Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2016

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2016 [1].

Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1999 NFC Championship Game[edit]

Nominator(s): Helltopay27 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the NFC Championship Game. It is a well known play in NFL history that is pointed to as the prime reason why an all-time great team didn't reach the Super Bowl. I started this page as a draft and just made it to an article. I believe that it is of featured article quality. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the lead, you say that a 10-point lead with 2:07 remaining would be "insurmountable" and link to three references. If at least one of these references specifically says it was insurmountable, please provide the quote, as I find this claim dubious (to use a high school comparison). This is important since it establishes whether the article should exist in the first place, especially in the absence of a 1999 NFC Championship Game article and the closest being this section of the 1998-99 NFL playoffs article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding notability, it's been my experience that NFL editors only consider the Super Bowl and old league championship games automatically notable for stand-alone articles. Most playoff game summaries are placed in articles like 2014–15 NFL playoffs, with some individual articles for particularly well-known games. We do have some articles on famous plays, including The Drive, The Fumble, and my personal favorite, so it's not unheard of for plays to have articles. I did a Google search to inform myself, and much of the coverage was about the play instead of the rest of the game; maybe the lack of a good nickname makes this seem less notable than other plays. I do agree with you that we shouldn't imply that a 10-point deficit is impossible to overcome. My favorite team lost a 9-point lead to the Vikings in the final two minutes of a playoff game almost 20 years ago, so it can be done. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the intro the best place for a quote? I think that reestablishing that point with a quote, perhaps in "The kick" section, would be more appropriate. In either case, I can provide a quote from the Prospectus reference. As for notability, The Helmet Catch was originally titled "Eli Manning's pass to David Tyree" because of lack of a concensus nickname at the time. I agree that the lack of a nickname may lend the appearance of lack of notability even though it certainly is noteworthy. Helltopay27 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you both make good points regarding notability. As far as the Prospectus quote, if you could provide that I'd appreciate it. The book isn't searchable on Google Books, so I couldn't pull up the quote myself. If you like, you can even add it to that ref in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - See the edits I made to the line in question and the section "The kick." It turns out my memory was a little too good, and the line in question was a direct quote from Prospectus. I've changed the line and have added quotes to the kick section. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, with serious reservations about whether this should be its own article. Much of the prose is not about the play itself—Background and Game Summary belong in an article about the game. Arguably the Aftermath section is stretched to be an addendum to "Game Summary". What we're left with is "The kick" which is straining to include enough relevant detail to be its own section, and Legacy, which is mostly a collection of trivia (inclusion on Top 10 lists, etc) and quotes from sportswriters who were compiling entertaining "Foul Ups" and "Missing Rings" TV spots. There seems to be a lack of much serious journalism about this play, which means to me it's just not material for an encyclopedia article. You've done a lot of good research to make this, and I encourage you to fold it into an expanded article about the game. --Laser brain (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See above and relevant thread in article's talk page, and Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. The guidelines do not mention a determination of serious journalism, (which is a subjective concept regardless) rather neutral and reliable secondary sources. The trivial content you've highlighted are from documentary shows produced by the NFL Network (which considering it is the official network of the league would constitute a reliable source) and sports journalists published on reputable websites. (ESPN, Sporting News, etc.) All of these sources focus on the kick rather than the game and establish the kick as its own separate subject in NFL lore and not as merely a side note within the game itself. The first two paragraphs of the Kick section highlight are not meant to strain for detail, but rather highlight the gravity of the kick and its consequences. The Aftermath section also highlights specific instances in which the kick is elucidated as a major influence on the course of the game itself and does not simply stand as a continuation of the game summary. (Although the first two paragraphs do.) Your remaining points would undermine the concept of having any plays merit their own article, as such background information, as well as a summary of the game, would be necessary for any complete article about a significant play in NFL history. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I haven't read through the article in-depth, but did want to note that leads don't generally have to be cited if their content is adequately supported by the body. For cases such as the direct quote, it's preferable to cite them, so I understand that one. However, you surely don't need two references to support the fact that the Vikings were playing the Falcons. Also, I peeked at the legacy section since it was mentioned by Laser brain, and was surprised that there is little on how that game turned out to be the best opportunity for one of the Vikings teams of that period to reach the Super Bowl (or something along those lines). There are a couple of quotes, but no real details on how the franchise declined. It looks like the ESPN source here has some good content on that front, although it doesn't seem to mention their next appearance in the NFC Championship Game, which I remember. :-) If additions can be made here, it would make the section appear more substantial, helping to address Laser's point. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you could add something on whether the miss affected Anderson's career, if possible. Did he remain a top-level kicker, or did the miss have negative effects on him in following years? The readers are kind of left to guess in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For the two references regarding playing the Falcons, those references were meant to support the idea that the lead was insurmountable. Considering the direct quote, I wasn't sure the best way to format this. Suggestions? As for everything else, you bet, I'll get to work on this. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Dweller

