correct date range dash required, not a hyphen.

• I fixed the year range endashes, since I'd already done so for page ranges, also removed some incorrect hyphens. Only need hyphens with centuries when adjectival, eg 13th-century building, not otherwise in the 13th century Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks, you are indeed correct. -- Cassianto^Talk 06:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for sorting that one :) --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "to a canon called Henry of Knighton" -- "to canon Henry of Knighton".

• Fixed. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "It includes..." -- delete pronoun and say "The chronical includes..."

• Changed. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Knighton's chronicle is particularly well regarded for his contemporary account..." -- By who?

• Changed. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "His in depth account records the effects of the Black Death on food, grain, wine and cattle prices, on wages and the labour market, and includes detailed death-tolls for all of Leicester's parishes, revealing that one-third of the population of Leicester were killed by the disease. -- A bit long with too many commas which makes for bumpy prose, consider splitting.

• I've split it into a few sentences. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

15th century

• "...and directly farmed by the abbey." -- "...and was directly farmed by the abbey.

• Changed. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Repyngdon's successor as Abbot was granted a Royal Licence permitting him to ask the Pope for the Abbey to be removed from the Bishop of Lincoln's jurisdiction, as the abbot feared Repyngdon would interfere with his former abbey, which lay within that Diocese." -- "Repyngdon's successor [who?] was granted a Royal Licence permitting him to ask the Pope to remove the Abbey from the Bishop of Lincoln's jurisdiction, as the abbot feared Repyngdon would interfere with his former abbey, which lay within that Diocese."

• Changed. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• (1420-42) -- date range dash please.

• Changed. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• 30-40 -- 30 to 40, or if you want to stick with a dash, then a suitable one needs to be placed.

• Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• We don't need to keep calling him "Abbot Sadyngton", just Sadyngton should do.

• Changed. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

16th century

• "In 1518 the abbey received another visit, this time from William Atwater, Bishop of Lincoln." -- suggest -- "In 1518 William Atwater, Bishop of Lincoln visited the abbey."

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "...the boys in the almonry were being improperly educated." -- how?

• Simple answer: No idea. The source states that in 1440, "The abbot was accused of having admitted unsuitable boys in return for money" and then "As in 1440, complaints were made about the excessive number of hounds kept in the abbey, and about the failure to educate the boys in the almonry properly." So there's no real details about how exactly they were improperly educated. We know that the canons were ill disciplined from elsewhere and other sources, but to suggest that was the reason for the improper education is just theorising and synthesis, as its not specifically stated in the sources. --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Atwater's successor as Bishop of Lincoln" -- We don't need to be reminded of the fact Atwater was Bishop of Lincoln so soon after the first few lines. "Successor" only will do here.

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Abbot Pescall was not regularly attending church services, and, when he did, would often bring his jester," -- "Abbot Pescall rarely attended church and, when he did, he would often bring his jester who "disturbed the services with his buffoonery".

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "... eating at unusual times and in unusual places" -- Times yes, but places! Where were the unusual places?

• Another thing that the sources do not state. All we have is "He had a burdensome habit of taking his meals apart from the canons, at irregular times and in unusual places." Anywhere away from the canons would be unusual as all usually ate together in the refectory. The abbot has his own private quarters so may have eaten there; but if its "unusual", I'd guess its away from both of those places. Again- its theorising. The sources simply do not say. --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Given the sorry state of affairs..." -- yuk, could you find an alternative?

• I've removed it all together and the sentence still works. Though if you have any alternatives you'd like to suggest. --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Thomas Cromwell; leading Bishop Longland to resort to "harassing" the Abbot, by constantly interfering with affairs at the abbey." -- Why the semicolon?

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Abbot Pescall finally resigned 5 years later" redundent "finally".

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Pescall frequently wrote to Thomas Cromwell complaining about affairs at the abbey, even complaining that £13 of his..." -- repetition of "complaining".

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• " "Father abbott, I ame come hether to leave my bones among you". -- why the Itals?

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "By the time Pescall was removed, the Abbey's financial position was poor: Despite being the richest abbey in Leicestershire (with an income of £951 in 1534), the abbey owed a total of £1,000 to debtors." -- as per Jim. Abbey and abbey is still occurring here; also too many "abbeys" are given here. I suggest you use a pronoun for the last mention.

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Bourchier was born around 1493 in Oakington, near Cambridge, and educated as a King's Scholar at Eton and at Kings College and St John's College, Cambridge." -- Why do we need to know this? Might I suggest putting this in a footnote?

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "...Thomas Cromwell.Exact details are unknown... ." -- Make a space between the period and the next word.

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please check OVERLINKING to Thomas Cromwell.

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Inconsistent capitalisation of "pope".

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Drop the "king" for King Henry on the second mention.

• Changed. Thanks -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

More imminently. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jim mostly the lead for now. Sorry if it's not very gentle Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Massive overlinking, Leicester, for example is linked five times, including twice in the lead. I suggest you run the duplicate link detector tool
• Those bare urls in the refs look awful. If you aren't prepared to use templates at least roll them into the title [title url]
• Personally, I don't link sites without free full access, I just give the jstor/doi number for journals, nothing for books

Another GA thing was to mark those websites requiring a subscription, as such. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• you don't need access dates for publications that have a real existence like the Catholic Encyclopaedia
• what makes ref 16 a reliable source, the typos don't inspire confidence?

Semper-Eadem was an inheritance of the original page - it was from this webpage the copy and paste copyright infringement took place. Looking at it, the 3 times it is referenced it is only as additional references so it can be easily removed if necessary.Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The books should have a publisher and page numbers, even if you have linked to on-line versions

I have added the page number for the Platt book. As for the online books such as the Catholic encyclopedia: I have only used the online version and there are no page numbers listed. All books have their publisher listed. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• You have two pdf references, clearly chapters from books or periodicals, where the book title, publisher and page numbers are all missing (the urls indicate volumes) Conversely, you don't need an access date for these, they are real books not changeable websites. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've managed to find where they were taken from and have added the information. I have also removed the dates from them and a couple of others that were superfluous. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Leicester is a city, not a town (at least two occurrences)

It only became a city in 1919. For the period of time we are looking at, Leicester would pass in modern terms as a large village. To refer to it as a city would not only be incorrect but give false illusions of size. And so I have referred to it with the status it had at the time we were looking at. I have added a little note as such though. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The one in the lead has been changed to City however --Rushton2010 (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• most predominantly — "most" is redundant

I've removed the extra "most". Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• 32 acres (13 ha) — Putting imperial units first looks a bit American these days, even the UK is primarily metric now

I would argue for the continuation of acres. It is purely personal preference on both ends anyway but I find, especially with land people are far more understanding of the term acre than of are, hectare, square meters and such. It also makes for easier conversion, as monastic land tends to be measured in Vigrates, Oxgangs and Carucates which are all multiples of acres. But yes, as I say, its personal preference on both sides. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• layout way plotted out — obvious typo which I didn't correct because it read clunkily anyway

I've corrected Way to Was, and slightly reworked the sentence. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• On the referencing comment above, obviously it's up to you whether you use templates, but the only restriction if you do so is that you don't mix templates from different families (Cite and Citation styles). All my FAs are written entirely with citeweb/citejournal/citebook. The advantage is that you largely avoid the problems you are still having with the refs. You seem to have gone to the other extreme now, blue-linking everything, not just the title. It's better than rawlinks, but non-standard still Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reworked it now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's obligatory to give a publisher for web refs. Moving the council from author to publisher fixes most, University of Leicester for 19 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected those now, and the added the missing few two for the pdfs. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Lead looks better

Thank you. :) --Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• The Abbey's layout— shouldn't have title in heading, layout will do, it's unlikely to be for anywhere else.

I've changed it. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Captions There are a couple of strange capitalisations in the captions, Grade 1-listed should be hyphenated, second part of lead caption seems superfluous here, don't think you need to say "portrait of", it's unlikely to be a photo!

I've removed the second part of the caption and the "portrait". I disagree that Grade 1 Listed should be hyphenated though: I've not seen it hyphenated anywhere on wikipedia, including on Norton Priory which has been granted FA status. The official registers and English Heritage do not hyphenate either. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Abbot-ship—why not uncapitalised and unhyphenated abbotship?

It was a victim of google chrome's spellcheck. Changed it now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• whist increasing their lands and endowments —this refers to the other houses as written,is that right?

Changed it now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Decameron, Leicester Chronicle—italics needed

Done that. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Florence, Italy is very American, especially as it's just a redirect to Florence

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this one. Calling it "very American" as a criticism? -rather odd and confusing. But on a more practical level with regards to the link, with Decameron not being well known outside of those who have studied history people aren't going to know off hand that it about Florence. With no page specifically about the black death in Florence, I linked it to main city page. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• The point I'm making is that giving the state/country as well as the city name is US style. You haven't put Cambridge, England or Leicester, England, so why use this style for Florence? It's globally known, more so than Leicester, and certainly not Hicksville, Arizona. Fine to put Paris, France if you are writing in AE on an American topic, jars in BE. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed this now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• deaths of cannons— went with a bang presumably?

Changed now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fearing Repyngdon... — convoluted sentence needs splitting

I've reworded that sentence. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Two cannons were also accused

Changed now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• '' as-well, in-order  ?????

Corrected. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• locate the location — yuk

Corrected. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• The text actually reads pretty well, and the lead is better. I'm still not happy with the ref style, have a look at Priyanka Chopra, another current FAC, to see what I meant

I've reworked it now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll have another read when you've had time to deal with above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply

• I shall take a look at the links; do you have a link for that tool?.

posted on your talk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've removed the extra links now. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• When doing the GA one of the comments was that the reference templates had led to references in different styles that do not match. So to ensure they all match as per GA rules, they were converted to the standard University footnote format. I shall look to see about putting in the title url things though.

Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going through in more detail now, these are my edits plus your intervening removal of uncited text. They are mainly typos and dubious capitalisation (may be worth checking through, there have been quite a few so far) but I've also removed forced image sizes, which should generally be avoided because they override user settings. Note that ranges should be endashed, not hyphenated — I've fixed for pages, haven't checked if there are others. We have plenty of time, so I'll carry on copyediting and only return here if there is a need to discuss. or when I've finished. I'd like to see Cassianto's comments when they arrive too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jim, ill hang about until your finished as it may become a bit busy for the poor nominator and I wouldn't want to intrude on your review. No grief, ill get on with something else in the meantime. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty busy for the next three days in RL, so it would suit me if you want to take over for the time being Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. I will do my best though. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that you shouldn't strike comments yourself, let the reviewer decide if the point has been addressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I was trying to make it easier to see what had and hadn't been done. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "These former religious establishments were frequently developed into Stately homes by their new aristocratic owners; notable examples of this include Calke Abbey, Longleat House, Syon House Welbeck Abbey and Woburn Abbey." - source?
• "BBC History at"? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The "at" was the unwelcome remainder of a previous reference style -so has been removed

And I've added both general references and references for the specific manor houses.

Many Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on ref 14 I assume the date is an accessdate and should be marked as per other references. Keith D (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [15].

---

The Holocaust in Albania

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed GAN and I really feel that it is a comprehensive, high-quality article about the subject. 23 editor (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The term "The Holocaust" is generally taken to refer to the continent-wide extermination of Jews and other minorities. The title of the section in this article, which refers only to the Albanian holocaust, should be amended to "Holocaust". Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. 23 editor (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Ranges should use endashes
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've put endashes for ranges, and made the locations more consistent. 23 editor (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is a very interesting article, and I have the following comments:

• The article is strong on the chain of events, but never really steps back and explains the overarching policies towards the Jews which existed under the Italian and German occupation regimes. I'd suggest that these policies should be made clear.
• What's meant by "German sources reported the existence of a Jewish organization which was responsible for smuggling as many as a 1,000 Jews into the region"? - this is unclear (the tense seems a bit off as well)
• "When Italy surrendered to the Allies in 1943, all concentration camps in Albania were dissolved.[17] In September 1943, the Germans occupied the country" - it should be noted that the Italian surrender occurred in September 1943, and the German invasion occurred shortly afterwards
• Why did the Kosovo Albanians take a more hostile attitude towards the Jews than other Albanians?
• "From October to November 1944, the Yugoslav Partisans, supported by both the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, and assisted by the forces of the newly anti-fascist Bulgarian regime and two brigades of Albanian Partisans, drove the Germans out of Kosovo" - from memory, the Germans were in the process of leaving of their own accord at this time due to the rapid Soviet advance through the Balkans; the partisans speeded up this process though.
• "In June 1990, former Albanian American Congressman Joseph DioGuardi and Jewish American Congressman Tom Lantos visited Albania and met with President Ramiz Alia, who told of numerous unreported stories of hundreds of Albanians who had rescued Jews during the Second World War." - what's the relevance of this?
• At the risk of getting into a historiographical debate, is it really appropriate to refer to the Holocaust in an area which saw little fighting as a "war crime"? Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified that Italy surrendered in September 1943 and that the Germans invaded and occupied Albania shortly afterwards. Also, I've explained why the Kosovo Albanians were more hostile to Jews than other Albanians. I removed the mention of the two congressmen because it appears to be irrelevant, and addressed the issue of the Germans withdrawing vs. them being driven out. As for the usage of the term "war crime", I believe that any situation in which people are seized by authorities and shipped off to a camp and burned in ovens qualifies as a war crime. I hope I've addressed your concerns. Thanks for your comments. 23 editor (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A 'war crime' is a crime which involves the violation of the laws of warfare, or is closely related to fighting. That doesn't seem to have generally been the case here, so I don't think that the term is appropriate (do your sources use this term?). Something like 'crime against humanity' or 'systematic program of murders' seems more accurate. The article still needs material on the overall policies of the Italian and German authorities towards the Jews. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've altered the text to "The Holocaust in Albania consisted of crimes against humanity and murders committed against Jews in Albania by German, Italian and collaborationist forces while the country was under Italian and German occupation during the Second World War." What do you think? 23 editor (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also added why the Italians treated the Jews differently than the Germans did, and what the German policy was towards Jews when they occupied Albania in 1943. 23 editor (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A minor point: I think the References section should be subtitled Print and Web, or else Books and Websites. It currently mixes Books (a type of resource) with Web (a medium). Feel free to ignore this comment if other FAs do the same thing. Ypnypn (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, other FAs do the same thing. Good point, though. I think I'll change that. If anyone has any objections feel free to speak out. 23 editor (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - Unfortunately, this nomination has stalled and there is no consensus for promotion. I will be archiving in a few minutes. Incidentally, please see WP:TITLE for compliance. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [16].

---

The Cure

Nominator(s): Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the featured article criteria. Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - I cannot see much hope for this candidate's promotion when there are so many sections and statements that are not supported by inline citations to reliable sources. Graham Colm (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest withdrawal - In addition to a general lack of citations (as pointed out by Graham), some of the citations used are missing information (for example, offline sources should include page numbers) or are misformatted (for example, FN55). There are also problems with adherence to WP:MOS (for example, long quotes should be blockquoted) and media policy (for example, File:TheCureLovesong.ogg is likely more than 10% of a non-free media). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [17].

---

Operation Winter '94

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently completed MILHIST A-class review and benefited from subsequent improvements. The Operation Winter '94 was a battle fought in late 1994 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it is considered to be very significant to resolution of the Croatian War of Independence. Tomobe03 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Be consistent in whether flag icons link

• No flags in the "Belligerents" bit contain links, all flags in the "Commanders and leaders" bit do. {{flag}} and {{flagicon}} parameters prevent more consistent solutions than this.

• File:Bihac_Pocket_1994-1995.svg: what base map was used to create this image?

• Sourcing info added.

• File:Map_40_-_Bosnia_-_Livno_Valley_November-December_1994.jpg: link gives CIA as publisher and 2002 as date; where are you getting Diane 2003? Same with Map 52. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• An unfortunate result of conflation of data pertaining to 2002 and 2003 editions of the book. Since I'm looking at the 2002 edition here, the ref in the article is adjusted accordingly. [18]--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I tried to address all three issues.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I made a comprehensive review and c/e of this article when it went through MILHIST ACR, have looked at the subsequent edits and consider that it currently meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments moved to talk page

• Support on prose and images. Solid article, neutral in a very difficult area. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Dank (push to talk)

• I'm sorry, you're doing a big pile of excellent work and I will support your efforts in any way I can, but unless I can get more help with the prose, I don't see this passing FAC.
• "The wars were caused by ethnic tensions": See WP:Checklist#because. If ethnic tensions alone caused wars, the whole world would be at war all the time.
  • Looking at that once again (of course you have a point there), I'm wondering if that particular sentence actually contributes anything to comprehension of the lead and if the lead would be better off without it entirely.
    • Personally, I wouldn't put it in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The operation was under the nominal command of HVO Major General Tihomir Blaškić; however, because the bulk of the attacking force consisted of HV forces the operation was in practice commanded by HV Major General Ante Gotovina.": Problems here with "however", "in practice" and "because". To fix it, I need to know if Blaškić commanded the HVO troops.
• "a salient": a salient (a "bulge") [IMO, this clue isn't necessary when "salient" doesn't appear in the lead, the link is sufficient.]
  • I'm not clear which clue are you referring to. At first I thought you mean that the prose contains the word "bulge" to explain term "salient", but I found none. Could you please clarify this.
    • I see I had the link wrong. I'm suggesting that you replace "a salient" with "a salient (a "bulge")". Most readers who aren't familiar with military lingo don't know what a "salient" is, but they've heard of a "bulge" (or can guess what it means). I'm following the advice at WP:Checklist#clarity here. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh, all clear now. Actually the checklist is immensely helpful. For starters I'll rewrite the lead and see what improvement can be achieved. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• "HV/HVO": WP:MOS and Garner's agree that slashes are generally a bad idea. Come up with some phrase that represents the joint forces, and use that throughout.
  • Since the HV stands for "Croatian Army" and the HVO stands for "Croatian Defence Council" (Bosnian Croat Military) would "joint Croatian forces" or "combined Croatian forces" be an acceptable term?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Since it's repeated so often, my vote would be "Croatian forces", unless reliable sources have settled on some other term. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Agree. In Croatia those were normally referred to as "hrvatske snage" which literally means "Croatian forces". I found a couple of instances of "združene hrvatske snage" (here) and literally translated "joint Croatian forces" (here), but simple "Croatian forces" has the virtue of brevity.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• "drove back the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) frontline": pushed back the front line of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS)
  • Reworded as suggested, except using the acronym only because the full name is used ahead of this sentence now.
• IMO, the lead fails at its primary job, which is to concisely and efficiently tell the reader what Operation Winter '94 was supposed to do and what it did. The reader can eventually figure it out, but they have to digest 4 paragraphs to find out that the operation was part of a series of operations that succeeded in gaining strategic high ground and cutting off an important supply line.
  • Rewritten and condensed now. Could you have another look at the lead please? I'm thinking of removing the sentence starting with "Major General..." and the one following it - i.e. the final two sentences in the lead. That is because don't see them contributing much to comprehension of the lead, or contributing to the "primary job" of the lead (as you nicely expressed it). Would that be too much or just right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• "was followed by the HV-launched Operation Leap 1 ..., which improved the HV/HVO positions": "HV-launched" is ambiguous.
  • Reworded per HV/HVO issue above.
• I'll stop there. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking time to review the article. I'll try to improve the prose as much as I can. I'll start off with the concerns raised above and the lead as a whole. Could you please provide clarification to the point I commented on above?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Continuing. "which took place in": fought in
• "respectively": The word is misused here; delete it.
• "It was one in a series": Operation Winter '94 was the first in a series
• "a substantial force as well as planning and officers to command the offensives": Would "a substantial force, including commanding officers" be insufficient?
  • I suppose so.
• "The series of attacks were": "series" is singular. One fix would be: "The attacks were"
• "The attack pushed back": Operation Winter '94 pushed back
• "Operation Winter '94 was followed": The first operation was followed
• "It put the them"; ", allowing them"
• "in positions from where it could directly threaten": to directly threaten
• "and secured": and to secure
• "Major General Ante Gotovina ... remarked that the offensive and Operations Leap 1 and Leap 2 formed a unified military action.": Generally, this kind of quote suggests that this was one opinion. In reply to your question above, yes, I'd delete this sentence from the lead unless there was some significant controversy on this point, but keep the last sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I found no specific mention of a controversy or differing opinions on that. I only found statements which appear to echo this one. How about I reword the beginning of the first sentence in the Aftermath section from "Gotovina noted that..." to "Gotovina expressed his opinion that..." and remove the sentence in the lead?
    • Agreed on removing the sentence from the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Removed. Also modified that point in the aftermath section accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Okay, I see you didn't like (or missed) one of my suggestions. The text now says: "The operation formed part of the Croatian War of Independence and the Bosnian War fought between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and two unrecognized para-states proclaimed by Croatian Serbs and Bosnian Serbs. Both para-states were supported by the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and Serbia. The JNA pulled out in 1992, but transferred much of its equipment to the Bosnian Serb and Croatian Serb forces as it withdrew. [new paragraph] It was the first in a series of successful advances ...". How will the reader know that "It" means "the operation"? - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Missed it completely. Sorry. Implemented now.
• "allowing to directly threaten": allowing them to directly threaten
• "to secure": and to secure
  • Amended both.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• I got down to the end of the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Query Does the nominator intend to continue working on this article? I'd like to leave feedback but it looks like progress has stalled and much of Dank's feedback hasn't been addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Andy, thanks for having a look. I only looked at the lead, and I'm satisfied with those results. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I see. I was just asking because your opposition stands above. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd prefer to keep the oppose, based on how much work went into fixing the lead. In the first section, I see:
  • "parts of the Lika, Kordun": all of Kordun or parts of Kordun?
  • "asked the federal Presidency declare"
  • "came under control of": add "the"
  • "preferring a campaign to expand Serbia rather than preservation of Yugoslavia". - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. This is very difficult to read. There are a lot of grammatical niggles. On a larger scale, however, the narrative is extremely confusing. I've read the Background section three times now and I still can't discern why some things are tossed into paragraphs. On the surface you've presented a chronological background, but the paragraph organization is not discernible. Some random things in addition to examples already mentioned above:

• "Following the 1990 electoral defeat of the government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, ethnic tensions worsened" This is a comparative statement that provides nothing to compare.
• "This was followed by two unsuccessful attempts by Serbia" Avoid use of the vague "this" in reference to something previously mentioned. This what?
• "the JNA remained on Croatian territory"
• "However, Serbia continued to support the RSK." The narrative is so dense that I can't determine what contrast the "however" is supposed to be making.

This looks to suffer from too little attention from fresh editors. Please get someone new to fix the micro and macro problems. A surface copyedit will not be enough—some major revisions to the narrative and paragraph structure are needed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's completely true. I tried to draw few editors to pitch in, but that is no simple affair (but I must thank Peacemaker who was very kind to provide help). At this point, it seems the nomination might as well be withdrawn. I'd like to apologize if any of the reviewers, who volunteered their time and efforts here, got the impression that the article was prepared carelessly. I'm not a native speaker of English, and there's so much I can do to the prose quality. GOCE requests take months to process (GOCE copyedited the article) and the results there may not necessarily be adequate. Copyeditors who volunteer at the GOCE do not normally accept direct requests for assistance (quite understandably) and I can't make that much difference on my own. The objections to the article are quite justified, but they're not practically actionable for me right now - therefore the only reasonable thing to do is withdraw the nomination. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Tks Tomobe, and reviewers -- I'll archive the nom and hope you can get some input from other editors prior to returning to FAC after the usual minimum two-week break. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [19].

---

Choiseul Pigeon

Nominator(s): Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that, though it is a bit on the short side, it includes all information known about the Choiseul Pigeon and meets the FA criteria. This unique pigeon was only observed once by Western scientists despite numerous follow-up expeditions to acquire more skins for European museums. The indigenous peoples reported that the species became extinct in the 1940s due to the introduction of feral cats. Thank you for reviewing the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim Good stuff, but the usual nitpicks follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Link Mangrove on first occurrence, link iris

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• All the links in the first two lines of Extinction are duplicates

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's helpful to introduce the various named people, eg American scientist Jared Diamond instead of just a name

I think I got them all. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is it worth giving origin of Goura? Its the New Guinea aboriginal name for the crowned pigeons. (Jobling p. 176.)

Yes it is, thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Though this species had no known close relatives, it is believed to have been most closely related to — to have been closest to avoids repetition

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Adult Choiseul Pigeons of both genders — words have gender, birds have sexes

Changed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• chalky-blue frontal shield. This frontal shield was — This was avoids repetition

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• dark indigo in colouration that gave off a slightly purple — Gave off seems odd, just had

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• largely considered to have been endemic — Do you mean usually considered?

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• The indigenous people of Vundutura — island? Town? Mountain?

Town. Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• dark, cream-coloured egg — Not sure it can be both dark and cream-coloured. Very unusual for pigeons to lay dark eggs too

There is a picture of the egg on page 244 of the second external link. It is primarily cream-colored, but it is a dark cream colored. Dark, cream-colored is how the reference describes it too. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• which is considered small in proportion to the bird — is that compared to other pigeons, or for pigeons in general compared to other birds?

I think it comparison to birds of a similar size. The source states it as: "This bird makes no nest but lays on the ground, one egg of dark creamy white and small in proportion to size of bird." I think it is best as is, but let me know if you disagree. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• bird calling or by the bird's droppings — bird calling or by the droppings avoids repetition

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Choiseul Pigeon with the arboreal Crested Cuckoo-Dove in modern folklore, and several claims of the Choiseul Pigeon's continued existence turned out to be the Crested Cuckoo-Dove — can this be rephrased to avoid repetitions of both birds' names?

Maybe fixed. Please check. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• sole primary objective — sole or primary? Can't be both

Can't it? The only reason they went there was to get Microgoura, but since they were going there they weren't ignoring the other, more minor opportunities offered. Eliminated sole. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• off of Choiseul's southeast — lose "of"

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hartert ref has different cap style to others, you should make it consistent even if it is different from the original

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article again; I've replied to your comments above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No further concerns, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• British Ornithologist’s Club or British Ornithologists' Club? (and watch you're not using curly apostrophes)

Great catch. I never noticed that before. At the risk of sounding out of the loop, what is wrong with curly apostrophes (which they no longer are for the BOU). Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Mostly it's to facilitate searching; there's a more complete explanation over at MOS:PUNC. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Birdtheme is reliable in providing images of stamps published by the world's varying postal services. It does not invent stamps, nor does it post vanity stamps, and, in the event that the website does not include all Choiseul Pigeon stamps, no such claim is made. While it is someone's personal website, it appears to be widely-used and accepted in the stamp community, and it is really the images that are cited from the webpage. Birdtheme is also used in a number of bird FAs to exhibit how some species have been used in stamp designs. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for undergoing the source review. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Yzx

• link between this species and the crowned pigeons -- "this species" is used later in the article to refer to the Choiseul Pigeon; suggest "that species" or "it".
• Though this species had no known close relatives, it is believed to have been closest to the Thick-billed Ground Pigeon -- it's a bit odd to state that there are no close relatives, and then give the closest relative. Qualifiers of some sort would help.
• link between the Thick-billed Ground Pigeon and the crowned pigeons of the genus Goura -- no need to state "of the genus Goura" again.
• not sure what is meant by "link". The term evokes missing link, but I don't think that term should be used for extant(ish) species.
• crest is dramatically different -- "was"?
• developed into a browner rump -- "developed" seems weird, maybe "transitions into".
• There are two uses of "in colouration" in Description that I don't think are necessary.
• Why is the description of the color of the eyes and bill placed after size instead of with plumage color?
• The Choiseul Pigeon was about 31 cm (12 in) long, while the female had slightly smaller wings -- think this should be two sentences, as the statements don't really make a contrast.
• The Choiseul Pigeon was only known from the island of Choiseul in the Solomon Islands off the coast of New Guinea, to which it is usually considered to have been endemic -- the sentence construction here is awkward, suggest "The Choiseul Pigeon is usually considered to have been endemic to the island of Choiseul in the Solomon Islands off the coast of New Guinea, where the only specimens were collected."
• It also reportedly lived on the neighboring islands of Santa Isabel and Malaita, and it is suspected that it may once have lived on Bougainville Island. -- the explanation for listing Bougainville Island separately should be moved up from the Extinction section to here.
• "Notwithstanding" is usually attached to a noun, and I don't think it's necessary here anyway.
• The specimens Meek acquired were likely collected near Choiseul Bay in the northern part of the island.[10] The last reports of the species from the indigenous population came from the Kolombangara River.[10] -- seems like this should go before the talk about other islands.
• few feet off of the ground -- should be metric if possible.
• The organization of the Relationship with humans section seems a bit scattered. For example:

• As I mentioned, information about Meek's search should be integrated with Distribution and habitat, since it explains why there are additional suspected reports.
• That the bird was looked for on cat-free islands is stated before the mention of cats being suspected of causing its extinction, which doesn't flow logically.
• Information about the Whitney South Seas Expedition is split between two paragraphs (and the first says three months, the second says two months).

Nice, compact article. My issues are mostly cosmetic and organizational. -- Yzx (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - Most of my issues were dealt with before the GAN, so not much to add from me. But I have a few comments. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• "as its crest is dramatically different" Isn't that a bit loaded?
• "and several claims of the pigeon's continued existence turned out to be the cuckoo-dove." Based on the cuckoo-dove? The claims weren't the bird, of course.
• The image licenses look fine, but there is no OTRS permission for the image under description. Shouldn't be much of a problem, since all but the crest is copied from the public domain Keulemans image. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comments - largely looking good but the sequence is funny when it mentions the Whitney Expendition in the Relationship with humans section and then again in Extinction where the expedition is expanded upon. I think this would scan better if this latter subsection is placed under Distribution and habitat - where it would sit better listing places it was looked for, and the expedition is discussed before being mentioned again briefly at the end. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Taxonomy: Spaces after the em dashes should be removed per MoS.
• Extinction: Not sure Bougainville Island needs another link here, since there's already one a few sections up.
• Also, the gizzard link is repeated in Relationship with humans.
• Does "Extinct" need the capitalization?
• IUCN should be spelled out in the Extinction section. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments, largely minor:

• This may be a problem with what the sources say, but "the New Guinean aboriginal name" is probably nonsense: I'm sure there are different words for these pigeons in some of the many New Guinean languages.
• Has this genus never been placed in a specific tribe or subfamily? The article on the family suggests that the classification of the Columbidae is in a state of flux, but perhaps a little more can be said.
• Don't use easter egg links: "called" links to the Choiseul languages. And do the sources confirm that the languages involved are those? It's entirely possible that other languages, classified in a different group, are spoken on the island.
• Maybe the sources don't cover this explicitly in this case, but a main reason it's somewhat unlikely to have been truly endemic to Choiseul is that Choiseul, together with Bouganville, Malaita, and Santa Isabel, was part of a larger island called "Greater Bukida" during the Pleistocene when sea levels were lower. The following source should discuss this: MAYR, E. & DIAMOND, J. 2001. The Birds of Northern Melanesia: Speciation, Ecology, and Biogeography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (I read about it in a piece on Pteralopex bats.)

Ucucha (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- Nominator still around? There appear to be a good many unacknowledged comments above... Also, if this proceeds, we need an image review from someone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I can do the image review as well, but how long does nominator have before this is archived? Is anyone willing to fix the remaining issues if he doesn't show up in time? Am I even allowed to do so, as a reviewer? FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks FunkMonk but given there appear to be more unactioned than actioned comments above, and the nominator hasn't attended for over a month, I don't see an alternative to archiving. That would give you the opportunity, if you choose, to address outstanding concerns away from here and bring it back after the usual two weeks or so under your own name. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [20].

---

Hyderabad, India

Nominator(s): Omer123hussain (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured article because, currently its a Good article and peer reviewed for twice along with the comprehensive contribution by Dwaipayan (talk · contribs) and Stfg (talk · contribs). The article is about a heritage and traditional city, also known for its historical Bazaars and modern economical growth. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comments I've read through it once (on smartphone) and can see the prose is still a bit woolly. Will have a go at tightening it and post queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Any reason why the foreign words in the cuisine subsection aren't italicised?

However, no sources define when or by whom the city was named. - umm, is this actually stated somewhere or is it because Peterson doesn't provide one? This needs a source.

In 2002, a blast in Dilsukhnagar claimed two lives,[26] while in May and August 2007, terrorist groups detonated a series of bombs in the city, causing communal tension and riots.[27] A series of blasts that occurred in February 2013 are the latest terrorist attacks in Hyderabad - If we are just classifying these as terror attacks, I'd amalgamate them into one sentence.

Hi, thanks for your comments and c/e. Wow, prose is better now after your c/e work at the article.

• I don’t remember exactly when, but it was advised in the earlier GOCE c/e or by GA/FA reviewers to avoid italicizing of foreign words to maintain consistency with remaining article foreign words.
• Removed "However, no sources define when or by whom the city was named." Because all the sources say's that the city was founded and named during Mohammed Quli Qutb shah. So I hope its better to remove the sentence to avoid confusion.
• While classifying terror attacks we had given minor details of the post blast impact and disturbance occured in the city, because the witnessed post blast communal riots, which provoked the impact of further communal riots with different intervals in the city. So keeping it neutral point of view, we had just given neutral view of the blasts and its impact. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

ok - need to think about these. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it won't have been me who advised against italicising the food terms. The application of MOS:ITALIC isn't clear here. Some of those terms are in common use in British English (for example, biryani is in everyday use in the UK). Trouble is, I don't know which are and which aren't. While I'm here, Casliber, thanks for your copy edits to this. They are a great improvement. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

For sure its not you, but if it is much necessary I will work on it. Please advice :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done with italicised asper MOS:FOREIGN, included Biryani, as it is generally not considered loanword. Hope I am moving correctly. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

any significant parks, gardens or environmental reserves in the city or suburbs?

• Yes, the significant environmental reserves parks in the city includes Nehru Zoological Park—a regular large zoo and Mahavir Harina Vanasthali National Park—a deer national park which houses and dedicated to protect rare species of deers, KBR National park for birds. Along with these the city houses multiple small parks to preserve deers and lakes that attracts seasonal birds, as far as from Australia and Indonesia.

environmental research centers include: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this material is worth adding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Will include some text in Geography section, after collecting citations. Hope it will work. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• In summary on comprehensiveness and prose, a tentative support - looks much better now and I can't see any actionable issues right now. However I note that (a) it is a long article so it might still have some prose issues that will be uncovered by others and that (b) I am not an expert on Hyderabad so others might identify some wieghting or comprehensiveness issues....but we are heading in the right direction definitely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Tons of Thanks for your support and c/e, it had improved the article a lot. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- After remaining open over a month, and no comments for the past two weeks, this review seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving shortly. Because it hasn't generated much comment, you can re-nominate before the usual 2-week period following the archiving if you choose to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [21].

---

Nintendo DSi

Nominator(s): « Ryūkotsusei » 05:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed all the issues raised in the previous FACs and all of the reviews in-between.« Ryūkotsusei » 05:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

Support

1. Since this is not the current console, and we're now in the next generation of consoles, I believe some things should be past-tensed. For example, in the lead, "It is the third iteration of the Nintendo DS, and its primary market rival is Sony's PlayStation Portable." I believe the bolded word should be "was". Unless...is the Nintendo DSi still manufactured? If the answer is no, then most definitely change to "was".
   1. Also, in that exact sentence, you should put "(PSP)" after PlayStation Portable, as "PSP" is used later in the article, but it is not defined as being the acronym for PlayStation Portable. I know it sounds silly, but I was called out on a similar thing by a non-gamer.
2. Under "Technical specifications", is the image of the motherboard necessary? Unless the reader is someone who works on computers and knows about the innards of them (which I do not), the reader is not going to understand the point of that image. The image does not increase my understanding of this section (and I doubt it increases anyone elses), and the point of images are to increase reader's understanding of the information if the text cannot portray it well enough. I can pretty much say the same for the images of Kuwahara and the GameStop launch event, but at least they're understandable. --JDC808 ♫ 06:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Yeah, "(PSP)" should be there so I added that.[22] There is speculation based on page 15 here that it was discontinued, but Nintendo says no.
2. True, for the layman perhaps not. I think you should be more lenient on the images since they're CC. Thanks, « Ryūkotsusei » 19:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Regardless if they're from CC, images are supposed to increase reader's understanding of the text. I personally don't think they do, but I won't let a couple of images keep me from supporting. --JDC808 ♫ 07:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- After remaining open over a month, I'm afraid this review seems to have ground to a halt so I'll be archiving shortly. Because it hasn't generated much comment, you can re-nominate before the usual 2-week period following the archiving if you choose to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [23].

---

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

Nominator(s): Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it merits review and promotion. Two or three years ago, if you told me that this would have been little more than a stub article, I would've called you crazy. Today, it is a good article in it's final steps towards evolving into a featured article. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• As a comment from one of the major editors on this page, I'm not 100% sure it is ready for FA (I haven't spent any time on cleaning it up, etc. prior to this) I'm not asking the FAC be pulled at this time, as if it just needs a bit of polish to be an FA, I'll certainly do it to get it there. This is more a cautionary note that I think this needs works only based on what I know I've done and watched on the article, and I haven't sat down to check off how well it meets the FA requirements, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support improvements look good; my grandkids favorite show...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Don't use bare URLs
• Be very careful about using self-published sources like Facebook posts
• What makes Priced Nostalgia Press a high-quality publisher?
• Dead links
• FN30: accessdate?
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
• Don't write titles in all-caps
• FN69: why is everything unknown?

Oppose pending improvements. In addition to the issues noted above, please take a look at general formatting consistency and source reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- After almost 6 weeks, this nom hasn't generated the sort of interest that's likely to see consensus to promote achieved any time soon, nor have the issues raised by Nikki been addressed well over a week after they were posted, so I'll be archiving shortly. Pls address outstanding issues before considering renominating at FAC after the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [24].

---

Nexus 7

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...it is complete, well-written and stable enough to be considered worthy of FA distinction. To give a bit of background information, the article was primarily developed by myself in the middle of last year, before being listed as a GA article in August. My editing skill was put through its paces during the article's follow-up peer review by Nikkimaria. I encourage, welcome, and would appreciate any comment or input during this FAC process. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments The Nexus 7 has been a landmark device and caused me to convert from iOS to Android, and it's good to see such a fine article on it. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• As an initial comment, I (and some other editors) have been critical of earlier FA nominations of newish electronic devices on the grounds that there was likely to be significantly more coverage of the device and it wasn't yet possible to evaluate it in context. Given that the Nexus 7 is reportedly going to be replaced soon and has attracted acres of high-quality coverage, that doesn't seem a problem here at all.
• "and built by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) partner" - can 'original equipment manufacturer' be translated into layman's language?
• "Incorporating built-in Wi-Fi and near field communication (NFC) connectivity" - a version which connects through mobile phone networks is now available: [25] (as noted later in the article)
• "Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt confirmed that a Google-designed tablet" - does 'confirmed' mean that there had been speculation prior to this interview?
• "Google would have stronger competition against Apple Inc., the designer of the popular iPad tablet" - I think that you can drop the 'inc' given that 'Apple' is the common name
• Why did Google select Asus for this project? Did Asus and other companies have to put in a bid, or did Google hand pick them due to their track record?

• Andy Rubin said, "I don’t think there would have been any other partner that could move that fast." TechnoBuffulo interpreted this to mean that Google thought Asus was the only company that could move quickly enough. But this came after Asus's "top executives met Google’s top executives at CES to talk about opportunities and how they saw the future market." I cannot find the thinking behind the selection, but, no bidding was involved. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK. I've read that Google hand picked LG to develop the Nexus 4 phone as they really liked LG's most recent type of phone and believed that it was the leader in screen design, so it's likely that something like this took place here as well. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "while Google sent seven engineers to Asus' headquarters" - where's this located?
• "Having employees working near Google's offices allowed the engineering team to have a 24-hour development cycle" - why was this the case? (presumably this is related to the point above)

• Sorry? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why did co-locating staff near Google's headquarters allow this? Couldn't a shift system in wherever Asus is based have achieved the same thing? (I presume the issue is that it allowed one shift in the US and another shift in East Asia to alternate). Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe because Google was the lead designer of the tablet, and that having Asus engineers on site sped up the design process? I'm not aware of any rationale behind this arrangement. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Because Asus is based in Asia and Google is based in the US, both companies were able to work on the device during their normal business hours because of the time zone difference between the 2 locations. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• "he also noted that both tablets were being sold at thin profit margins" - it might be worth noting here why Google runs the Nexus program (eg, to push hardware developers and to showcase what its operating system can do, rather than to make much money from the Nexus devices themselves)

• Sorry, I cannot find any credible source that says this. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The stock market reacted positively to the announcement, as shares of Google increased by 0.8 percent to US$569.37 that afternoon" - the reference doesn't say that this was in response to the announcement, and it's hardly a major fluctuation so attributing it to this event is probably a bit difficult.

• I've removed the first clause of the sentence. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The Nexus 7 would be progressively released to a number of selected markets during the following several months." - not referenced, and tense reads a bit odd oddly
• "cards that it predicts they will want" - who they 'they' is here isn't clear (is it the user or Google?)
• "a rubbery, leathery texture intended to improve grip and comfort holding the device" - 'improve' relative to what? (how about 'help users to grip and hold the device', or similar?)
• "which would negatively impact sound quality" - how about "which would harm sound quality"? ('negatively impact' is pretty ugly, though I'm guilty of using it!)
• "Asus changed the device's design" - was this a change made during the development of the device, or relative to an earlier device?
• "a mobile industry analyst estimated that the device most likely sold" - can you name who this analyst is to help readers evaluate how much faith to place on their views?
• "Nexus 7 owned 8% of the global Android tablet market share" - can products really "own" market share? How about "Localytics reported that the Nexus 7 accounted for 8% of the global Android tablet market share" or similar? Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• All addressed except for a few issues. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

The writing could do with a workout.

• The word "Google" is used excessively on occasion. For eg: "sent a design team to Googleplex, Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California, while Google sent seven engineers to Asus' headquarters in Taiwan. Having employees working near Google's offices allowed the engineering team to have a 24-hour development cycle, but Shih needed to later add 40 people to the project to meet Google's requests." (use a ctrl+F and highlight-all to catch these)
• Similarly for Asus in paras 2 and 3 in the first section.

• Done --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Gmail, YouTube, Google Maps, Google Calendar, Google+, Google Wallet and Google Currents"—is it necessary to mention so many by name? If yes, I suggest changing the first bit to "The Nexus 7 comes with many Google applications by default..." and removing the multiple Googles afterwards.

• Done --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The Nexus 7 comes with many applications by default"—question of tense. A few years from now, when this device is old and museum-worthy, will this article continue to use the present tense? Is there any way to write this article so that it doesn't need to be rewritten when the device is no longer produced?

• Should be left alone for now, until, let's say, at the end of December this year, when it will be changed to past tense. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• "GameStop, Sam's Club, Adorama, Staples, B&H Photo Video, and Kmart"—couldn't they be replaced with "several retailers"?

• Tightened. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• "cut by US$20 to US$149 and US$179" → "cut by $20 to $149 and $179" looks much more elegant and readable. Since no other kind of dollar is used in the article, can this changed be made throughout the article? (maybe the first one can remain US$) Better check with the relevant MoS first though.

• Done --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• "A second version of the Nexus 7 will reportedly be launched in July 2013."—will this have its own article, or will this one see significant changes?

• It will have its own article, yes. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The Nexus 7 would be progressively released.." that's a weird sentence, because it reads as though it hasn't been released in Portugal and India yet.

• Done --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The infobox is looong. I think a lot of that —info should be moved to a table in a new Specifications section at the bottom of the article. The infobox is intended to give basic info about the article's subject, which is usually expanded upon elsewhere in the article. It is not meant for an exhaustive listing of the product's specs.

• I think it is meant to be a detailed list. Not everything is listed there though. Besides, gadget articles don't have their own specs list, unlike aircraft articles. Some example is iPad (3rd generation). --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Excessive detail—as mentioned before about the preloaded apps and names of retailers, a few details appear excessive to me. These can either be removed to moved to a footnotes section so that they don't get in the way of the main article's readability and distract the reader's attention:

• "would receive a US$25 credit..."—can the rest simply be "to spend on Google Play, and several freebies, including a free movie, book and magazines."

• Tightened --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• People's designations needn't be so descriptive, especially when the designation doesn't add much to the reader's understanding: "head of UK and Nordic markets", "Former manager of the Google Android division", "Director of Product Management for Android". Often just a "senior executive" will suffice.

• I've removed "head of UK and Nordic markets" but retained the other titles because they establish a connection to the subject, which is a Google-designed Android product. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and releases in France, Germany, and Spain"—are so many territories needed in the lead?

• Tightened. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Overlinking: there's a lot of blue here. Pre-order, pre-installed, profit margins, mass production. Please review throughout.

• Done --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've copyedited the lead to illustrate what I was pointing out above—simplifying the text, cutting overlinking and trimming details. I hope it can be done for the rest of the article too.122.172.22.100 (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments. This is a fairly well-written article, and it does quite a good job of balancing tech specs with readable content. A few nitpicks to attend to: --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "However, he also noted that both tablets were being sold at thin profit margins, primarily due to their respective ties to content services," Comma at the end of this paragraph. Is this sentence unfinished, or should that be a period?

• Done --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Nexus devices have an unlockable bootloader, allowing users from the outset to further develop the OS and "root" the device, or gain legitimate privileged control in Android's subsystem." This is very different from the iPhone, and from Apple's overall philosophy. Perhaps it would be worth elaborating on this point? At the moment this just reads like a bunch of technical gobbledegook.

• I cannot explain it further with my limited knowledge.

• That's why we use sources. Surely there must be at least one review which comments on this, or perhaps a press document from Google which explains how it fits into their marketing strategy. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• "With Jelly Bean, Google significantly reduced latency (lag), one negative aspect of Android compared to Apple's iOS operating system, by employing "vsync timing" and triple buffering, improving touch responsiveness, and programming the display to run at 60 frames per second; this initiative was called "Project Butter"." This is a very long sentence, to the extent that it becomes confusing to try to take it all in at once. I would suggest splitting it into two smaller sentences—or even three, if you're feeling like a saucy salamander.

• Done --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• "One of the most highly touted features of Jelly Bean was Google Now, an intelligent personal assistant similar to Apple's Siri." Surely there must have been comparisons drawn between the two assistants. Which is regarded as the superior robot? I suppose the answer could be placed either here or in the Reception section, but I don't see it yet.

• That's outside the scope of this article I think, and would present undue weight to the function. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• This response is not consistent with the existing structure of the article. Google Now already has an entire paragraph to itself, and the entire article has dozens of comparisons between Android and iOS. If this one comparison is outside the scope of the article, then why is that content not outside the scope of the article? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• "the device most likely sold between 4.5–4.6 million units in 2012." My understanding is that, when used like this, the ndash should be read as "to", which does not make sense grammatically here. I suggest cutting "between".

• Done thanks --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• When considering the openness of the Android OS, I would imagine that one component of the platform's success (or failure) would be the formation (or not) of a community of third-party developers. Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't see any discussion of this point. Do people actually make use of the bootloader and kernel access?

• Yes, but these functions are primarily for developers. There is a community of third-party developers out there, but it's not widely discussed. I have talked about this with the sentence "Software-development community Xda-Developers was among the first to release a custom ROM and kernel for the tablet." --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- With no consensus to promote after more than 6 weeks at FAC, I think it's time to archive this nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [26].

---

I Could Fall in Love

Nominator(s): Jona^{talk to me} 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I have worked on this article for about a year and searched through countless websites and books to bring this stub article to a GA. I then asked Gareth Griffith-Jones if he can copy-edited the article, which he did back in August 2012. His copy-editing skills really helped the article but I needed more eyes and asked Noleander if he could take a second look over the article. After finishing his points he made and performing another extensive search for more reviews I believe I am done with this article and it is at its fullest. I believe it is FA worthy and so I am here to present "I Could Fall in Love" a love song by American singer Selena. Enjoy Jona^{talk to me} 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

• Grammar? - "Critics praised the song for Selena's emotive enunciation, remarked upon the similarity to songs recorded by Celine Dion, Brandy Norwood, and TLC" - grammar doesnt seem right. Missing "and" before "remarked"?

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Extra word: "... and being awarded the Among Most Played Song..." - Can "being" be removed?

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Logical sequence: Consider reversing two sentences: "Although "I Could Fall in Love" peaked at number .." and " Fearing that "I Could Fall in Love" might...". Readers might understand it better as "The song was not released as a single because .... Thus it was not eligible for ..."

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Plural: " "I Could Fall in Love" became one of Selena's most famous and recognizable recording ..." - "recordings"

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Last name? - ". Selena and A. B. .." - Why not refer to A.B. by his last name Quintanilla? it is odd to use a first name (or initials).

• Because Selena's last name is Quintanilla. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Clarify: " Because Thomas was unable to add any more vocals to a new song, "I Could Fall in Love", he performed an a cappella version to assist their understanding. Selena and A. B. instantly appreciated the existing lyric ..." - Not sure what was happening there. Did Thomas have writers block? was he asking Selena and AB to help with the lyrics? They then concluded that the lyrics were satisfactory as-is?

• When I saw the video I didn't get it either but that's what he said. I don't know what a writers block is, he wasn't asking them to add lyrics to the song, my understanding is that he didn't apply backing vocals to the song or something I'm not sure but since it is part of the songs development I added his statement. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If neither you nor I can understand what the speaker is saying, it should be removed from the article. The article should only contain information that is clear to readers. --Noleander (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked for help from the Wikiproject Music to help with our understanding. If no one can seem to understand this or help I will remove it from the article. Jona^{talk to me} 22:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wording: " Although Selena had to return later when Thomas was able to provide additional vocals, Selena's husband, Chris Perez – who had overshadowed the recording sessions – stated that the recording was wrapped up in one day" - Two issues: (1) "overshadowed" is probably not the best word .. that has an ominous overtone, like Perez dominated the recordings ... is "overseen" better? "Participated"? "Witnessed"? "Monitored"? (2) why even mention the husband? Is there a dispute whether or not the song was recorded in a single day? if there is no dispute, better to just not mention the husband as the source.

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Footnotes at end: ""I Could Fall in Love" is a mid-tempo[22][23] pop ballad[24] and R&B[23] song with soul,[10] pop, and soft rock influences.[25]" - The footnotes in mid sentence interfere with readers ability to read. Suggest move all footnotes to the end of the sentence. Suggest use a single footnote, and put all the citations/sources into a single footnote, using the WP:CITEBUNDLE approach.

• I don't like citebundle because it's too much work for me, also the citations are like that because each ref doesn't support each claim so I can't put them at the period if they don't claim the whole sentence. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Also CITEBUNDLE for "... a keyboard, a flamenco guitar,[23] Spanish guitar, and ..." and similar footnotes.

• Per above. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Tense: The first paragraph of the Composition section contains a mix of present & past tense. Mostly it looks correct: past tense for reviews; present tense for attributes of the song. But is " "I Could Fall in Love" is classified as ..." better as past tense?

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Multiple footnotes: Although not a requirement for FA status, I think it looks better to avoid multiple footnotes, especially 3 or more, at the end of a sentence, e.g. " ... critics naming them "confessional ballads"[28][34][35] ". See WP:CITEBUNDLE.

• Not a fan of those unless it's four or more. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wording: "...contained a John Secada-esque demeanor ..." - contained & demeanor dont seem to go together. Maybe "presented ... demeanor" or "contained ... style" or "had ...style" or "had ... feel".

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Whilst vs While - Both are used in the article; pick one and use it throughout (probably While).

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Amongst vs Among - Both are used; stick with Among.

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Grammar: ""I Could Fall in Love" dominated the Top 40 radio stations, well received by critics." - Change somehow. Maybe " ... and was well ..."; or "ICFIL was well received by critics and dominated ..."

• The song's domination was well received by critics, the song had a mixed response not a positive one. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why name? "A San Antonio disc jockey, Suzy Camacho told .." - prior sentences do not identify the specific source/individual, so why mention this particular DJ?

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Plural: " "I Could Fall in Love" became one of Selena's most recognizable recording." - change to "recordings".

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wording: " Los Jovenes Del Barrio recorded a homage cover .." - Aren't all covers homage covers? Or does "homage cover" have a specific meaning in the music business?

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Disambig links check out okay. Overall article layout seems fine; article is comprehensive and thorough. I have not done a spotcheck on sources.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments I have done and/or replied. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Changing to Support based on recent improvements. Have not done a spot-check of sources. --Noleander (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Hey Jona! The chart table ref for Billboard needs to be updated since the main website relaunched and screwed everything up. I'd recommend using the singlechart template to remedy this. More comments will be on the way. ;) Erick (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Erick, can you provide an article as a model so I know how to add that since I never used that template before? Thanks, Jona^{talk to me} 22:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, try this. If you still need help, I'll be glad to assist as always. Erick (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Like this? Best, Jona^{talk to me} 22:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much, but you have the refnames the same. Let me help you out here. EDIT: Okay, I fixed the references and changed the refnames to correspond each chart as well as added accessdats. Be sure to apply refname where necessary. Erick (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks bud can't wait for your review . Best, Jona^{talk to me} 23:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find anything really wrong that stands out so I'm giving out my support. Erick (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts 03:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Comments by DivaKnockouts Images need Alt text. Done. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) "I Could Fall in Love" is a song recorded by American recording artist Selena for her fifth studio album Dreaming of You (1995). — recorded and recording in the same sentence? Kind of redundant. Reword? Done. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Why is promotional recording plural? Because "Tu Solo Tu" was released as a promotional recording and not a single. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) You contradict "...and was named one of the best Tejano songs of 1995 by media outlets including the Tejano Music Times, TVyNovelas, and Furia Musical." with what is written above "I Could Fall in Love" is a pop ballad song with R&B, soul, pop, and soft rock influences." If it is a Tejano song why isn't the genre in the infobox and mentioned with the above? That's according to sources, the word "Tejano" doesn't only mean a music genre but a native born person who was born in South Texas. The sources are referring to the song as being the best Tejano song by a Tejano (Tex-Mex)-born singer. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) I guess. — DivaKnockouts 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) If the Tejano Music Times is notable enough for inclusion in the lead shouldn't there be a red link? Red links in the lead are frown upon by FAC reviewers. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) F...AC them. Haha — DivaKnockouts 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) "It was also released posthumously and received a Music Video of the Year nomination at the 1996 Tejano Music Awards." — You already mentioned its posthumous release in the first paragraph. No, I mentioned that the song was released posthumously not the music video so that's why I had to include it. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Hmm. I guess so. — DivaKnockouts 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) "Koppelman believed Selena had reached her peak in the Spanish market and began preparations for a crossover album for Selena." — Redundant use of "Selena", remove "for Selena". Done. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) "Selena and her record producer brother, A.B. Quintanilla III,[9] arrived in Nashville, Tennessee, with the objective of collaborating with producer, songwriter Keith Thomas." → "Selena and her record producer brother, A.B. Quintanilla III,[9] arrived in Nashville, Tennessee, with the objective of collaborating with producer and songwriter Keith Thomas." Done. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) "Because of its "overly simplistic and repetitive lyrics", Ramiro Burr of the San Antonio Express-News named "I Could Fall in Love" the "weakest track"." — The weakest track from what? The album? Done. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) "I Could Fall in Love" and "Tú Sólo Tú" filled the first and second slots respectively on the Hot Latin Tracks, continuing to do so for five consecutive weeks." — How could "I Could Fall in Love" have filled the first spot if it peaked at number two? Your not reading it right, "Tu Solo Tu" peaked at number one not ICFL. The two songs took the first slot (Tu Solo Tu) and the second one (ICFL) at the same time. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) You wrote "I Could Fall in Love" and "Tú Sólo Tú" filled the first and second slots respectively". Respectively implies that "ICFIL" filled the first slot and "TST" filled the second slot. — DivaKnockouts 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Done. Jonatalk to me 03:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC) "Therefore it was not eligible for the Billboard Hot 100 chart." — Comma missing. I don't see the need for a comma here? Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Didn't sound right when I read it the first time. Sorry. — DivaKnockouts 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Why mention the US for the Hot Latin Tracks and not when you first mention a chart? Done. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) "I Could Fall in Love" dominated the Top 40 radio stations,[24][92][93] well received by critics." — Missing two words (and was before well). It's redundant to use that word and was removed by the copy-editor. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) "The song had heavy rotation in southern,[96] and western United States," — Missing a word (the before southern). Per above. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Following the song's release, it rapidly developed into being a popular wedding song,[58][104] resulting in "I Could Fall in Love" becoming one of Selena's most famous songs. — You just mentioned how it became one of her most recognizable songs. I don't understand what you mean by your comment. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) You mention how it is one of her most recognizable songs. Then some sentences down you say "becoming on of Selena's most famous songs." — Wouldn't "her most recognizable" and "her most famous" imply the same thing? — DivaKnockouts 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Yes in some cases and no in others; recognizable can mean that if someone hears the song they may remember it that doesn't necessarily mean they enjoy or like it whereas famous would measure upon awards and chart success and not someones reactions. That's my opinion. Jonatalk to me 03:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Puerto Rican singer and actress Jennifer Lopez lip-sync the track for her portrayal as "Selena" in the 1997 biographical film of the same name, — Add "ed" to "lip-sync". Done. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Was the song not placed on any other Year-end charts? (Maybe Latin Pop since it reached number one?) No, I can't find any other chart positions on Billboard. Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. — DivaKnockouts 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Will support after these issues are clarified or addressed as article is overall in excellent shape with no major issues. References check out okay. — DivaKnockouts 02:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for taking some time out to review the article. Well appreciated, Jonatalk to me 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC) You're welcome. — DivaKnockouts 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support on terms of prose and overall quality of article. Great job. — DivaKnockouts 03:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your support! It's very appreciated. Best, jona^{talk to me} 04:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Media check - mostly all OK (fair-use, CC). Sources and authors provided. Just 1 fixable problem (Done):

• Sound sample - per WP:NFCC each separate usage needs a separate specific fair-use rationale (just copy the FUR for the album and change the rationale header and text to fit the second article's usage). Suggestion: consider using one of the various FUR-templates for a better overview.
• Other fair-use criteria are OK.
• File:Jennifer_Lopez_in_Time_100.jpg - OK. The permission handling of the original file is sub-optimal, but there's no reason to doubt the permission itself (no action required). GermanJoe (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks for your review. Best, jona^{talk to me} 13:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review: Only the first column checked thus far, but a number of issues require attention

• Ref 4: I can find nothing in this source that supports the cited sentence: "She recorded 'Is It the Beat?', 'Where Did the Feeling Go?', and 'Only Love'." None of these songs are mentioned in the source. In any event, the source name should not be italicised.