I've not spent too long on this and I'm just finding loads and loads of issues, listed below, that really ought to have been sorted out before coming to FAC. Get a copyedit from someone who knows nothing at all about American football and come back?

Just checking ... is it properly called the "NFC Championship Game" or the "NFC Championship game"? Or something else?
If that's accurate, why the inconsistency with "the league championship game"?
Avoid the redirect in NFL lore
"upstart Falcons" please, no journalistic, fansite POV, this is Wikipedia
"Despite being the first franchise in NFL history to appear in the game four times, the Vikings have never won a Super Bowl," consider reworking so the reader doesn't have to work so hard - what "game" isn't explained until the second half of the sentence, which is needless
"the loss in the NFC Championship" is this missing the word "Game"?
"The Vikings' loss in the Championship Game contributed to the franchise's history of devastating moments, and Anderson's missed field goal has been highlighted by the NFL Network as the main contributing factor." Sentence is entirely unsourced despite including POV before the comma and an apparent quote after. It's also poor English. The subject of the sentence is apparently the franchise's history (contributed to by the loss), and it's doubtful that one play is the main contributing factor to that.
Is the next sentence a repetition of the previous?
"the second most snake-bitten franchise of all-time" is unencyclopedic language and I barely understand what it means. If it's a quote, put it in quote marks
Is Jeff Diamond Jeff Diamond?

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm going to archive this and ask that the above comments be considered/actioned outside the FAC process; after that I'd strongly recommend putting it through Peer Review, requesting input from the above editors (among any others you can think of), before looking at any re-nomination for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2016 [2].

Hi-5 (Australian band)[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Australian children's musical group formed in 1998, which is associated with the children's television series of the same name. The brand has produced numerous television series, music albums, worldwide tours and merchandise. Hi-5 were one of Australia's highest paid entertainment entities, placing in the Business Review Weekly's annual list several times, earning an estimated A$18million in 2009. The membership has changed several times. SatDis (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now - will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~developed the series as a contemporary form of preschool entertainment,...~~ ~~suspect "contemporary" is redundant as we're not gonna be talking about historical preschool entertainment are we? In fact "form of" is then redundant as well...~~

~~incorporating educational trends with an appeal for all ages~~ ~~- I am not sure what this means, you mean appealing to adults as well as preschoolers? Also, this sentence not supported by the source.~~

~~where she realised that children are the same around the world, and decided the show would appeal universally, with accessible themes such as family and animals~~ - I don't see the source talking about similarities of kids around the world, and she can't "decide" that it will appeal universally as that is up to the consumers. Also there is no mention of family and animals in the source.