• Fixed to three songs. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 5: the nature of the source is not clear. 60 minutes in what?

• That's what the template gives, I didn't write that. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Templates are not tablets of stone. It is up to you to make clear the nature of the source to the reader, for example by adding (film) or appropriate description to the title in the template. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Added documentary. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 8 is in Spanish – this should be noted. Where in the source is the cited statement covered?

• Removed can't find it. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 12: What is the source? Who published this?

• It's a source from the TV series Biography. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Then, as per ref 5, you need to add a fuller description, to assist readers who know nothing of WP template formats. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 17: In the absence of an online link, page references should be given. Also applies to 25, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37 and no doubt others.

• I do not have those newspapers in hand and got them over the archives on google. So there's no saying what page number they are in. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Then you should include the online links to the archives, if that is how you accessed the information. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia told me not to include a url to subscription-only references because it doesn't benefit the reader or reviewer since the claim will not in the text provided. That's why I did not include an urls for subscription-only sources. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Refs 18 and 19: the discs in question need better identification than "EMI Latin"

• I believe I filled every possible section in that template. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 22: Check link. All it gives me is a message: "Your search session has expired"

• Fixed. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (It's now 21) What did you fix? I'm getting the same error message. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removed the link and replaced it for Lopez lip-sync claim. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 30 requires registration. This should be noted.

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Further comments to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Here they are:

Second column

• Ref 38: can you clarify the nature of the source?

• I added what the source states. What else you want me to do? jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wrote the wrong comment - the nature of the sources is clear. However, there needs to be a page ref or online archive link. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 45: the link goes to the wrong NYDN page

• The archive system is messing up. I archived that page several months ago, and not sure why its acting up. The page is here but it won't let me access it. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Now ref 44) You need either to resolve this, or find an alternative reference. Or remove the material from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removed. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 46: Spanish language source - note required.

• It is noted, something is wrong with the template. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 47: Author? page reference?

• None given. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Author unimportant, but regarding the page number, my earlier comments apply. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 49: If "PopMatters" is not a print source it should not be italicised.

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 54: Page reference required.

• Does not provide them. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• See my earlier comments on this matter. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 57: Please check the link. Each time I try it, it crashes Firefox.

• It works fine for me. (I'm using Chrome). jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Now ref 56) It still crashes Firefox. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I asked for help here. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 80: Allmusic is not a print source and should not be italicised

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 89: This is a subscription service - needs to be noted

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Third column

• Page references required: 94, 96, 99, 100, 105, 106 and more
• Ref 97: Incorrect link (see 45)

• It's not incorrect the webcite archive system seems to be down at the moment. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Now 96) If it's not working, you can't use it. Suggest find an alternative or remove the cited material. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removed. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 102: Source does not support the cited sentence: "In Riverside, California, program directors reported that "I Could Fall in Love" was among their top three hits being played on their radio stations".

• Please read the statement noted above ("On the radio -- Program directors around the country name their top three hits and predictions for a fourth"). jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 107: Faulty link, please check

• Works fine for me. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Now 106) For me, the source page shows for a second, then blanks. I suggest you ask other users to test the link to see if it works for them. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I asked for assistance. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 108: Nature of source not clear

• It's a citation from an episode. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Episode from what - TV series? See my earlier comments about making the nature of sources clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 113: Another Spanish source - needs noting

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 125: Not available to users outside the US - needs noting

• Can you link me a template that specifies this? jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Now 124) I don't know of a template for this; you can add your own note. The source contains a link to mtv.uk, but this does not take me to the source article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 126: "page not found"

• Fixed. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 129: What makes "BlogTo" a reliable source?

• Removed. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Some work to be done on sources, quite a lot of it simple presentation stuff, before the article is ready for promotion. Although I have not read the whole article I picked up a few prose glitches needing attention (there could be others):

• "'I Could Fall in Love' received generally positive response from music critics" (either "a generally positive response" or "generally positive responses")

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "similarities with" → "similarities to"

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Teresa Jusino of Popmatters expressed that English-speaking music fans no longer remember Selena's name..." ("expressed the view that...")

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "which has received positive praised by music critics." ("praise from", not "praised by". And is there any praise that is not positive?)

• Where is this located? jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• I fixed it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please ping my talk when you're through (or if you require clarification) as I shan't be watching this page. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are still a few sources issues to be resolved. To summarise:

• In a few cases you need to add a little more detail to your template entries, so that the nature of the source (film, tv episode, etc) is clear.
• When newspapers or journal articles are cited, you should provide either a page reference or an online link to the archived text.

• I don't know what advice Sandy gave you, but it is very common to include links to online services that require payment, and to add the (subscription required) template. It's then up to readers and/or researchers as to whether they wish to pay for access. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I tried searching through Sandy and Nikki's archives to see where that discussion is located to no luck. I am currently working on this task and finding those urls. Best, jona^{talk to me} 23:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Best, jona^{talk to me} 00:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 21 Link not working
• Ref 44 Link not working
• Ref 56 Link is still crashing Firefox.

• Works fine for me on Firefox. — DivaKnockouts 15:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, it's maybe just a local problem for me. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 96 Link not working
• Ref 106 Link is not working properly

• It's now 103, still not working for me. Any luck with other users?

• This one is working as well. — DivaKnockouts 22:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is this still an issue? jona^{talk to me} 00:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• If it is only me that's having problems with the link, no, it's not a problem any more. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

*Ref 124 needs a "US users only" note.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

At Jona: Try archiving the sites he's having using WebCite and let's see if that works. Erick (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Those that he mentioned were archived at WebCite but something is wrong with their system that it's not working. So I had to replaced them or removed them. Best, jona^{talk to me} 23:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Pls just run the disambig link in the toolbox above and Ucucha's duplink checker, and resolve as necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do (unless it has been done)? Best, jona^{talk to me} 23:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

He's asking you to look at the toolbox, which is on the right side of the FAC instructions; there's a disambiguation link checker that shows links which may not go to the intended place. This article looks clean on that front, from a check I did. Ian also wants you to check for repeated links in the article with a script by Ucucha; I haven't run the script myself, so I can't tell you if any duplicate links need removal here. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Jona, I missed your earlier query. Giants, tks for responding. Re. the dab check, yes it looks like a redirect message (which I'm not sure you can do anything about) rather than a dab, however pls review/rationalise the dup links as requested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - The article is not ready. There are problems with the prose (examples below), duplicate links, and referencing issues:

• This sentence does not make sense: " Because Thomas was unable to add any more vocals to a new song, "I Could Fall in Love", he performed an a cappella version to assist their understanding."

• The song had no vocals to assist their understanding of the recording, therefore Thomas sang several lines of the song for them.

I still don't understand the sentence or the explanation. Graham Colm (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a demo with no vocals just instrumentals, demos are supposed to have vocals so the singer can learn the song for recording sessions. jona^{talk to me} 01:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So why not recast the sentence to make the meaning clear? Graham Colm (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a sentence, there is no finite verb. "It remaining there for the following week."

• Fixed. jona^{talk to me} 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• There's a fused participle here: "with many critics naming them "confessional ballads".

• Fixed. jona^{talk to me} 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not fixed. Changing "naming" to "calling" does not correct the prose. Graham Colm (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. jona^{talk to me} 01:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Spanish guitar links to a disambiguation page.

• Fixed. jona^{talk to me} 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Do we need "being" here? " Following the song's release, it rapidly developed into being a popular wedding song

• Fixed. jona^{talk to me} 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why are there so many citations here? ""I Could Fall in Love" is a mid-tempo[21] pop ballad[22] and R&B[21] song with soul,[9] pop, and soft rock influences.[23]"

• Because those footnotes does not claim the entire sentence (similar to other FA songs such as Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song))

See WP:BUNDLING and WP:CITECLUTTER Graham Colm (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot remove sources as they claim the statements in that sentence. Best, jona^{talk to me} 01:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not suggest that the sources be removed. Graham Colm (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• The citation styles are inconsistent.

• Please give an example.

Is the use of access dates consistent? Graham Colm (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. jona^{talk to me} 01:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• The duplicated links are: Arizona Daily Star, San Antonio Express-News, Billboard Hot 100, 1996 Tejano Music Awards and Top 40.

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There's more work needed; this is not an FA standard article. Graham Colm (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't like to be discouraging because the article is of a high standard, but it is not FA class. Problems remain, mainly with the prose, and another thorough copy-edit is required. I will give another two examples, but please do not assume that fixing these alone will resolve all the issues: *There are three problems here: "A Wichita Eagle writer expressed that Lopez' lip-sync of the recording was "hauntingly" and that it accumulated Selena's fans' "feelings". There is a missing possessive, an orphan adverb, and an odd word choice - accumulated.

• Here, "American actress and singer Keke Palmer used her YouTube account to cover an acoustic version of "I Could Fall in Love". She didn't use her account to cover the song, she probably used it to publicize it.

As I have said, more work is required. Graham Colm (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I just asked the GOCE member who c/e the article to revisit the article to resolve your concerns. Thanks for the review, jona^{talk to me} 22:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Gareth completed his 9 months ago, and he hasn't edited for over a week, so I dare say it's OK for me to do this. Graham, I agree with your assessment and will do a complete edit. I realise this FAC has been alive for several weeks. If you need to archive it, go ahead, but if it's all right to hold, I'll probably need two days. Rgds, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've now completed it. The prose has changed substantially, and reviewers may wish to take a fresh look. I hope it's all right. --Stfg (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. The prose is much improved but I am still concerned about the referencing. I cannot see what the problem is in using WP:BUNDLING to improve flow in the sentence with multiple citations. Graham Colm (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Best, jona^{talk to me} 13:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I am having troubles with bundling the refs, not sure what I am doing wrong here. I fixed one other issue you spotted. Best, jona^{talk to me} 14:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from Eric Corbett

After all this time at FAC I wouldn't have expected to find this kind of thing right at the start of the lead: ""I Could Fall in Love" is a song recorded by American singer Selena for her fifth studio album, Dreaming of You (1995). The song was released posthumously by EMI Latin on 26 June 1995. "I could fall in love" ...". And this inconsistency isn't just in the lead: "The first verse of "I could fall in love" implores the object of the singer's desire to walk away ...". Eric Corbett 12:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Stfg (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment (2) -- My apologies for not looking this over last week; I note that no further comment or edits to the article have taken place sine 26 June. While there is support to promote, I'm afraid I'm not convinced that the article is ready for that, in spite of everyone's efforts. The citation bundling issue raised by Graham still appears unresolved, and there is a citation formatting error that seems to have lain unaddressed for over a week. Eric has pointed out prose issues extant after two months at FAC. From my own skim of the lead and first section:

• It failed to acquire any certifications, despite Selena's murder several months earlier by her friend and former employee Yolanda Saldivar. I assume what is meant by "despite" is that her murder might have been expected to generate the sort of publicity and sympathy that normally guarantees a hit but, if so, this should be make clearer.
• She recorded it in December 1994 at the The Bennett House -- I realise "The" is part of the name of the studio but we don't say "the The Rolling Stones" or "the The Smiths" do we, so why "the The Bennett House"?

While the recent copyedit no doubt improved things, these outstanding points indicate there's still more to do and we need to call a halt on this nom; pls take the usual two-week period following an archived nomination to revisit the prose throughout and the citation concerns. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. 04:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [27].

---

The Coral Island

Nominator(s): Drmies (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This was one of my two favourite books as a kid, and with the help of Drmies I've been trying to do it justice. It's a Victorian boy's own ripping yarn of shipwreck, pirates, cannibals, self-sufficiency, you name it. It was the inspiration for William Golding's dystopian Lord of the Flies, which inverts the morality of The Coral Island. I hope you enjoy reading about the book as much as I enjoyed reading it all those years ago. Eric Corbett 16:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting topic.

• Three articles which may be useful- Have you read this? I could send it to you, if you're interested. Ditto for this or this.

  The article already makes use of McCulloch's "The Broken Telescope", and from memory the other two sources are more geared towards Golding's Lord of the Flies. Eric Corbett 20:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll get them when I'm at work tomorrow, and will see. Thanks for the suggestion. I thought I'd done a pretty exhaustive literature search and I am gladly proven wrong. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Katharine Anderson sees a "pious significance" in the coral jewellery so beloved in the period, and the "coral garden" tended by the boys is suggestive of "missionary encounters with the societies of the Pacific Island"." You're yet to mention a coral garden, and so a reference to "the" coral garden is slightly jarring
• Ditto "the little coral insect".

  Good points, I'll address both shortly. Eric Corbett 20:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  Hopefully done now. Eric Corbett 22:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The Coral Island was adapted into a children's television series in a joint venture between Thames Television and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 1980, first shown on British television in 1983.[36] The novel was also adapted into a four-part children's television drama by Zenith Productions, broadcast by ITV in 2000.[37]" Do we have articles on either of these to link to?

  If we do, I haven't been able to find them. Eric Corbett 20:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't really fault the prose. I wonder whether there's more good analysis to cite, but looks like an excellent article. J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• No problems on prose or structure and it looks well-sourced. I'd be interested to hear from an expert on this period of literature (which I am not) about whether it is complete enough. Looks good though. --John (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

• A few more sources to consider, let me know if you need help obtaining: doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2006.00235.x, doi:10.1177/002198949202700115, doi:10.1353/chl.0.047, doi:10.1353/jvc.2007.0026, doi:10.1353/chq.0.0620

  Drmies may be able to get hold of those through his university, but I'd certainly be interested in seeing copies of those last two, if not for this article then for the more general Robinsonade, which badly needs some help. Eric Corbett 16:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  If he can't, just shoot me an email and I'll forward them. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  Will do, thanks. Eric Corbett 19:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Images are both correctly licensed, captions are fine
• FN23: should be endash not hyphen

  Fixed. Eric Corbett 16:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• FN31 is getting blocked by my antivirus software - what is it and what makes it reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  It's a report on WWW2006, the 15th International World Wide Web Conference held in Edinburgh, published by the organisers at Southampton University, so I don't understand why your anti-virus software would be complaining. Eric Corbett 16:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, that sounds good. Not sure why it won't open for me. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. Two comments so minor as to be barely visible with the naked eye:

• -ise and -ize – you use both in your prose (ignoring those in quotations, of course). I suspect this reflects a strict adherence to Fowler's austere principles, but I mention it in case it is inadvertent.

  Entirely inadvertent and down to the fact that Drmies wrote some bits and I wrote others. I think I've got that now. Eric Corbett 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Influence" section – I think the MoS bids us put ref numbers outside, not inside, closing brackets, as at ref 33.

  Makes sense to put the citation outside the closing bracket, so I've moved it. Eric Corbett 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That's my meagre haul of quibbles. A delightful article that seems to me to meet all the FA criteria for prose – comprehensive, balanced, handsomely referenced and a pleasure to read. – Tim riley (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read through the article Tim. Eric Corbett 19:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from MasterOfHisOwnDomain: Great work so far. My concern is with criterion 1a, comprehensiveness, particularly around the "Critical Reception" section. I don't suggest my own work as par excellence, but compare for instance the detail of the "Reception" section of Passing with this one; the contemporary reception to the book here is half a sentence. Also:

• This book (p. 61) suggests that Ballantyne specifically consulted and incorporated the work of Michael Russell's book on Polynesia—worth mentioning (and seeing if other sources confirm this). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  Some interesting snippets in that book, thanks. Let's remember though that Passing was published in 1929, not 1857. Eric Corbett 16:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Quite, but still, I would be surprised if there wasn't some contemporary reaction to it that could be included—Drmies is probably right that "juvenile fiction" is less likely to feature in periodicals, but still. Even the comment that you make about being widely admired is not fully elaborated. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  Are you aware of any that we've missed? Eric Corbett 11:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not off-hand, no—but I don't know the book well enough to say. I re-emphasise the point above though, can the existing comment be expanded in any way? I don't have access to the source, but does the Children's Literature Review article mention why it was widely admired? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes--it would have been easier had our book come in an NCE, like Passing, since those typically have a section specifically devoted to contemporary reception. It's odd that I haven't found much in the way of 19th-century reviews; I'll try again, but I don't hold out much hope. I think the problem may be that youth literature is less likely to be reviewed in the standard periodicals. Some of the content in Passing, "Reception" is covered in our article in "Legacy" and in "Themes", I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• The Literary Encyclopaedia says that this is the second novel by Ballanytne, whereas the source you use says it is the third. Might be worth confirming which is correct, just to avoid errors.

  Ah, it was his third book but his second novel. His first, Hudson's Bay; or, Every-day Life in the Wilds of North America (1848) is non-fiction, so Short 2002) is wrong. I've corrected that in our article. Eric Corbett 12:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• The same source says this of the contemporary reaction, which could be worth using: "Ballantyne’s mixture of gory adventure and devout, imperial enthusiasm scored an instant success both with his juvenile readership and with approving parents, schoolmasters and clergymen." i.e., how it had appeal to multiple readerships. Can obtain the citation if you agree. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  That seems like a nice quote to add, so yes please. Eric Corbett 12:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• There we go: Miller, John William (25 February 2008). "The Coral Island". The Literary Encyclopedia. Retrieved 27 June 2013.. — MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  I've paraphrased that and added it, thanks. Eric Corbett 01:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• What a rich seam. Brings back memories from my youth.

  There is some useful stuff in Edmond's book, Representing the South Pacific; you already refer to a couple of reviews, I think. See [28], particularly p.117 - passages lifted from Rev John Williams' Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea Islands about Arorangi - and p.145-159 - the novel absence of the authority figures that were present in Swiss Family Robinson and Masterman Ready, links to accounts of Cook's voyages, links to Byron's cave and William Mariner's cave in Tonga, language choices (black=bad and sable=good), yet more details lifted from Williams, and a public schoolboy social order (prefect, younger friend and fag) - and p.160 - Robert Louis Stevenson knew Ballantyne. As well as reusing the three main characters in The Gorilla Hunters, Ballantyne wrote further but less successful novels based in the South Seas, such as Gascoyne the Sandal-wood Trader (1864).

  It may also be possible to draw a contrast with the negative impact of missionaries described by Herman Melville in Typee and Omoo. -- Ferma (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. I don't have access to Edmond's book, unfortunately; perhaps Eric does, and I'll see if I can get a hold of it through the library. Gascoyne is discussed in one of the articles linked above that I'm working on; I'll see if placing a note is worthwhile. As for Melville, I have not seen comparisons drawn in the scholarship and that's what we must depend on, but, again, I'll see if there's anything I can dig up. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  I'm looking through Edmond's book now, and I've already added his comment about Ballantyne's extensive borrowing from Williams' Narrative of Missionary Enterprises, which seems to me to be the only relevant detail. Eric Corbett 21:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Victoria

Drive-by comment - I started to review, but instead decided to make this drive-by comment:

• These three sources should be looked at: [29] (Honaker), [30] (Moffat), [31] (Dutheil). Also Frank Kermode is quite a well-known literary critic and apparently has written about this book, so that should be found and incorporated. Sorry to dump this on you. I'll keep the review watched and the page watched. I've skimmed the sources and have a general idea of what areas I believe need to be developed, but without having read the book and the literature, probably better for Eric and Drmies to look at these and decide what, if anything, should be extracted. Formerly Truthkeeper 88, now Victoria (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll have a look, thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Victoria, I've added author's names to your URLs; hope you don't mind. Some (more) notes from Dutheil, Kermode, and Honaker added. Moffat is next on my list. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • They're all in there now, with the exception of Moffat, who only mentions Ballantyne in passing, in a footnote. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Drmies - I might have picked up the wrong one by mistake, or I might have simply scanned and thought it was going somewhere - but I'll check there. If you're finished with the reorg, I'll come through and review. Btw - this wasn't a request to add - I just thought they might have stuff worth adding. That's all. Victoria (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I added a section in the "Backgrounds" bit, based on your and others' suggestions; for now I'm done with the articles and scholars those comments have given me. So thanks--it's more complete than it was before. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think you can get more out of those, to be honest. They're quite good analyses. Victoria (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Victoria

Lead

• Infobox has wikisource, but that's linked too in the ELs > should probably delete one of these

  I've removed it from the External links section. Eric Corbett 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Literary context

• "it also starts a tradition in boys' fiction, by substituting boys for the main characters, a device now "naturalized" in the genre." > not sure what this means. Substituting boys for whom? Nor am I convinced this is "naturalized" (why in quotes?) in the genre. Naturalized when? Now, or then?

  I've changed that to "placing boys centre stage as the main characters". "Naturalized" is in quotes because it's a quotation. Eric Corbett 16:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand that. And it makes more sense now. Was trying to parse who the boys were substituting. Victoria (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Hence the US spelling also. :) Drmies (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "It preserves what literary critic Minnie Singh calls "the homiletic form of the educational tract", but does so (and is a "founding text" in that regard) by the "congruence of subject and implied reader": the story is about boys, and told by a (former) boy to an audience of boys.[15]" > suggest translating to plain English. If it's didactic, which children's lit of the period was, then that should suffice.

• I've paraphrased the first quotation. I may take out the second, though "founding" is a nice qualifier for Ballantyne. I'm leaving the third quote since I like the sound of it: if Eric disagrees, he is free to drop it. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's better - the first quote was the one that I had the most difficulty with. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• This section introduces Rousseauean and Darwinian theories (oversimplification is that per Rousseau children learn by doing and experimentation; per Darwin (oversimplification again) the fittest survive. I think these concepts, if important to the background, should be echoed in the themes section if the sources support that.

• The sources I looked at support about as much as I've put in that section. I doubted whether to put the information in a background section or among the themes, and chose the former since Singh and McCulloch both discuss it more in terms of a background than as a theme to be thoroughly mined. I'll have another look at some of the articles cited in the Themes, but for now I think it would be little more than echoing repetitively: those themes are undoubtedly important to the literature of the period but they are not discussed in great depth for this novel, as far as I can tell right now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Okay. Victoria (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Fiona McCulloch argues that the unmediated knowledge the boys gain on their coral island reflects the tradition of Robinson Crusoe's and the "direct language for children" Rousseau advocates in Emile" > having some difficulty parsing this. Does it mean that learning by seeing/touching/experiencing, ie. Rousseau's theory of education is the "direct language for children" or does it have to do with the prose style?
  • I've simplified and hope that it's clear now. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Summary

• "tells the story retrospectively" > if not using the literary device of flashback, is this then a framing device? A Frame story? Though my sense is that it's not.

  Ralph is recounting the story as a grown man, writing about his experience as a young boy; nothing to do with flashbacks or frame stories. Eric Corbett 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• From a literary perspective, that's a flashback. But won't argue. Victoria (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  No, it's not. Eric Corbett 16:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The account starts briskly" > because this is an opinion should have a source, or be trimmed out.

  It's hardly an opinion, as the following sentence explains. Eric Corbett 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• One person's brisk is not another's, regardless of the number of pages. But, again, I won't argue. Victoria (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  But the same point could be made no matter which authorities are cited. Eric Corbett 16:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• My last comment about this: plot summaries aren't cited because they're a very dry summary of the plot. What I mean, and perhaps haven't conveyed well, is simply to drop "brisk". But again, won't argue. Victoria (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  No reason why they have to be dry, and if necessary I could provide a citation for "brisk"; it isn't just my opinion. Eric Corbett 20:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's kind of what I was getting at. It's not a big deal, just mentioning. And yes, agree that summaries shouldn't be dry. Victoria (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's in Carpenter, or elsewhere, and so needs to be attributed. Victoria (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Genre

• Quite a few direct quotes here; suggest trimming out some. "Fun" for example doesn't need to be a quote imo.

  I've removed "fun" and one other, but I believe the others serve their purpose, and paraphrasing them would be to lose their flavour. Eric Corbett 16:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Themes

• Suggest adding a topic sentence of sorts so as not to begin with a quote. From the little I've read about this, and what I know of the genre, period, and children's lit, my sense is that the overarching theme is that Victorian imperialism = civilized. The children are not yet, because by nature children need to be civilized; the natives are not (they never will be); the pirates are not (outside of the law). By the end of the story the children learn the perils of not being civilized, and rejoin the Victorian imperial christian fold. This again is oversimplified, but if what is already there can be rearranged a bit to suggest these themes, it would help the flow. These ideas, too, go to the Rousseauean and Darwinian themes > in prevailing the children uphold the dominance of the Imperialist worldview; but they come away wiser, having applied Rousseau's theories of learning by doing. Almost all of what I've written is already in the article, but needs to be said a bit more clearly imo.

• I've struck the above. I know what I'm trying to say, but apparently not conveying it well and it's probably not important. Victoria (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• I believe the above needs to be dealt with and the themes should be tied together and presented in a more to-the-point manner. Victoria (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Again, perhaps a few too many direct quotes
• The sentence about the boys' "domestic arrangements" should be rewritten imo.

  I've done a little bit of rewriting in that area. Eric Corbett 20:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  Have a look at the source. I'll probably have a go at that myself, and will decide later how much of this to revisit. Victoria (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  I rewrote it. Victoria (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's about it, except for a few small points I might still add. Apologies for the length and for rambling. We can move to the article talk or to the FAC talk. And feel free to disagree. Victoria (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• One more: "Martine Dutheil, in an essay published in a 2001 special issue of College English devoted to oral fixation and cannibalism,[36] stated that" > probably should be "states that" to preserve literary present tense, or recast somehow. Victoria (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Eric's taken care of that, I see; thanks to both. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - these were mostly minor and easily fixed. Nice job & it's nice to see a boy's children's book here. Victoria (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Reception

• Added a piece from one of the best scholars in the field to the talkpage here. Victoria (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dr.Blofeld

Looks good, short but sweet. A few things:

• "One of the first works of juvenile fiction to feature exclusively juvenile heroes" I think this is worthy of mentioning in the lead.

  Added to the lead Eric Corbett 11:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Although generally considered to be dated in many aspects". I see this as rather vague in that a] it doesn't say who considers it dated and b] Does not state why it was dated. I think you should elaborate on it more and examine why this is so in the themes section. I'd probably explore the "arguably racist undertones" in a more detail as it is quite an important statement to make.

  I think it's already explained by Jack's comment: "all the natives of the South Sea Islands are fierce cannibals, and they have little respect for strangers". Eric Corbett 11:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned by the number of quotes which in parts I think would be better converted to prose. I count 37 quotes, which in a relatively short article I think is rather a lot and I'd probably reduce the number of quotes by a third. I think you can cut back a bit on the quoting without it affecting the content which will improve the overall flow of it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Not sure I agree, but I'll wait to see what Drmies thinks. Eric Corbett 11:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The pleasant surprise on the article (not for you as an editor but general articles like this) is that it's short and concise. So many articles on books like this warble on and on and I think this is one of it's biggest strengths that it is a comfortable read. Interesting piece here which compares the evil of Coral Island with the Lord of the Flies, might be worth including.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think we've already adequately covered the difference between Lord of the Flies and The Coral Island? Eric Corbett 12:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think so, yes, I just thought it might have contained something you'd find useful.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• On the quotes, yeah, I count ten in the "Genre and style section", for instance. I'd hope, though, that the quotes are well chosen and in that section (to take it as an example) it's difficult to rephrase many of them. Idiosyncratic phrases such as "pedestrian realism", "light-hearted confidence", and "ethnographic gloss" don't easily translate, and that's part and parcel (in my opinion) of the business of literary criticism. Before you know it you're not paraphrasing but translating, since the terms often come with (critical) baggage. "Over-concerned with flora and fauna" probably could be paraphrased, but I don't know that we'd gain anything by rendering it as "showing too much of a concern with the characteristics of animal and plant life on the island"... Drmies (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Support A few more quotes than I'd ideally like but they're generally used appropriately. I love the fact that this article is short and sweet and not one of the typical bloaters. Makes it much easier to read and digest. A hearty well done to the article writers.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ernst. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wadewitz

Leaning towards support This is a very good article on an important children's book! Yay! Thanks for all of your hard work. Below are my concerns about organization and comprehensiveness, which I think can be easily addressed.

• One of the first works of fiction to feature exclusively juvenile heroes - There is well-over a century of literature coming before this that has juvenile heroes. Do you mean one of the first adventure fiction to feature juvenile heroes? I'd be curious what those scholars say that you cite, especially Singh. What part of Singh are you using to support that claim?
  • I've tweaked that sentence some. Drmies (talk)
  • And to answer your question: it's in Singh, p. 206, "But the adventure story that was almost schematically Golding's pre-text was Robert Michael Ballantyne's 1858 Coral Island, one of the earliest such stories to have boys, in the absence of adults, for its main characters. Children's literature has so naturalized this device that we forget how important a narrative innovation it must have been". Drmies (talk)
    • I read that as one of the first such adventure stories, but that is informed by the fact that I study the century of children's literature that comes before this and know the larger claim to be wrong. Adventure stories with boy heroes were definitely new in the 19c. Wadewitz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

      I think the important word is exclusively juvenile heroes. Eric Corbett 22:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ballantyne's ignorance of the South Pacific caused him to erroneously describe coconuts as being soft and easily opened. A stickler for accuracy, he subsequently only wrote about things of which he had personal experience - Do you mean because he was criticized for this errors in this book? If so, that should be made explicit.

• Ballantyne had a "deep religious conviction" and felt it his duty to educate Victorian middle-class boys – his target audience – in "codes of honour, decency, and religiosity" - Ballantyne was no different than many children's authors of his day in this respect. Does the source mention that, because it might be worth adding. This sentence makes it sound like Ballantyne was different somehow.
  • Hmmm I can't say I hear that. The source states it all very matter-of-factly, and I think our article reflects it neutrally (see the source). I mean, I could add "like most Victorian writers" or so, but the source doesn't actually say that, and most readers probably don't know that it was a general attitude. Eric, do you have any ideas for tweakage? Drmies (talk)
    • If you could find a source that does say that, it would be nice because it was such a widespread practice. Any survey of 19c children's literature would probably say it. Wadewitz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• The first edition of The Coral Island was published by T. Nelson & Sons, who had a policy when accepting a manuscript of buying the copyright from the author rather than paying royalties - Again, this was the usual practice, especially for untried authors, in the 19c. It might be worth pointing this out. Ballantyne's experience was mirrored by most other authors in the period.
  • I placed a short note--a longer note would require an extensive discussion on copyright laws in Britain and the US. I am sure there are monographs and/or journal articles devoted to the very topic which could more profitably be cited, but I hope this suffices. (Fascinating topic, by the way; unfortunately, Copyright law of the United Kingdom is silent on the topic.) Drmies (talk)

• The Coral Island employs "aspects of evolutionary theory" - This paragraph needs more detail about what aspects of evolutionary theory are in the book and how they play out. The paragraph as it stands really just lists names and doesn't help the reader understand how this new idea influenced the actual text. The actual information comes in the "Themes" section, which makes me think this whole paragraph should be moved there.
  • I've tried to separate them out also in hopes of not bloating the Themes section too much with background information. I've followed your suggestion, though, and got a bit specific--in fact there was a pretty significant quote to be gotten from McCulloch, and I've taken the less meaningful "aspects of" quote out. See what you think. Drmies (talk)
    • This is better but the last sentence seems rather awkward - is there a way to group all of the natural evolution material together and all of the social material together? Wadewitz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I shifted the last to the beginning of that section. Is that better? Eric? Drmies (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Literary and historical context" is about genre - about Robinsonsades, so it seems to belong to the "Genre and style" section, where that topic returns.
  • See above: the Robinsonade was a very happening genre, and I would prefer to keep "Genre and style" more specific to the novel. If Eric also thinks that these sections should be combined that's fine. Drmies (talk)

    I think I largely agree with Wadewitz, although I'd probably think about splitting parts of that paragraph off rather than just moving the whole thing. I'll have a bash at that. Eric Corbett 01:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

    ... OK, I've had a bash. See what you think now. Eric Corbett 01:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

    • Now that last sentence is just hanging there. Maybe move the sentence about a history of ideas to the beginning of the paragraph and then get more specific? Wadewitz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

      Hmmm, I see what you mean, so I've moved a couple more sentences around. Eric Corbett 22:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the "Themes" section, there should be an entire paragraph devoted to imperialism and orientalism. These are the two major issues that modern critics write about in relation to this novel, but they are rather buried in a paragraph that begins "modern critics find darker undertones in the novel". Highlight these two themes more and organize this paragraph a bit better.

• The second paragraph in "Influence" about how the novel represents typical Victorian ideas might be better used in the "Themes" section.

  I think I agree, so I've moved it. Eric Corbett 01:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• The "Reception" section is extremely thin when it comes to contemporary reception. Have you searched 19c newspaper and magazine databases? I would help you search them, but my current institution doesn't subscribe to them (sad face). Do either of you have access to them? I'm surprised that none of the sources you consulted listed any reviews in the bibliographies.

  I've looked through the online archives for The Times, The Observer and The Guardian, and none appears to have published a review of the book. Eric Corbett 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Lol. No those papers would not have. What I meant was do you have access to databases like these which index more obscure papers and magazines which might have reviewed the book. Searching individual newspapers one by one won't be effective for a period in which newspapers flourished like weeds. :) Also, have you tried various periodicals like the Quarterly Review? The database British Periodicals Online brings together a lot of these and many of them reviewed children's books in the 19th century. I hope that is helpful! Wadewitz (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  That British Library database has nothing on The Coral Island either. Victoriaearle has suggested that the Oxford Companion to Children's Literature might have something relevant, but she seems to have picked up her ball and gone home for some reason. I'll see if I can get anything from that. Eric Corbett 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions about the above! Wadewitz (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving to go camping in a few hours and won't have internet access again until Sunday. I'll check back then. Wadewitz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment and note to delegates - Apparently my review was disregarded because I'm a new user [32] and I lack the necessary qualifications [33]. I would like to note that I was unaware of the necessity to divulge one's profession, degrees and discipline to review a book.I take this as a serious personal attack. Regardless, the support stands. Furthermore, I won't review another FAC, though I do thank those who've taken the time to review mine. (Truthkeeper88) Victoria (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But you've just struck through your support Victoria. I really do hope you'll reconsider your decision not to take any further part in FAC, as I enjoyed helping with your Ezra Pound article for instance, and I learned a lot from it. Eric Corbett 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm no longer objective, so it's best to strike the support and leave as comments. Victoria (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

Lead

• dystopian: need a wikilink: dystopian ([[dystopian novel|dystopian]]) is probably better than the dystopian redirect in this case.

  I'm happy with that and I've added the link. It's hard to know these days what words readers might find difficult. Eric Corbett 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Themes

• The hierarchy of the natives is imposed by savagery. Ballantyne's message is that leaders should be respected by those they lead, and govern with their consent.:
  The final phrase is too detached from the rest of the sentence: perhaps:
  The hierarchy of the natives is imposed by savagery. Ballantyne's message is that leaders should be respected by those they lead and with whose consent they govern.
• devoted to oral fixation and cannibalism: I only had the faintest idea what this sentence means after following the wikilink. Can we provide some in-article context so a reader can assimilate the sentence without following the link? Perhaps "the Freudian concept of oral fixation" or similar?
  • I've looked at the opening essay in that collection again, and "oral fixation and cannibalism" is a simplification (besides, it's not about the Freudian concept anyway). To explain it (that an explanation is necessary is clear from the title of the 1999 conference, "Fixations: Cannibalizing Theories, Consuming Cultures") would take forever; moreover, the passage we cite doesn't even involve orality, so it was simpler to scrap it. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Savage in Literature: Representations of 'Primitive' Society in English Fiction: Am I correct that we normalise punctuation and similar in a title? In which case double quotes would be better here.
• The domination imposed by "geographical mapping of a territory and policing of its native inhabitants", an important theme in the novel both specifically – the topography of the island as mapped by the boys – and in general – the South Pacific's "eventual subjugation and conversion to Christianity" – is continued in Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island.:
  on first reading I lost track of the dashes. Something to highlight when proofreading is anything which makes it necessary to read a sentence twice. The author has of course read it so often that the problem is no longer apparent. Perhaps:
  The domination imposed by "geographical mapping of a territory and policing of its native inhabitants" is an important theme in the novel both specifically when the boys map the topography of the island and in general with the South Pacific's "eventual subjugation and conversion to Christianity". This theme is continued in Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island.
• and the little coral insect it was believed in Ballantyne's time to be responsible for building coral reefs: "that was believed".

  That seems like a nice change, done. Eric Corbett 00:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Other comments:

• are Robinsonade, Daniel Defoe and Robinson Crusoe overlinked? Perhaps once in the lead and once more in the body of the article are enough?

  Quite possibly. I've removed all the links except for those in the lead and the first occurrence in the article. Eric Corbett 01:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• the whole paragraph about "The novel's exploration of the relationship between nature and evangelical Christianity" reads like nonsense that the reviewers made up in order to write something original. Would it be possible to provide a clearer context for this Victorian viewpoint?
  • I'll see what I can do, but it's not made-up nonsense. If you have access to JSTOR or some other database you can see the two journal articles that argue the point. Coral insects as an allegory of little Christian souls--I wish I could make that kind of stuff up. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Butting in: this can be put into context. Victorians saw in coral reefs a reflection of sprawling imperialism; Darwin's work brought attention to them; and an evangelist wrote a poem about coral and its transformative nature. So these were not unknown concepts in Victorian society, but imo needs to be brought out in a more to the point manner in the article. Victoria (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I expect I will add a bold support after any responses. --Mirokado (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Non-delegate close per an email request from User:Drmies. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [34].

---

Luo Yigu

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is as comprehensive as possible in its current form. It has been awarded GA status and although was not picked up when nominated for peer review, I believe that it fits with the necessary FA criteria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Procedural comment: Sorry to be a pain, but "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." Do you have permission from a delegate to nominate this article at this time? J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Argh! No I don't. Sorry, this was a stupid error on my behalf. I de-nominate this article for now, if that is possible, and hopefully will renominate it again soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering that my other FA candidate, Madeline Montalban, has just been passed, this means that this article is currently the only one which I have nominated for FA status. So, problem sorted I suppose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Check alphabetization of Bibliography
• Publisher for Snow? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Done and done! Thanks Nikkimaria! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [35].

---

Randall Flagg

Nominator(s): CyberGhostface (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fulfills all of the criteria and is an exhaustive look at the character both in-universe and out. It has gone through numerous revisions and copyediting since the last nomination. CyberGhostface (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Who holds copyright to File:Randallflagg7.jpg - illustrator, publisher...?
• File:Walter_o'Dim.PNG: source link is dead, and who is the illustrator? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Whelan is the illustrator for both. They've both appeared in Dark Tower books published by Donald_M._Grant,_Publisher although they've been published elsewhere.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [36].