~~The show is kept contemporary so that these themes relate to the current world of children, with the producers keeping in touch with the audience~~ ~~- waffly, why not just, "Harris strove to incorporate items of current interest to children to keep them interested in the show" or somesuch..~~

~~It is confusing referring to Kelli as Crawford and not Hoggart as she was the latter for much of this period.~~

~~however the original cast was so strong that the Australian series was sold overseas instead~~ ~~- needs to be reworded to reflect Harris' POV - something like "Harris was so confident in the original cast that the Australian series was sold overseas instead~~

The prose is pretty puffy in many places and needs to be tightened, with segments such as "Hi-5 has a distinguishable pop music sound" and "The Hi-5 members took their passion for creating change and ensuring happiness for children worldwide beyond the stage and screen" removed entirely. I have concerns about the sourcing. I fear this will need quite a bit of work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More:

Another inspiration for Harris was watching pop group, the Spice Girls - a bit repetitive. why not just, "Harris also recalled watching pop group, the Spice Girls..." (as inspiration is implied)

Harris stated that the energy of the group was fast paced and that physical interaction was encouraged - physical interaction between who? the kids? the band and kids? the band and each other? I'd be tempted to remove this line altogether actually...

Comments from Dweller[edit]

There are some places in the text where I'm unclear whether "Hi5" refers to the band or the TV programme or both
Some inconsistency over whether Hi5 is singular "Hi-5 was created" or plural "Hi-5 are an Australian children's musical group". This may be linked to my previous point, which makes it more serious. I appreciate that ENGVAR means you may wish to refer to a band in singular or plural, but not both.
Timeline looks awkward. I'd expect to see the original members grouped, then the first to join, then the next etc.
Too many gushy self-praising quoteboxes in a bunch in the middle of the article for me

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from SatDis[edit]

Thankyou @Casliber: and @Dweller: for taking a look. I am aware this is the first attempt at a feature article review so I am not expecting immediate results.

@Casliber:

I have taken on your suggestions and done a bit of editing - changed "decided" to "expected", etc.
About children being the same around the world, the reference was actually on the second page of the source. The source is actually referenced several times in the article, would those need to be split into different references for the two pages of the source?
Again, the family and animals was on the second page. Might need to add the second page as a new reference?
I'm sure that using Crawford would be more generally accepted, as it would seem strange to shift surnames throughout the article?
If you fear this might take a lot of work, that's fine, but I am willing to put in some work. This band is actually very challenging to research.

@Dweller:

Trying to distinguish between the band and the TV program was one of the main goals of the good article review. As the page is about the band, references to the TV show are minimal, but of course they are essential because the two are closely linked. Generally when Hi-5 is italicised, it is referring to the TV show. It should always be "are" rather than "is" anyway and there is no "is" in the prose.
The timeline actually shows the succession of which member replaced who. I originally had it with the original members grouped, but there was a large push to change that for some reason.
As for the self-praising text boxes, we found there is limited information on Hi-5 as a whole which doesn't come from the group or producers themselves. Do you have any preferences as to which boxes should be cut or edited?

SatDis (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the italicising. I think that's asking a lot of the reader to notice such a thing. As you say you're mainly referring to the TV show, why not discard references to the TV show's name and use "the TV show" or similar instead?

It's not just "is" and "are". It's any singular/plural. I gave an example of a singular already: "Hi-5 was created". But if that's the TV show, it's tangled into the previous point.

Re chart, strange, but OK.

Any (and cut them). It makes the page look like promotional material for the band.

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Yes, the "was" stems from references to the TV show. Understood that it is demanding of the reader to notice this. I have changed a few of the Hi-5 references to the TV show or similar. Granted, the remaining italicised references clearly refer to the TV show in the surrounding sentences.

Agreed on the promotional-esque material. I am biased due to being a fan. I have trimmed the quotes to remove any self praising words. I have cut it down to information that enhances what the prose is saying. SatDis (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I'm a fan of much of the stuff I've written FAs about, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have struck out my points - missed page two. Will be back to look at it more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions taken on board. Physical interaction removed etc. Thankyou for the feedback; it is always good to have new eyes read the page. SatDis (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This has been open a month and a half without achieving any clear support for promotion so I'm going to archive it. I'd recommend putting it up for Peer Review and inviting anyone who's commented here and at the GAN -- and also relevant Wikiprojects via their talk pages -- to look it over. When that's done -- or a minimum two weeks from now, whichever is longer -- feel free to renominate here; when you do that, it's fine to leave neutrally worded notes that the article is up for FAC on the talk pages of the people who've previously commented. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2016 [3].