---

The Girl (2012 HBO film)

Nominator(s): Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I present a rather interesting article about an Alfred Hitchcock biopic which tells the story of his working relationship with the actress Tippi Hedren, and caused some controversy upon its release because of its negative portrayal of the film director. I'm nominating it for featured article because I've invested a lot of time in it and believe it's fairly close to FA standard. It covers the topic broadly, and in a neutral tone. It is also fairly stable. It went through GA in January, and has received an extensive copyedit courtesy of Baffle gab1978, who is an accomplished copyeditor. July 2014 will see the 50th anniversary of the release of Marnie, the second of Hitchcock's collaborations with Hedren, and regarded by some as the last of his great works, so it would be great to see this on the front page to coincide with that. Enjoy. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that because I edit with the use of assistive technology there may be some issues I will have difficulty addressing. See my disclaimer for further details. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

I did the GA review of this article in January, and I see it's been expanded quite nicely since then. I've done a little copyediting, and these are a few issues I've found on a first pass:

• Prose
  • In the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead, Hedren is mentioned for the first time without saying who she is. Perhaps it would be better to change the second sentence in this paragraph to: "The Girl stars Sienna Miller as Tippi Hedren and Toby Jones as Alfred Hitchcock, ...". The subsequent linking of Hedren and Hitchcock will then have to be removed.
    • Done.
  • The "Controversy" and "Criticism and reaction" sections seems to be covering the same topic. Is there a reason it has been split in two, or am I missing something?
    • Controversy primarily focuses on Hedren's claims about Hitchcock's alleged behaviour, whereas Criticism is more centred on reaction to the film itself, but I see your point. Merging them would create an unwieldy section. Any thoughts on what to do here?
      • Thanks, I see the distinction now; I think it's ok as it is. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Images
  • File:The-girl.jpg: please add "|image has rationale=yes" to {{Non-free poster}}. The FUR is present.
    • Done, I think, but please check.
  • None of the images have any alt text. I don't see this as been a requirement at WP:FA Criteria, but the toolbox near the top of WP:FAC has a tool to check for this.
    • Done.

—Bruce1ee^talk 10:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: quotes longer than 40 words should be blockquoted, and in general it seems like there are quite a few long quotes - almost a full 35% of the readable prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll take another look at this and see whether I can chop some of them down a bit. If it is a major problem then I'll run it through the copy edit mill again. Let me know what you think. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

ok, done some trimming. Chopped out some of the superfluous parts of the quotes and converted some to prose. There shouldn't be any that exceed 40 words now, but let me know if there are and I'll take another look. To enable quick access to them please be as specific as possible. Thanks Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [37].

---

Led Zeppelin

Nominators: SabreBD (talk) and Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I was a latecomer to this article, despite my history of contributions to similar band and musician biographies, while Sabrebd has been contributing for nearly three years now. Over the past month, I've given the article a thorough copy edit, adjusted some awkward prose, and we are both now confident that it meets the Featured Article criteria. Last time around this article received a regrettably small amount of input, and I hope we can remedy that this time. I'd like to thank everyone in advance for your reviews and comments! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by GabeMc

Lead

• The lead currently makes no mention of who wrote the band's lyrics. Perhaps a brief mention of the Page-Plant songwriting team is in order.

I've added a sentence on the Page-Plant collaboration, as well as a mention of Jones' later role, to the second paragraph. I've had to switch around some of the surrounding prose, so let me know if you think I've negatively affected any of it. Thanks for your comments, Gabe! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Consistency. - The lead says: "The group's heavy, guitar-driven sound, rooted in blues rock on their early albums ...", but the section "Musical style" says: "Led Zeppelin's music was rooted in the blues.[13]" Which is it? Blues or blues rock? I realise that the two genres are quite similar, but they are not synonymous.

Great point. I've changed both instances to "blues." They were playing blues rock, but were decidedly rooted in the blues. They were influenced by Albert King and Muddy Waters more than Canned Heat or Cream. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Clarity. - "They viewed their albums as indivisible and complete listening experiences and disliked releasing their songs as singles." Perhaps true, but they did release 16 singles in 10 years, so they were obviously either willing or legally obligated to do so (the article says they had the "final say"). This seems like it could use a re-work, or perhaps this particular point isn't needed in the lead.

I agree that it doesn't belong in the lead. I'll give this whole situation another look and see if I can clarify it in-article. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Verbose. - "After changing their name from the New Yardbirds, Led Zeppelin signed a deal with Atlantic Records at the beginning of their career that afforded them considerable artistic freedom." Consider trimming "at the beginning of their career".

Done. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Excess modifier. - "the group disbanded following Bonham's sudden death in 1980." Consider omitting the word, "sudden" and maybe expanding briefly on his cause of death. i.e.: "the group disbanded in 1980 following Bonham's death from alcohol related asphyxia."

Done. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Consistency. - Why does the lead call their fourth album untitled, but the Wikipedia article page for the album is called Led Zeppelin IV?

The short version is: The album was catalogued with no title. The article is titled Led Zeppelin IV since that is the common name. Since that policy only applies to article titling, though, I think we should use the official title (or lack thereof) here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Formation

• Prose. - "with Plant on harmonica, was the first studio track to feature all four members of the future Led Zeppelin". Consider reworking as: "with Plant on harmonica, was the first studio track to feature all four members of the still unformed Led Zeppelin", or similar. Calling them "the future Led Zeppelin" sounds awkward IMO.

Point taken. I've changed it to your suggested version for now, but I wonder if "all four future members of Led Zeppelin" might be clearer? Not a big deal, and I think it's okay now, but let me know what you think. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think "all four future members of Led Zeppelin" is fine and a significant improvement over "the future Led Zeppelin". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Prose. - "The word 'balloon' was transformed into 'zeppelin', perhaps an exaggeration of the humour, and to Page the name conjured the perfect combination of heavy and light, combustibility and grace". 1) "The word 'balloon' was transformed into 'zeppelin'" needs work. The word didn't transform, they swapped words. 2) "perhaps an exaggeration of the humour" sounds like either WP:OR, or close paraphrasing. 3) "and to Page the name conjured the perfect combination of heavy and light, combustibility and grace." This strikes me as again, either unencyclopedic prose or close-paraphrasing.

First issue addressed. I'll check the sources and see what I can do about 2 or 3. I agree it could definitely be better. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice catch! It was indeed a close paraphrase; replaced it with a direct quote of Shadwick and removed the "exaggeration" bit. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Grant secured an advance deal of $200,000 from Atlantic Records in November 1968, which was then one of biggest deals of its kind for a new band.[24]" I suggest a slight reword so as to avoid using the word "deal" twice in the sentence.

Changed to "Grant secured a $200,000 advance contract...". Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Missing article. - "Under the terms of their contract, the band had autonomy in deciding when they would release albums and tour, and had the final say over the contents and design of each album."

I'm not sure about this one, actually. In my experience it's much more common to hear the phrase used without the article. I could very well be wrong, though. I've asked at RDL. Looks like you were right. Fixed! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Clarity. - "When Dreja dropped out of the project to become a photographer[14] (he would later take the photograph that appeared on the back of Led Zeppelin's debut album),[15] Jones contacted Page about the vacant position at the suggestion of his wife". At the suggestion of whose wife?

Jones' wife. Clarified, I think. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Clarity. - "Having known Jones from his session days, Page agreed to let him join as the final member.[16]" Whose session days? It sounds like Page was a session musician not Jones, as "his" seems to refer to Page.

Yes, Page was very much a session musician. Jones was as well, but this refers to Page specifically. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, but since Jones was also a session musician, and since neither man's session work is explained in the article, this seems to lack clarity, IMO. Maybe its just me, but this seems like it might confuse the casual reader. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been clarified, I think. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Clarity. - "Atlantic were a label with a catalogue of mainly blues, soul and jazz artists, but in the late 1960s they began to take an interest in British progressive rock acts. Record executives signed Led Zeppelin without having ever seen them, largely on the recommendation of singer Dusty Springfield.[25][26]" This would seem to imply that Atlantic viewed Zep as a progressive rock act, but that genre is not currently listed in the infobox genre field. Also, in Musical style it states: "Towards the end of their recording career, they moved to a more mellow and progressive sound, dominated by Jones' keyboard motifs.[150]" So, were they progressive at the start when Atlantic signed them or was this a later development as the article seems to imply.

• Incorrect article. - "One account of how the new band's name was chosen held that Moon and Entwistle had suggested that the supergroup with Page and Beck would go down like a "lead balloon", an idiom for disastrous results.[22]" 1) Since Moon and Entwistle were speaking in generalities, I think you want to use an indefinite article here not a definite one i.e., Beck never joined Zep. 2) The inline explanation of what the phrase "lead balloon" means seems excessive and/or awkward, IMO.

Fixed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Accuracy. - "Grant secured a $200,000 advance contract from Atlantic Records in November 1968, which was then one of biggest deals of its kind for a new band.[24]" 1) According to Wall, the advance was $143,000 the first year of the 5-year deal with four one-year options worth a total of $220,000 over five years, not $200,000 upfront. 2) "then one of biggest deals of its kind for a new band" might be an understatement. Wall wrote: "[the contract] came with the largest single advance ever offered to an unsigned artist."(Wall, 2008, p.81) Which was $143,000, not $200,000.

Both fixed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Accuracy. - "Record executives signed Led Zeppelin without having ever seen them, largely on the recommendation of singer Dusty Springfield.[25]" According to Wall (page 82), Springfield praised Jones' arranging abilities, not Led Zeppelin per se. Also, Wexler was already trying to sign the band before Dusty's recommendation.

Yes, finding a proper reference for the Springfield bit has been problematic, and I've yet to find a source that explicitly says Atlantic signed them on her recommendation. I'm going to trim it for now; probably trivial anyway. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Early years 1968–70

• Accuracy. - The article currently states: "Due to his contract with CBS Records, Plant received no credit for his songwriting contributions [on their first album].[32]" However, in The Rough Guide to Led Zeppelin, Page is quoted stating that he wrote all the lyrics on their first album and that Plant's first attempt at writing lyrics became "Thank You" (written for Plant's then wife), from the second album.(Williamson, 2007, p.65)

Yeah, Lewis would appear to be mistaken on this point. Removed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Glaring omission. - The article fails to mention that after their US tours and before the release of their first album Plant's position in the band was tenuous at best following a strong critical backlash against the singer. (Williamson, 2007, p.55)
• Contradiction? - The article currently states: "Without the band's consent ... some songs were released as singles, particularly in the US.[36]" However, in Formation, it says: "the band ... had the final say over the contents and design of each album. They would also decide how to promote each release and which tracks to release as singles." Were these singles released illegally? If so, what was the outcome? This point is left hanging without clarification, IMO.
• Clarity. - "The first show was in Denver on 26 December 1968, followed by other West Coast dates before the band travelled to California to play Los Angeles and San Francisco.[29]" 1) This sounds like Denver is on the West Coast and 2) You should maybe mention that the first West Coast dates were in Seattle.(Wall, 2008, p.103)
• Expand detail. - "The first show was in Denver on 26 December 1968". Maybe we should mention that 1) Zep were booked as the opening act for Vanilla Fudge,(Wall, 2008, p.92) and 2) during the first US tour they accepted substantially less pay per show then the Yardbirds had earned: $2,500 versus $200 for some, resulting in a net financial loss for the tour.(Wall, 2008, p.89, 145)
• Expand/missing detail. - The article does not mention that after the second show at the Fillmore East on 31 May 1969 (the end of their second US tour), Atlantic held a party for Zep and awarded them a gold record for their first album.(Wall, 2008, p.144)
• Omission. - Their second US tour earned them $5,000 to $15,000 per night, with their end take being $150,000 to split between the four of them; a considerable turnaround from the financial loss of the first tour.(Wall, 2008, p.145)
• Lacking detail. - Regarding the above point, I see no mention of the low-budget nature of their first US tour. They flew coach, used frequent-flyer discounts, travelled through the night to avoid hotel costs in one car and transported all their equipment in one medium sized U-Haul truck.(Wall, 2008, pp.104–105)
• Omission. - I see no mention that Randy California introduced Page to the Theremin during Zep's first US tour. Page bought one soon after and used it extensively during live performances.(Wall, 2008, p.99–100)
• Omission. - I see no mention of Page's innovative use of a violin bow during live performances. This highlight was a theatrical device that had become a center-piece of their shows by the second US tour.(Wall, 2008, p.102)

2000s and beyond

• Redundancy. - This section mentions their Polar Music Prize, their Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award and their induction into the UK Music Hall of Fame, however; the section "Awards and accolades" repeats this info.

Fixed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Musical style

• Prose. - "The influence of the abrupt, non-fluid American blues of Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters and Skip James was particularly apparent, especially on Led Zeppelin and Led Zeppelin II.[128]" 1) What does "abrupt, non-fluid" mean? 2) "particularly apparent, especially". Two modifiers this close seems clumsy to me.

Both fixed. It was specifically the country blues style of Wolf that Gulla was referring to, speaking of Waters and James only in generalities. I hope that's clear enough now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification, expand detail. - The article currently states: " ...would lead to later accusations of plagiarism and some legal disputes over copyright.[127]" I think this needs some clarification, since in The Rough Guide to Led Zeppelin, Williamson writes that Willie Dixon received an out-of-court settlement, which is a bit more then "accusations of plagiarism" would suggest.(Williamson, 2007, p.65)
• Accuracy, clarity. - Jones claimed that he and Bonham were not blues fans: "Bonzo and I weren't into the blues at all. I'd never heard of Robert Johnson or Willie Dixon before I joined".(Wall, 2008 <2010 edition>, p.101)

References

• Consistency. - I noticed that some of the refs include both a work and a publisher, but others do not. E.g. Williamson, Nigel (May 2005). "Forget the myths". Uncut. This entry should also include the publisher IPC Media since the article includes both Allmusic and Rovi Corporation. Bosso, Joe (7 January 2009). "'Led Zeppelin are over!', says Jimmy Page's manager". MusicRadar, should include Future plc as the publisher and "50 Best Live Acts of All Time". Classic Rock (118). May 2008, should include TeamRock, etcetera. There are several others, including cites to CNN, whose parent corporation is Time Warner, and to the Observer and the Guardian, published by Guardian Media Group and the Independent, published by Independent Print Limited.

Yeah, looks like ref consistency is indeed an issue. :) Since I've never really been told that both publisher and work need to be specified, I've gone ahead and removed the mention of Rovi. I think just one of those fields can be used and the refs not be considered incomplete, but let me know if you think I need to specify work and publisher on all points (the MoS might cover this somewhere, but I haven't come across it, if so). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think what is most important here is consistency, and I tend to avoid using both the "work" and "publisher" fields in my sourcing. Others may disagree. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed one that you might have missed: "Led Zeppelin at Bron-Yr-Aur". BBC Wales Music. BBC. 2011.
• Also, why the italics in "Led Zeppelin make UK Hall of Fame". BBC Home. 12 September 2006b?

Both of these fixed. Will address your "Formation" comments later today. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Consistency. - I noticed that the reference mark-up is quite inconsistent. In particular, some entries list the author's first name first (incorrect) while others list the author's last name first (correct). Please make this consistent.
• Error. - Wall's When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin, was copyrighted in 2008, not 2009.

Fixed. Will address the consistency point above later today. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Bonham's death and break-up

• Word choice. - "exhibited sonic experimentation", consider "featured sonic experimentation", or similar.

I agree that reads better. Done. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Confusing/fact check. - "An autopsy found no other drugs in Bonham's body, and a verdict of accidental death was returned at an inquest held on 27 October. Bonham was cremated on 10 October 1980". Was he really cremated before the inquest? If so, perhaps consider a rework so as to improve the chronology.

Yes, I can see how that was confusing. He was cremated before the inquest, and I hope the edit I just made cleared up the chronology. Let me know if you think it could use further work. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Awards and accolades

• Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any mention that Rolling Stone ranked Page the 3rd greatest guitarist of all-time, Plant the 15th greatest singer and Led Zeppelin the 14th greatest artist.

I cannot find it but too much Rolling Stone accolades have been an issue of debate in the past. I seem to recall that there was a decision to stick with those for the band not the individuals. Is this essential?--SabreBD (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think its essential, but some might view it as a glaring omission. I take your point about keeping it relevant to the band, versus individual members, but that doesn't explain why the article doesn't mention that RS ranked the band the 14th greatest artist of all-time. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I will go and look that one up for a citation.--SabreBD (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I'm not seeing any mention that RS ranked 5 of their albums in the top 500 of all-time (four in the top 100).

Both Rolling Stone points now added. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In progress ... more to come. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Review suspended; noms havn't addressed any of my comments in more than seven days. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Gabe. Thanks for your comments so far. I've been out of town at a rural location with limited to no internet access. I didn't want to make a public announcement of it, but I had meant to notify you. In any case, I'll take another look here and get some edits done tomorrow night. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments and image review by FunkMonk

I'll read though the article soon, I'm a big fan myself, so I'm sad the article didn't get much attention during previous nominations. I've checked all the images, and the licenses look good, apart from this[38] one. But I've brought it up at Commons, so it may stay or go, depending on the discussion there. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Page was the dominant musical force" sounds a bit loaded. He was the main composer, yes.

A bit more than just the songwriter, but I cannot see how to express that.--SabreBD (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

He had creative control? FunkMonk (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Link for Yardbirds in lead?

Yardbirds are not mentioned in the lead. Did you mean New Yardbirds?--SabreBD (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Yardbirds" could be linked within "New Yardbirds". FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - it is linked now.--SabreBD (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Having known Jones from his session days" This would be unclear to people who don't know what it refers to. Most accounts mention that Page and Jones were session/studio musicians who knew each other from that venue, so why not mention it earlier? Jimmy Page is first mentioned out of the blue, but it could begin stating he was a session musician before joining Yardbirds. Also, it seems to have been brought up during the last review too, with the following suggestion: "In 1966, London-based studio session guitarist Jimmy Page joined...".

Implemented as "In 1966, London-based session guitarist Jimmy Page joined..." — "studio session" seemed somewhat redundant. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• The above makes me wonder whether all issues brought up during previous reviews have been taken care of?

I think it was changed and has be subsequently edited out.--SabreBD (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Robert Plant, a Stourbridge singer for" why is his home town mentioned, when it isn't for the other members?

Agree. Removed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I recall that the band was sued early on by a member of the Zeppelin family for using the name, seems like an oversight that it isn't mentioned.
• "creating a work with a direct sound that was "heavy and hard, brutal and direct" Too many "direct".

Good catch. Trimmed first "direct." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Some early Led Zeppelin concerts" Seems a bit odd that the article is linked that far down. Could be linked already when the first tour is mentioned.
• The cover art is described in depth for some albums, and not at all for others. Any reason for this? Seems a bit arbitrary.
• The lead mentions that they received bad reviews in the early days, but this is not elaborated on at all in the article, and there isn't much description of a transition from bad to good, more like the opposite.
• There is mention of contemporary critical reactions for some albums, none for others.
• "Three sold-out shows at Madison Square Garden in New York City were filmed for a motion picture, but the theatrical release of this project (The Song Remains the Same) was delayed until 1976." and "The recording had taken place during three evening concerts at Madison Square Garden in July 1973, during the band's concert tour of North America." Explanation seems redundant the second time around.

Fixed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• In general, there is little info about each album, which I would expect for a featured band article. See Pink Floyd and Pixies, for example. This article seems more focused on tours, which is alright, but there could be a better balance between the two.
• "the two box sets together containing all known studio recordings" Except Swan Song: http://ultimateclassicrock.com/led-zeppelin-swan-song/ But perhaps that doesn't count...
• "Deep Purple,[154] Black Sabbath,[155] Rush,[156] Queen,[157] and Megadeth[158] as well as progressive metal bands like Tool[159] and Dream Theater." The three last ones seem arbitrarily chosen. I'm pretty sure you could list any rock bands from the late 70s through to the 90s and today.
• "Led Zeppelin have also been described as "the quintessential purveyors"[182] of masculine and aggressive "cock rock", although this assertion has been challenged." By who and why?
• Could be mentioned that the band has refrained from letting their songs be used for commercials and films, though I think Almost Famous was an exception. Could also be mentioned that very little footage of the band exists, and that most of this is from back projections from concerts.
• "but would lead to later accusations of plagiarism and some legal disputes over copyright." Could be elaborated, since this is a very notable issue.

FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - not much is mentioned about Peter Grant's managing the band and the control he exercised. His influence was instrumental in the band's success in the 1970s, I think there should be a bit more about him in the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Update: First, I appreciate everyone's input here very much, and I will be addressing their comments regardless of whether or when this FAC is archived. Unfortunately, I've wound up being out of town longer than I'd expected, so I don't have in front of me the books I would need to address many or most of the above comments. I'm not sure how much free time my co-nom, Sabrebd, might have, but I realize things are getting down to the wire with regard to the typical scheduling of these things. I want to be respectful of everyone else's time, so I won't give an ETA that may wind up coming and going with no response from me. I've not abandoned this FAC, but at the moment I don't actually have direct access to the materials I need in order to properly complete it. Just thought you should know. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Update 2 I was trying to work through the comments, but as luck would have it I have been ill and unable to spend as much time at the computer as I would like. However, I am mostly better and have some time this weekend. I also own the three key biographies of the band, so hope we might be able to resolve the main issues.--SabreBD (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [39].

---

In a Mirror, Darkly

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've been working on several ST episodes, bringing them up to the GA standard and I think that there are a handful which would be suitable for FA (three at the moment, this being the first). Whilst I've done a dozen or so FLs, I've never taken an article to FA before (I had two failed attempts with dog breed articles before, which were mainly due to my lack of knowledge of suitable referencing). There is a single Enterprise episode already at FA so far: These Are the Voyages.... To cover a couple of the expected queries about referencing here - the author of Jammer's Reviews was held in such regard by the producers of Star Trek that they flew him out to California to pitch story ideas for Voyager (admittedly, unsuccessfully!), TrekNation/Trek Today, Trekweb and TrekMovie are three of the only four fan sites recommended by the official Star Trek website here. Miyagawa (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and give a review for this. Ping me if you haven't heard from me in a day or two :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Miyagawa. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• A full review is pending, but I think the plot section could be significantly cut down and made more accessible to non-Star Trek fans (i.e., cutting down on the jargon—don't need to mention transporting if it's not relevant, etc.) I'd taken a first whack at it myself, but it needs more work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've managed to trim another 200 or so characters off of it - mostly from the first part. Miyagawa (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment Check for overuse of the word "episode" throughout the article.122.172.45.13 (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not entirely sure how else to refer to the episode in question within the article, otherwise I'd have to use the title repeatedly which would be longer and probably look very repetitive. Miyagawa (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Installment? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough - reduced the "episode" count down by a quarter using installment and some copyediting. Miyagawa (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC nomination) This article In a Mirror, Darkly seems to have taken a bit of inspiration for its model from These Are the Voyages..., and I've noticed the quality improvement efforts over time of both articles with pleasure. Great work with the referencing throughout. It would be nice to see if there were any secondary source commentary somewhat elaborating upon the comments by Linda Park about her character Hoshi Sato and her development in this episode. Particularly if there has been any sort of analysis about this from scholarly academic sources. Also, it'd be nice if some of those redlinks could be made into sourced stubs. But neither are of a necessity and the article is indeed quite high quality. — Cirt (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• "Jammer's Reviews" - what makes this a high-quality and reliable source?
• Ref 33: I am not sure how this source should be used or interpreted - can you clarify?
• Ref 34: returns "address not found" (Later: I checked it again and it worked. The checking tool lists it as broken, so I'd keep an eye on it)

All other links working. Subject to above, sources look OK. Spotchecks not done. Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Jammer's Reviews started with reviews of Star Trek: Voyager and during the process he ended up discussing Voyager with the producers of the show after they found his reviews online. Following that he was invited to pitch stories to the show (none of which were actually picked up). He reported on the trip here. After Voyager, he reviewed Enterprise and then went back and reviewed the other shows from the DVD releases. The Emmy Awards Database (#33) is pretty much to back-up the more detailed TrekWeb report on the nominations and also to act as a source for the Deadwood award win (which is why I didn't mention in the text which episode of Deadwood won - because the database doesn't say). I'll keep an eye on 34, I checked archive.org but it isn't on there unfortunately. Miyagawa (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I should say - I consider the reviews on the Jammer site to be reliable as the producers of Voyager took his opinions seriously enough to invite him to pitch. Just realised I hadn't made that specifically clear. Miyagawa (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Image note: infobox image is currently nominated for deletion. Other images are okay copyright-wise, although captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the check - I've removed the image out the infobox, I think it is made redundant by the costume image further down. I've changed the other image captions to include periods as I think they are all full sentences. Miyagawa (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [40].

---

Apogee Stadium

Nominator(s): Runfellow (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my second nomination of this article, as the first one just sort of sat around before being archived. I believe I have addressed the major points of the first review. Since that time, I have kept the article current and have added content and information. The article is as well-researched and comprehensive as anyone could ever get about the subject, it has been stable since the last review, and no one has raised any major issues. Your suggestions and feedback are appreciated. Thanks. – Runfellow (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice WP:NBA went nearly 4 years without an FA. When I did Juwan Howard, I tracked down everyone who is still active who reviewed more than one of the current NBA FAs and asked them to come take a look. I would go through WP:FA and find all the stadia. Go through the passing FA nominations and find all the people who have been involved in more than one. Ask them to take a look at this. I would also request that you come take a look at my Tommy Amaker FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; I'll see what I can do about contacting some people. – Runfellow (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

• Why is the architect not mentioned in the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why is the architect not mentioned in the LEAD? – Dunno. I put them in there now, though. – Runfellow (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I doubt they built a stadium to host 6 events per year. What else other than NT football has happened at the stadium?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• What else other than NT football has happened at the stadium? – According to this source, the original plan was that "in addition to hosting UNT events, it will serve the community as a venue for concerts, competitions, high school games, and local events." But other than a single regional marching band contest in 2012 (it has since been moved to Eagle Stadium in Allen for 2013), I've yet to find any sources referring to pretty much anything else being held there except an occasional university meeting or two. The Ticketmaster profile for the venue has not listed any events other than UNT football games. – Runfellow (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Can you augment the article with this content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Added the BOA stuff. Ticketmaster is (rightly) blacklisted as a "source" but it wouldn't be much of a source anyway. – Runfellow (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• What about Mean Green Track & field?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no track at the new stadium. A bit of disclosure: I'm all the more aware of this because I was on the track team at the time it was proposed. – Runfellow (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Early planning and finance

• It is not clear to me how a football stadium would help meet Title IX since at most school there were traditionally more men's sports than women's.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• The implication here is that Title IX was just used as an excuse to raise the fee. The initial fee wasn't meant to pay for the stadium, per se (though whether or not the land for the Mean Green Village would have been purchased without an increase is probably up for debate), but it provides context for the stadium fee vote, in that (a) students had already rejected a previous athletics fee, (b) they had been overruled, and (c) they voted to recall the student senators who overruled them. – Runfellow (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Can you find a critic that says Title IX was an excuse to raise the fee.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This source pretty much explains it. Not sure if I know what you're asking for, though. – Runfellow (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: I found some information from the university itself that gave me a bit more information and detail as far as how the 2002 fee was proposed, augmented, eventually passed, etc. and I have added it to the article, changing that paragraph significantly. Hopefully that should clear some things up. – Runfellow (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Is Michael Moore an alum?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Is Michael Moore an alum? – No, he just visited the school that year, and when he learned about the situation, he publicly endorsed the idea of students recalling the student senators. – Runfellow (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Also not clear how building a football stadium will help "consolidation of academic facilities"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think my response to this got accidentally deleted while reformatting, no biggie. Here's my original response:

Nor am I, but really all I can do to maintain NPOV here is relate what people said were the reasons at the time. We can't know what Raefs was thinking. It's possible that since Fouts Field was on the side of I-35 with most of the major campus buildings, it's demolition (and the new stadium's construction on the other side) would mean more room for new academic buildings. – Runfellow (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Athletics fee referendum

• "street preachers or troubadours" both are terms that are unfamiliar. Please link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've added wikilinks to Open-air preaching and Troubadours. Thanks for your help and suggestions. – Runfellow (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening

• the 2012 season, average game attendance saw a slight increase to 18,927. Did any game surpass 28,075 or is that still the stadium attendance record?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is still the record. – Runfellow (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• 2012 North Texas Mean Green football team should not be in the main article template. Just link it in the proper paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done. – Runfellow (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Double period in the second paragraph by HKS, Inc. could use fixing.
• The Houston Cougars football team could do with a link later in the same paragraph.
• Reference 52 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed all three, thanks. – Runfellow (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [41].

---

KFC

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have worked on the KFC page for over a year now, getting it from this [42] to this [43]. The article failed its last nomination due in part to a lack of support. The only real criticism of the article was that it did not utilise the book related sources that were available. As these sources were not available freely on Google Books, I applied for a small wikigrant from Wikimedia UK in order to purchase the relevant books. Quick disclaimer: I have never been affiliated with KFC or its parent company in any way, other than as a customer! Nor have any of my family or friends. Lets see if we can make KFC the first fast food featured article. Farrtj (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments: It is a pity, and disheartening, when a nomination has to wait for 16 days for its first comments. The article attracted quite a lot of comment at its last FAC, and I'm not sure why it should be disregarded now. It's an interesting enough subject. To try to get things moving I have looked through the early sections and have a few suggestions concerning the prose:

• It should be made clearer in the lead when the name "Kentucky Fried Chicken" was first employed. The sentence "KFC was founded by Harland Sanders, who began selling fried chicken from his roadside restaurant in Corbin, Kentucky during the Great Depression" gives the impression that KFC began in the 1930s, but the article makes it clear that the name was coined in the 1950s.

I'd rather have a concise introduction than one that is overly detailed and weighed down with minutia. Plus, "Kentucky Fried Chicken" refers to two things: a product devised by Colonel Sanders and a company. The product itself began when Sanders began selling it. Technically the concept began in the 1930s. The 1950s saw the first independent franchise. Farrtj (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "...as it went through a series of corporate owners" – I think a more correct wording would be "as it went through a series of changes of corporate ownership"

I disagree.Farrtj (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I suggest you reconsider. Your phrasing is loose; businesses do not go through owners, they go through changes in ownership. FAC requires prose of a professional standard. Brianboulton (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed.Farrtj (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "...a signature of the chain since being introduced by franchisee Pete Harman" – a date should be given here

Done.Farrtj (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• "across the street" twice in quick succession in the first "Origins" paragraph

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Made-up composite words such as "production-time-reducing" do your prose no favours. What's wrong with: "As well as reducing production time to be comparable with deep frying..."

Done.Farrtj (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Something wrong with the punctuation and construction here: "The take-out concept grew as Americans became more prosperous: choosing to buy meals outside the home more frequently, and was complimented by the growing television culture." A possible reconfiguration: "As Americans became more prosperous and chose to eat out more frequently the take-out concept grew, complemented [note spelling] by the growing television culture".

sorted.Farrtj (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• After first mention, Pete Harman should remain just "Harman" – you have him several times as "Pete Harman" again.

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Brown later claimed that Sanders had lost interest in the business operations of KFC, and persuaded him to buy the company". This needs better explanation, and the word "claimed" is misused. Something like this: "According to Brown, Sanders had lost interest in the business operations of KFC, and suggested that Brown should buy the company". You then need to say how and by whom it was decided that Massey should acquire a 60% share, otherwise it all looks very ad hoc.

Done.Farrtj (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. I may not have time to continue this review, but hopefully someone else will. I will, however, do the sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

I have only done the first column so far. A couple of general points:

• Where you have multiple references to a book, it would help considerably if the book details were given once, in a bibliography, and short citations used. Your references list is dreadfully cluttered with information repeated over and over again.
• If you cite a newspaper or journal without an online link, you should provide a page number.

I believe this to discouraged on Wikipedia (at least in some quarters), as different editions of a daily newspaper might put the same article on a different page.Farrtj (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Farrtj is right - WP:CITEHOW#Newspaper articles states that page numbers are optional. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The MOS guidelines says that page numbers are optional, but the practice at FAC has long been to include them. They greatly assist newspaper searches, especially when the papers or journals run to dozens of pages. The off-chance that a later edition might shift the article to a different location isn't a good enough reason for not including them at all. Brianboulton (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A large number of my newspaper article sources come from the database LexisNexis, which never gives page numbers for its newspaper sources. So rather than have most of my newspaper references not have page numbers, and some that do, which is inconsistent, which is certainly something that ought to be avoided as per Wikipedia:CONSISTENCY, I have provided no page numbers for newspapers.Farrtj (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Individual issues:

• Ref 5: links to an unrelated page

The link has been removed.Farrtj (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 6: page numbers required

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 8: Worldcat gives the ISBN for this book as 978-08841-9053-0. Page numbers should be given for each of the references to this book

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 10: page number?
• Ref 19: page numbers?
• Ref 30: Is "People" a print source? If not, it should not be italicized

Yes it is.Farrtj (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 34 needs better formatting so that the nature and origin of the source is clear

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 35: page number?
• Ref 40: This source requires a subscription

done.Farrtj (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 44: page number?
• Ref 47: This source requires article purchase

sortedFarrtj (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 52: page number?
• Ref 55: publisher information missing

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 57: requires isssue number and date

sorted.Farrtj (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 59: title of Daily Mirror article?

It doesn't have one.Farrtj (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 64: page number?
• Ref 70: page number?
• Ref 72: page number?

I'll continue with the sources review as soon as I can.

Comment : I GA reviewed this article, and it passed, so I don't feel it's right for me to decide whether or not to list this as a FA, but I'm happy to run through the article again, and my previous comments at the GA review, to see if anything is relevant. One quick comment I do want to make is I'm still not really comfortable with "$4.5 billion ($6,435,634,328 in 2013 dollars)" - I recall we decided it wasn't a deal-breaker to pass GA, but I feel different for FA. When large financial figures are given, such as the public company evaluation figure presented here, they are highly unlikely to be accurate to the nearest penny, and doing an exact conversion is misleading. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the 6.5 billion dollar guesstimate.Farrtj (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah no, that's not quite what I was getting at. The idea is that it's useful to know roughly how much $4.5bn is in today's money so the casual reader has an understanding of how much money's involved. WP:MOSNUM#Large numbers doesn't directly say anything about converted figures, but it does state that they're assumed to be approximations - so how about "$4.5 billion ($6.4 billion in 2013 dollars)"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Just one comment from me. This is a very minor nitpick, but I have an issue with the logo caption in the infobox. "The 2006-present logo" doesn't read that well to me or sound very good coming off the tongue. May I suggest something else, like "The logo used since 2006" or something, or is there a certain guideline for such captions? TCN7JM 11:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking further down in the article, there's another image caption that does the same type of thing. It just doesn't look or sound right. TCN7JM 11:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the first caption, but I think the second caption is fine as it is.Farrtj (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Another nitpick from yours truly. The lead says that the chain expanded internationally to England, Mexico and Puerto Rico. How is Puerto Rico considered international? It is a commonwealth of the United States. TCN7JM 10:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll change the wording from "internationally" to "overseas".Farrtj (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Leaning to oppose: I do not wish to oppose this article, but there are several points raised by me earlier in the review that are answered unsatisfactorily or not at all:

• Prose: I pointed out a prose error in the lead - "it went through a series of corporate owners". Businesses do not go through owners. A simple change of "owners" to "ownerships" would suffice, but the nominator's dogmatic refusal to recognise this and effect the change makes we dubious about the standards of prose likely to be found in the rest of the article.

I would be dissapointed if you were to write off an entire article due to its introduction. I have changed the intro wording now.Farrtj (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 8 has 14 unpaged references to a book. This is not acceptable at FAC. No effort appears to have been made to address this.

I will need time to do this, as obviously I will have to re-read the source material in order to find out the page numbers.Farrtj (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok I've sorted this one out with page numbers now.Farrtj (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Page numbers in newspaper/journal references: It has long been the practice at FAC to require page numbers for cited newspaper and magazine articles. This is of assistance to anyone searching for the sources, and there is no valid reason why they should not be given. The fact that MOS says that they are optional is not a reason for omitting them.

This will take an inordinate amount of time to do.Farrtj (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I will complete the sources review when these points have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Leaning to oppose :Okay, so it seems that page numbers are a point of contention. I agree that book sources have to have page numbers - I managed to talk my way round a GA review failing once because I only provided chapter numbers, and if it was contentious at GA, it's sure as hell going to be for FA. I'm a little more ambivalent about the newspaper references. On the one hand, MOS explicitly says they are optional. On the other, the point has been given that many other FAC reviews use them since we need to be able verify everything here, which suggests they should be mandatory in the MOS requirements.

It would be a shame to have to come back to FA review #4 just because physically accessing the source to get the page numbers is a ball-ache, but FA is supposed to represent the crème de la crème of Wikipedia after all. There's also the unfinished issue regarding financial estimates as mentioned upthread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The 'operations' section remains unbalanced. For instance, the 840 stores in the UK and Ireland still get three paragraphs, while the 700 stores in South Africa (also an English-speaking country) receive half a sentence. Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have now expanded the South African section, but bear in mind that the UK and South African markets are not directly comparable. KFC only returned to SA in 1994, whereas it has operated continuously in the UK since 1965. That means there is a lot more to say about the history of KFC in the UK than in SA.Farrtj (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that the material you just added states that KFC attempted to dodge the sanctions against doing business in apartheid South Africa, I imagine that there's lots more to say on the topic. This seems a rather larger scandal than the short-lived and trivial legal disputes with a couple of British restaurants which gets a para. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong. What KFC did was standard practice among American companies, and isn't particularly notable. PepsiCo did the same thing for example.Farrtj (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

More comments - I have gone through the article and made a couple of minor corrections. For future reference, in full location names, commas are supposed to come after state names, and "east of the Mississippi" was accidentally linked to the state of Mississippi. Somebody else may want to go through the rest of the article and see if there are any more links directing the reader to the incorrect page. TCN7JM 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [44].

---

LeBron James

Nominator(s): Ktmartell (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because LeBron James is a great basketball player, and as such deserves a great article. I believe it meets the nomination criteria. Ktmartell (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It might be a good idea to suspend this until the playoffs are over, since the article will probably require a number of updates, no matter what happens. Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree, the 2013 NBA Finals will be over in only a couple of weeks. There will surely be a lot of post-mortem analysis, which we might as well wait for before finalizing this FAC.—Bagumba (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Bagumba

For disclosure, I am among one of the article's more frequent editors. I do not currently plan on doing a complete review here.