John C. Calhoun[edit]

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... John C. Calhoun. John C. Calhoun was a South Carolina statesmen who held a number of high political offices in the early 19th century, including that of Vice President. He began his career as a modernizer who supported various programs that would increase the power of the Federal government. However, as the divide between the North and South increased, he changed course. He became a strong opponent of protective tariffs, which were harmful to the Southern economy, and a major proponent of slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Checkingfax

Hi, Display name 99. I made a deep scrubbing starting here. I would suggest adding alt text to all images that could use it. I will be happy to !vote on this when the FA review process is further along. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links via Checklinks: None
Bare URLs via Reflinks: None
Disambig links: None
Redirects: In order
Citation bot: No issues

Checkingfax, I do not have a good understanding of what alternative text is, nor do I know which images in the article could use it. Would you explain this more please? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Display name 99. I would suggest reading the alt text link I provided above and also consulting with Natalie.Desautels and Graham87. Maybe they will make some other comments while they are here

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hello Display name 99. I have taken the liberty to add the first three 'alt text' captions. You will of course be able to see the 'alt text' code structure in Source view. Visually impaired persons often use a screen reader, and I like to provide information about a photo they cannot see. Since the reader reads all text, I wouldn't state what is already there. For example, since the second image is of Calhoun's wife Floride, there is no need to repeat this; so I added '|alt=oval image of young woman seated, with pinkish white frilled head bonnet and dress top, black narrow waist dress and straight dark hair parted in the middle]]. Normally I would not say 'image' or 'photo' of since, well, what else could it be; but I did want to emphasize that it is an oval image. My own taste is to provide 'alt text' which is a bit longer than recommended, and my implementation has been successful. It's a good idea to check with Graham87 for a conclusive opinion. I'm sorry my time is a bit taken right now, but if you need further help, just write. ...hope this helps. You can see all alt text at a glance here. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 06:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Hello Display name 99 I did a few more 'alt text' captions. Please feel entirely free to revert or correct in any way you see fit. I'll be very happy to answer questions, if you wish. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 06:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax and Display name 99: Hello Graham87 I've completed the 'alt text' for all the images in this article. I am hoping you will be able to review, as time permits. Your help and opinion is always much appreciated. Kindest regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Natalie.Desautels:Thanks, they sound good. I've added a metric conversion to one o them. Graham87 09:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie.Desautels and Graham87, thank you for your help. I am pleased to say that I now have a better idea of this for the future. Display name 99 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Display name 99. As this is a new paragraph, I feel you need a year added to this: In July a group of Yale students requested in a petition that Yale rename the Calhoun College, one of the University's twelve residential colleges. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A different editor wrote that, and I should have caught it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm doing some detailed comments, but to start you, I'm somewhat concerned about the term "minority rights" in the lede. Wouldn't that in present-day usage be assumed to be referring to racial or ethnic minorities?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I understand your concern and it has been voiced before. The fact is that Calhoun was very concerned about the idea that, as the North continued to expand in population, and if it was able to get control of the territories and outlaw slavery there, it would overwhelm and oppress the smaller and weaker Southern states. In defense of the South, Calhoun defended such practices as nullification and advocated for the expanse of slavery in order to "protect minority rights from majority rule." That becomes clear if one reads the article's body.