1. Under "Player profile", his clutch play seems incomplete without mention of his 2012 Finals and Olympic performance improving the perception of his dominance. The effects of his 2012 feats probably should have some mention in "Public image". It seems that fallout from "The Decision" should receive some mention in "Public image" regarding its impact.—Bagumba (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

   The Decision backlash was already mentioned in the article. Striking that part above.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

2. There's some inconsistently formatted references that list website first and use "accessed" instead of "retrieved" like: "nba.com, James, Cavs Top Mavs To Clinch Playoff Berth, accessed May 1, 2007."—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
3. While it's good that opinions are attributed in the article, attributions to somewhat obscure writers like Ryan Jones, Kirk Goldsberry, and Rob Mahoney might be better attributed to their more recognizable publications (e.g. SLAM Magazine, Grantland, etc).—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am hoping elevated editorial activity will die down within a day or two. Still waiting for days with less than three edits before I begin to comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments – These are just some general points from a light reading; I haven't gone into detail on this one either.

• High school career: There are quite a few areas here where St. Vincent-St. Mary's needs an en dash to replace the hyphen.
• Rookie season: "becoming the youngest player in league history to score at least 40 points in a game at 19 years." Feels like it's missing "old" at the end of the sentence.
• Same goes for the first paragraph of Rise to superstardom.
• 42-40 needs an en dash.
• Same for 66-16 in the most recent season, and 2-3.
• I'm not convinced that the Vogue cover or King Kong poster can be justified by WP:NFCC. Do we really need the images to understand why an issue was raised?
• Not sure how reliable a YouTube link is (reference 59).
• Refs 113, 128, and 135 need further formatting.
• All caps in ref 213 should be removed.
• Bare links exist in refs 199, 203, and 249. These should be fixed as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been about a week and we haven't had any responses at FAC on these or Tony's comments below, and I still see some of these issues in the article. With FAC as busy as it is, I don't think this should be kept here much longer if nobody is going to address the items raised. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from TonyTheTiger

WP:LEAD

• Prior to the last week the LEAD was stable with references to his H.S. National player of the year. Now it says some vague stuff: "James played high school basketball at St. Vincent–St. Mary High School in his hometown of Akron, Ohio, where he was highly promoted in the national media as a future NBA superstar. "
  • Highly promoted????--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Add back the List of U.S. high school basketball national player of the year awards link from before.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Why is the 2013 Finals link under "second consecutive title" rather than 2013?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Why are 2010–11 Dallas Mavericks season and 2011–12 Oklahoma City Thunder season linked but not the 2012-13 Spurs?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Career

• Please check all the content that has been removed since the championship. Youngest to 10K, 15K, 20K points and such should be restored.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I concur with Giants2008 (talk · contribs) above. This nomination should be closed. If this is renominated, the offseason is preferable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [45].

---

Voivode of Transylvania

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I hope it can be improved to reach FA status without substantial changes. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A few comments, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)

• "This article is about the royal governors of Transylvania in the Kingdom of Hungary between the 11th and 16th centuries. For the rulers of the Principality of Transylvania in the 16th and 17th centuries, see Prince of Transylvania. For the members of the Hungarian royal family bearing the title duke of Transylvania in the 13th or 14th century, see Duke of Transylvania. ... Many place names in this article are given in German, Hungarian and Romanian, as all these languages were spoken by various communities in the territory at various times.": Too much meta-information for the lead section

Shortened. Thank for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The Voivode of Transylvania or voevode of Transylvania": The voivode of Transylvania (since there are so many spellings in the lead paragraph, the lead would probably be better off without this one, but if you keep it, don't repeat Transylvania). - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Voevode of Transylvania" deleted. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Latin: voivoda Transsylvaniae or vaivoda Transsilvanus": Since the Latin is so close to the English, it would be better to remove it from the lead section.

"Vaivoda Transsilvanus" deleted, but one Latin expression preserved (in the Middle Ages, Latin was the language of all official documents in the Kingdom of Hungary). Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "superior of the ispáns": the word "superior" leaves open the question of whether they were the most influential ispáns themselves in addition to their other duties.

New wording. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "their jurisdiction never covered the whole province": "superior of the ispáns" means all of them ... so, it's not all of them, right? Maybe "most of the ispáns"

Yes, they were the superiors of all the ispáns of the c o u n t i e s, but they did not have jurisdiction over the autonomous Transylvanian Saxon and Székely communities (which were organized into "seats" instead of counties). The latter information added. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "to "grant lands, collect taxes and tolls, or coin money" (Jean W. Sedlar)": Who's Jean W. Sedlar?

Deleted (only the reference to his book is preserved). Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "the last voivodes of Transylvania from the Báthory family ceased to be high-ranking officials": I take it this is nonrestrictive, and if so, you need commas at least, and personally, I prefer more than that, to make sure the readers get it: the last voivodes of Transylvania (from the Báthory family) ..., or the last voivodes of Transylvania, who came from the Báthory family, ...

Done. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll stop there. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Query "and even resisted King Andrew III in the fortress of Adorján" I'm not sure whether that means "and even besieged King Andrew III in the fortress of Adorján" or "and was besieged by King Andrew III in the fortress of Adorján". ϢereSpielChequers 07:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

New wording. Thanks for your comment. Borsoka (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• As Romania does not have freedom of panorama, all images of 3D things (including buildings) should include a licensing tag for the 3D object as well as the image. The ones you're using should be all old enough to use life+100
• File:Siebenbürgen_1300-1867.jpg: was a base map used to create this image? It looks scanned from somewhere maybe
• File:Transylvania16cent_adm_div.PNG: source(s)?
• File:Dobo_istvan.jpg needs US PD tag and original source (where did it come from before hu.wiki?)
• File:Scibor2.jpg needs US PD tag, and any more source info?
• File:Ioan_de_Hunedoara.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nikkimaria, thank you for your above remarks. My main concern is that I could not answer your above questions, because I did not do any of those pictures or maps. I am a little bit confused, because all of them have been presented in WP for a long time. Would you please advice me on the proper approach in this case. Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka. Where it's possible for you to add tags, try to do so - there are long lists here and here that might help. If you can find sources where queried through web searches, add those too. Failing that, you can try asking the uploader, if they're still active. Let's see where we stand once you've done these steps. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your above remarks. Sorry, but I am a simple man with no copyright experiences and I do not want to deal with copyright issues. Accordingly, I will not add any tags. If those pictures or maps are suspected to harm copyright of any country in the world, they should be deleted without delay from Commons. Actually, I do not understand how it is possible that those pictures and maps have not been deleted yet. Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am a bit surprised to see that the article barely mentions Romanians when they constituted the majority of the population. No historian has commented on this issue? Nergaal (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you, please, specify your concern? As far as I know the article refers to all the documented cases when there was a direct connection between the voivodes or their deputies and the Romanians (who might have or might have not constituted the majority of the population in Transylvania in the Middle Ages). Is there any other relevant field of interaction which was ignored? Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [46].

---

Dan Bain

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The sixth in my long-term project to have the initial 12 Hockey Hall of Fame inductees brought to FA, Dan Bain is a little different than previous efforts. Active during the 1890's, there is not much literature about his life, so this article is one the shorter side. However that shouldn't be an issue, as it is a concise and detailed article, covering everything available about him. Also, to clarify, I do have the consent of Resolute to initiate this nomination, as he is the primary editor of the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup, and I will try to add what I can to the nomination. Cheers! Resolute 00:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I have not read through this article fully yet, but there are problems immediately apparent. In addition, it does not seem that the article has been substantially worked on since November 2010, which does not suggest a last push to ensure FA standards before nominating. I am not opposing yet, but I think a lot of work is required quite quickly here. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Apart from the first sentence, and one other which begins "Bain", every sentence in the lead starts "He".
• Two of the three sentences in "Early life" begin "His".
• Throughout the whole article, the majority of sentences begin "He", "Bain", "The", or with the occasional noun or pronoun. This is a long way short of the standards of prose required at FA.
• "He led the Victorias to a successful defence against the Toronto Wellingtons in January 1902 before the team lost the Cup to the Montreal Hockey Club in March of that same year. He retired from hockey following the loss.": This is unreferenced.
• Of the two team photographs from the Hockey Hall of Fame site, how do we know they were published before 1923? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  Give me a day or so on this one. If Kaiser matias doesn't take care of it, I'll try to tomorrow. Resolute 00:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I should be able to take care of this by this time tomorrow. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I did a major copyedit of the article, taking care to modify most of the wording and removing several "he/his/etc." As for the images, they were published in contemporary newspapers and commemorative posters celebrating the win. I've looked for online archives of them, but they are unavailable so far as I can tell. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Source for that claim about images? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Given these images would have fallen into the public domain in Canada no later than 1947 and 1952 respectively, I think it more likely they never saw publication in the United States until after those dates than they would have been published south of the border before 1923. How that all affects things, I cannot say. Resolute 00:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• If true (that there was no publication in the US before 30 days), and my knowledge of ocpyright isn't completely off, that would mean Template:PD-URAA. What was the copyright law in Canada in 1996, when the URAA was implemented? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• For photographs it was year of creation +50. A 1999 amendment to Canada's copyright act changed that to creator's life +50, which is why commons:Template:PD-Canada states any image created prior to January 1, 1949 is PD. These images had been public domain in Canada for about a half-century when URAA came into effect. 03:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Then the proper US copyright template would be PD-URAA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose from Crisco 1492

• The flood of "He"'s is not only in the lead. You've got 24 sentences starting with "he", in a 1150-word article. There's probably fewer than fifty sentences here! This suggests a good copyedit is needed.

• That's down to 11, but I think you could trim the number a bit further (Personal life is still replete with hes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• shooting - Link, if you have everything else linked?
• a research facility at the University of Manitoba. - on campus or belonging to? (at/of)
• Image copyright, in particular, needs to be dealt with. File:DanBain1900.jpg should say on the image page that it's cropped from a poster. Otherwise, if that link goes dead we don't have a way to verify earlier publication.
• More comments once you've addressed Sarastro's. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed all these concerns as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, it's getting better so I've struck my oppose. I'll try and give a more detailed review later today (my time) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Overlinking: Scottish . Possibly Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec
• At the age of 17 - Four years later (you just had a sentence which says "At the age of...")
• the Stanley Cup, the national championship of Canada, - Isn't the cup the prize?
• Bain quickly became a star centre and leader for the Victorias; during a challenge for the Stanley Cup, the national championship of Canada, against the Montreal Victorias on February 14, 1896, Bain scored the first goal of the game, a 2–0 victory for Winnipeg that gave them the Cup. - Huge sentence, needs to be split
• and the Manitoba Hockey Hall of Fame - year?
• This feels quite light on subject matter, and it's not clear from the article whether he was a professional or an amateur (assuming such a distinction meant something in those days). It sounds as if he was a successful businessman while doing so many different sports. Is there any more information out there? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Addressed the other comments here. Regarding the Manitoba Hockey Hall of Fame, they have no dates listed for induction. Hopefully they update their site to show this, but for now its got nothing. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Rejectwater External links: Dan Bain's biography at Legends of Hockey - this isn't actually a link to his biography, it's a link to a cover page that itself has a link to his biography. This is generated by a template, I know, but it is misleading. Dan Bain's biography at Canadian Sports Hall of Fame - dead link. Dan Bain's biography at Manitoba Hockey Hall of Fame - links to a search page where the user has to select which category of players to look at, then if they choose wisely they get a list of names to dig through. "Active during the 1890's, there is not much literature about his life, so this article is one the shorter side." I think it is a fantastic article in it's current form, but how do we know there isn't more information available? I'm not asking you to prove a negative, this is a question. How do you go about finding information about such a person and how do you know you have exhausted all available avenues? Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Not including media guides, I have a personal library of about 20 hockey books, most of which relate to history, and as you might expect, the Calgary Public Library has a large number of books related to the same. Google news search (which didn't turn up much, unfortunately), the Hockey Hall of Fame website, and a great deal of creative searches that led, quite fortuitiously, to that Ducks Unlimited piece. Unfortunately, for all of this, pre-WWI amateur era players are often thinly covered as much of the history is written about the pro era. For $10, I could possibly find a little more in the Winnipeg Free Press archives, though I expect anything truly notable from that search would have been covered in other publications. Resolute 23:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) One of the images includes the caption "The Winnipeg Victorias posing for a photo with the Stanley Cup in 1896.". I do not see the Stanley Cup in the image. The other team photo from 1901 clearly shows the Cup in the center of the photo. I cannot discern the presence of the Cup anywhere in the 1896 photo. Rejectwater (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Fixed that. I suspect that was a a cut-paste error when those images were added. Resolute 23:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) I also removed the four ELs. They are all, with working links, used as sources in the article already. Resolute 02:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN3: title should use endash
• Use a consistent date format. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of these issues. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

More comments: There are still quite a few problems, and I am beginning to lean towards opposing. Some comments, just from the lead. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• "An all-around athlete, Bain competed in ice hockey, roller skating, gymnastics, figure skating, golf, cycling and shooting among other sports.": Do we need such a long list in the lead? It makes for dull reading.

Shortened it down to just hockey.

• We now have consecutive sentences in the form "A(n) XYZ, Bain..." in the lead

Changed

• Also in the first paragraph of the lead, there are many clauses "He/Bain was..." which makes for repetitive reading.

Modified that

• Do we need to list all four Halls of Fame into which he was inducted in the lead? Again, a bit ponderous and slows down the opening.

While I would argue that they are each notable, and as a multi-sport athlete it would be important, I have to agree, and cut it down to naming just one by name

• "He was also voted Canada's top athlete of the last half of the 19th century.": When, and by who?

I would really like to know myself. I'm inclined to say it was Canadian sportswriters (they named Lionel Conacher the best Canadian athlete for the first half of the 20th century), but all the sources giving Bain this distinction simply say he was voted, without saying who voted for him.

• "He earned his fortune operating Donald H. Bain Limited": Earned his fortune? This sounds like a character in a fairy tale!

Changed the wording of it, should sound less fanciful.

• "endures today": Seems a grand phrase for an encyclopaedia.

Added new phrasing.

• Generally, the sentence structures being used a very repetitive: "Bain was x. He was also y. In {date], he was z." Too many "was", and we need more variety.

Went through and reworded a lot of sentences, and removed several uses of "was."

• As the article is so short, the prose should really be top-notch as every little flaw shows up. At the moment, I think we are some way from that. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: I suggested above that a lot needed doing quite quickly to make this worthwhile, and nothing has been done for over a week now. Reluctantly, I am switching to oppose; the article does not seem fully ready, and no-one is doing anything! This is not set in stone, but I'd really like to see something happening now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, terribly sorry for the delay, should be good as of now. Addressed these comments, any other issues please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Struck oppose based on the work done so far: my oppose was mainly because not much was happening. I'll carry on with the review in the next day or two. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A few more: Nothing too bad standing out in the prose now, but can't help echoing Crisco above that this just feels a bit light. I'll try to have a last look in a day or two. There's nothing obviously wrong, I won't oppose and I may well support, but it somehow doesn't feel in-depth enough for a FA. I'll have another read. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Watch out for using "would" ("the team would lose..."). There is usually no need and it makes for clunky reading.

Fixed

• Close repetition of "athlete" in the first two sentences of the lead.

Fixed

• Also in the lead: "Outside of hockey..." and "Outside of sports". We should avoid using this construction twice, and I'd prefer to avoid it altogether as I find it slightly informal/unencyclopedic, but it may be an engvar thing.

Removed those

Changed the wording around. Let me know if it's better this way, or the previous way.

• "Bain quickly became a star centre and leader for the Victorias. This was exemplified during a February 14, 1896 game": Does the source explicitly say that the match exemplified those qualities? Just checking.

In short, yes. The recount of his play during the game is one of the only clear accounts of Bain's career, and gives the real only context of how good he was.

• Anything about how he learned hockey? Or when he first played each sport?

If only. I could get into speculation on it, but that's not what we are here for.

• "While the Victorias defended their title in a series against the Toronto Wellingtons in January 1902, Bain did not play in the series.": Does not sound right. Perhaps "When" works better than "while" here.

Fixed

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• There are a few places where the refs are in the wrong order (i.e. not in ascending order when used together at the end of a sentence).

Think I caught all of these. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "with whom he played from 1894 until 1902". Either "with" or "for" needs to go for the sentence to work.
  • This one is still in the lead. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sporting career: "The first game in 1949 when he was elected a member...". "game" → "came".
• Do we know when Bain was inducted into the Manitoba Hockey Hall of Fame?

As noted above, the MHHOF site has not been updated in some time, and an archive search turned up nothing in newspapers.

• Personal life: World War II is such a well-known item that I don't believe a link is needed for it. Better to save the links for the teams and other things that readers will want to research while looking at this. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Addressed all these. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Check ref order. I'm going to try and look at what's online to see if there are any major sources missing; as I said above, this just feels light. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Theft of trophies? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, but feel that it has little bearing on Bain himself. The theft happened several years after he died, and is little more than a footnote in a different story altogether. That said, if the consensus is to add it, I won't oppose that.

• Article contains a bit about the 1902 competetion.
• Have you tried this archive? It could, theoretically, have more sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware the Star had an online archive. Will definitely go through this and see if there's anything. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment – I have a number of comments. I think there are a few points that could do with clarification; detailed footnotes would work well.

• "Bain's first championship came in 1887 when he captured the Manitoba roller skating championship at the age of 13 by winning the three-mile race." - close repetition of 'championship' another source [47] says this was the start of his "athletic" career. Maybe an idea for rewording.
• " he won the provincial gymnastics competition" - the provincial ? I assume the Manitoba competition?
• could "top" lacrosse player be clarified?
• "he made the team five minutes into his tryout." - does this mean that he was selected only five minutes into his tryout?
• "This was exemplified during a February 14, 1896 game against the Montreal Victorias for the Stanley Cup, given to the national hockey champion in Canada, Bain scored the first goal of the game, a 2–0 victory for Winnipeg that gave them the Cup" - I really think this reads poorly. Maybe consider rewording.
• "They were led to a feast in their honour in a parade of open sleighs as fans gathered to celebrate the championship." Maybe "They were led to a feast in their honour in a parade of open sleighs, where fans gathered to celebrate the championship." - or did the fans gather at the parade itself?
• " a challenge to reclaim the Cup in December 1896" - a footnote explaining exactly what a challenge is in this context would be great.
• "but Winnipeg again lost the title" - can you lose a title in a challenge series when you don't hold the cup? Or do you simply not win it?
• "The team would lose their next challenge, against the Montreal Hockey Club, in March of that year, which marked the end of Bain's hockey career." - I'm with Sarastro1 in not being comfortable with the use of "would" in quite the way you have, "The team lost their next challenge" reads much better.
• "Throughout his sporting career, Bain would also earn medals in lacrosse and snowshoeing. " - Redundant, and clunky again. "Outside of Hockey, Bain earned medals in lacrosse and snowshoeing." Also medals is pretty vague, at what level?
• http://www.sportshall.ca/honoured-members/27968/donald-dan-bain-2-2/ gives much more details on the non-hockey aspects of his sporting career. Maybe try and include where possible.
• "He was also voted as Canada's top sportsman of the last half of the 19th century" - do either of the sources say who conducted this vote? It'd be great to know.
• "and after World War II" shouldn't this be Second World War in Canadian English (like here) and it doesn't need linking
• On his career statistics, where are these figures sourced from? As well, an introductory sentence or two may enable you to omit the "MHL Sr." column, and instead say what exactly this is (rather than use an acronym and abbreviation)
• Also, why do some rows in PIM have dashes, and some zero?
• Does anywhere in the Sporting career section actually say what hockey league Bain played in?

I haven't gone through the lead yet, or given the sources a look over, I'll do so relatively soon. I'll also give it another proper read through. - Shudde ^talk 09:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Will go over this within the next day. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.