I understand that "minority rights" sounds confusing to anyone trying to understand it in 21st century context. Obviously Calhoun was not concerned about protecting blacks, immigrants, etc. After a question on the talk page here, I agreed to add "in politics" to the end of the sentence. If you can think of a still better way to clarify it, please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's an oldie, but what about "state's rights"? That would probably be up there with "slavery" if you asked people (who knew of him) for quick summaries of Calhoun. Or "sectional rights for the South"? Or possibly just expand the sentence to explain as you just did, that the minority rights spoken of are that of the (white) South. Possibly "minority rights for the South to maintain its way of life without outside interference" or some such.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

"His positions heavily influenced the South's secession from the Union in 1860–61." Since he was dead at the time, maybe "opinions" or "teachings"?
" to serve as " "as" is probably enough. I would even delete "the seventh", which seems only put in there to hang a link you don't really need because you can get there from the infobox.
"Calhoun had a difficult relationship with Jackson primarily because of the Nullification Crisis and the Petticoat Affair, in which Calhoun's wife humiliated Jackson's allies. " I would cast this in terms of their political differences, as that's really what caused the crisis and aggravated the affair.
I quote two statements: "He began his political career as a nationalist, modernizer, and proponent of a strong national government and protective tariffs. By the late 1820s, his views reversed and he became a leading proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification, and opposition to high tariffs"

and "In contrast with his previous nationalism, Calhoun vigorously supported South Carolina's right to nullify Federal tariff legislation which he believed unfairly favored the North, putting him into conflict with unionists such as Jackson."

As far as I can see, you're using the words "nationalist", "unionist" and "proponent of a strong national government" to mean the same thing. At least, that's what I'm getting when I parse this. I also note that there is considerable repetition in the lede as exemplified here, at least in my view, and the second sentence makes the reader follow a bit like a tennis match, first starting on the strong government side, then off to the other, then back again. I try to avoid that personally. But this is a long article, I think the lede can be shortened somewhat as I suggest.

Got to go, more soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wehwalt. I've made some changes based on your recommendations-please see. "Nationalist" and "proponent of a strong national government" basically mean the same thing. However, the word "unionist" was meant to describe anyone opposed to nullification and secession. Andrew Jackson was not really a supporter of a strong national government, and generally favored states' rights. However, he made it clear that he was staunchly opposed to nullification. That is what I meant by calling him a "unionist". Display name 99 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done up to Secretary of War. Very well written. A few points.

Is the recitation of the birth dates and deaths of Calhoun siblings really necessary?:

Done. I suppose not. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the discussion of the Petticoat Affair in the marriage section, in view of the fact that it is fully set forth later? I'd rather see something about her intelligence, say, or how she got her husband to within a heartbeat of two different presidents. Deal with the petticoats later.

I'm not aware of any accounts regarding her intelligence. I'm not sure what you mean about getting "her husband to within a heartbeat of two different presidents." I think that would we have in the section now about the Petticoat Affair, which is already less than one sentence, is appropriate, considering how notable it was in Mrs. Calhoun's life. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are inconsistent in the capitalization of "Petticoat Affair"

Done. I have capitalized it one place where it was not. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence of the marriage section appears out of place.

Do you have a better place to put it? I'm not sure I see one. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The absence of the national Bank had also distressed the Treasury, so Calhoun called for a new national bank. " not only is there a repetition, but the reader has no reason to pick up on any significance except the Treasury might be upset. Why a national bank was thought to be a good idea might be a useful interpolation (why people thought it was a bad idea can come with Jackson's actions)

It was part of the system promoted by Calhoun and others of increasing consolidation and reformation. I made some edits to this section to help clarify this point. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the rhetoric section here?

I didn't make that section, but it basically summarizes Calhoun's speaking styles while he was a member of the House. Perhaps it wasn't placed later in the article because it could create a confusing jumble of contradictory quotes, some nationalist and others sectionalist. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything useful to be said about his re-elections in 1814 and 1816?

I'm not seeing much about it, so maybe not. I he was most likely relatively popular in South Carolina at that time, and so I imagine that he did not have much trouble from the state legislature in gaining reelection. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"He promoted a plan, adopted by Monroe in 1825, to preserve the sovereignty of Eastern Indians by relocating them to western reservations they could control without interference from state governments." In other words, a trail of tears. I'm not sure that this phrasing adequately fits present-day views of such things.

The statement makes sense to me. I think that one reading it carefully will get the idea. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"but Congress either failed to respond to his reforms or responded with hostility. Calhoun's frustration with congressional inaction, political rivalries, and ideological differences spurred him to create the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1824." it might be useful to note that he acted without Congress's say so.

I personally don't see a reason, and think it's implied anyhow.

People wouldn't necessarily think a bureau was something just authorized by the secretary.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help Wehwalt. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"where John Quincy Adams was declared the winner over Crawford, Clay, and Jackson, who had previously defeated Adams in both popular vote and electoral vote. " Well. Not defeated obviously. "Led"? And he was only declared the winner over Crawford and Jackson as Clay had already been eliminated because the 12th Amendment says the House shall choose from among the top three electoral vote getters and Clay wasn't.

Done. Jackson did do better than him in both categories, but he did not attain the necessary majority-thus the election was decided in the House. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Jackson selected Calhoun as his running mate," Again, this point. Possibly something along the lines that Jackson let it be known that electors pledged to support him should also vote for Calhoun. Calhoun had his own power base,the South Carolina legislature was going to choose electors who were going to support Calhoun no matter what Jackson said.

Calhoun's biography on Senate.gov reads:

"The old hero welcomed Calhoun's support, assuring him that they would "march hand in hand in their [the people's] cause," cementing one of the most ill-starred partnerships in the history of the vice-presidency."

This shows that Jackson was willing to accept Calhoun's support, and in exchange effectively named him as his choice for vice president. Our article makes it clear that the two were never close allies in the same way that Jackson and Van Buren were. But they were, for this time, partners. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Jefferson explicitly endorsed nullification.[46] Calhoun differed from Jefferson and Madison in explicitly" overly explicit

Done.

In the Nullification section, I would separate the theory by putting the events surrounding the famous toasts in a separate paragraphs.
You are inconsistent in usage "U.S." or "US"

Done, I think. I replaced one "US" with "U.S." I have noticed no others. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did Calhoun actually do anything during his first term as vice president?

Under "Nullification", his opposition to the Tariff of 1828, enacted during his first term, is mentioned. I see how this can be confusing, because the sub-sections under "Vice Presidency" are organized according to issue or event, and not by term. The biography that I linked above discusses some things from his first term, but I personally don't find many of them particularly relevant. Calhoun's second term was more eventful. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did Calhoun attempt to gain a third term as VP at any point?

I don't think he ever made a serious attempt to do so. I read once that Jackson made it known as early as December of 1829 that he didn't want Calhoun on the 1832 ticket. Their relationship only got worse after that. He was more effective on the Senate floor, which was why he eventually resigned. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Calhoun's tie-breaking vote on Van Buren's nomination as minister to Britain worthy of mention?

Done. I added it into the Petticoat Affair section. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worthwhile to mention directly the battle over the reauthorization of the Second Bank of the United States. You keep kind of dancing around it.

That isn't my intention. I just covered a web search, typing in thing such as "Bank War Calhoun", but the sources don't really seem to mention Calhoun in connection with the Bank War. My guess is that Calhoun would have opposed its rechartering, because he would have seen it as a threat to states' rights, and because he later allied with Van Buren over many of the same issues that led the Democrats to oppose the bank. It's unfortunate then, that the sources that I am examining only seem to mention Calhoun's vice presidency in connecting with nullification and the Eaton Affair, and in the Bank War focus almost exclusively on Clay and Jackson. Rjensen, is there any way you could help here? Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DN99 is right. He was a jeffersonian agrarian who distrusted capitalism & banks. he opposed renewal of the Bank in 1837, but did not play a central role. [see Coit 328-31] Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did Huger resign to clear a place for Calhoun?

I think so. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"through its Northern majority, passed the bill several times" Since the Wilmot Proviso was not always a bill, but sometimes a rider or amendment, I'd say "the proposal" rather than "bill" and some other substitute for the other use of "bill"

Done.

One more tranche to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded above Wehwalt. I thank you again for all you have done to improve the article. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble. Your responses are fine, and Rjensen's. Thank you both.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming

"staunch slaveholder" how is this unusual?
"" the expansion of slavery into the backcountry" I would cut "into the backcountry which is a bit uncertain if we're talking about SC or USA. The expansion of slavery is the nub of it.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Alexander portrait of Calhoun in the Slavery section is surely the lead image recut.

These paintings are not the same. The most noticeable difference is the placement of the hands. Check that. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and postponed the declension" I would find a synonym for declension more likely to be known.

Let's teach the reader some vocabulary. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Phillips explains how:" This has more the feel of news reporting than an encyclopedia. Maybe "According to Phillips:"?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the War with Mexico" proper noun for war?

Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"bring in Mexicans, deficient in moral and intellectual terms." I might put "whom he deemed" after the comma.

Done. I added "whom he considered". Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"which led immediately" not immediately, a month and a half.

Done. I removed that word. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"They formed the new Confederate States, which, in accord with Calhoun's theory, did not have any political parties." Does the source draw the conclusion, that because of Calhoun's theories, the CSA lacked parties (it did not lack for factions)? There was no prohibition on parties in the CSA constitution that I'm aware of.

There were no recognized political parties in the Confederate States. Southern leaders, like Calhoun, saw them as a source of corruption. Factions did emerge, but no true parties like the ones founded during the Second Party System, which nominating conventions, etc., were ever formed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Historian Richard Hofstadter (1948, 2011)" possibly leave it with the 1948 as he was most certainly not writing in 2011!

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"has garnered a super-regional application in American political thought." I'm not sure what this means. I would have thought concurrent majorities more common in nations with multiple large ethnic groups, at least in theory.

Done. I replace it with "some acceptance". Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"abstract treatise of Calhoun's definitive and comprehensive ideas " abstract and definitive seem to clash some.

Done. I replaced "abstract treatise" with "essay", which is much more simple and straightforward. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"he worked on it intermittently for six years until its 1849 completion" I would say after "years" "until he completed it in 1849." It is because you seem to be suddenly shifting from active to passive.

I think the timeline is important enough to remain. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Disquisition section seems awfully long, especially the blockquote. Maybe some of this is best placed in the article on the book.

I tried shortening it a bit. The blockquote, though, seems important enough to remain. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Calhoun doctrine said Congress could never outlaw slavery in the territories" nor could the local voters.

Done. I added this detail in. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be obvious that the image to the right in the legacy section is a postage stamp, and I might make that clearer.

Done. I added "postage stamp" to the caption. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Calhoun is often remembered for his defense of minority rights by use of the "concurrent majority"" Why the quotes? I think by this point, we know what the concurrent majority is.
I am not convinced by the legacy section. It seems more a recitation of various things named for Calhoun. What influence has he had on political thought, for example.

I know that it's a bit dry, but "Legacy" sections are often used for reciting these things. Outside of the information on the things that Calhoun is named for, there are three sentences about how Calhoun is remembered, and the influence of his ideas, as well as information on more modern controversies surrounding him. Adding more would seem redundant, as it is already noted in the "Political philosophy" section. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, please see my comments above. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them and there's nothing I have an issue with. I do consider the legacy section a major impediment. The community colleges and Alabama lakes don't do it. What I would like to see is a short essay on Calhoun and his place in history, or tracing how he has been viewed historically over time. This is standard for FA articles on historical figures and I urge you to examine them. In my view, any historical figure of more than minimal importance needs to have a section that in an organized and coherent fashion puts his life in perspective.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what can be done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I made some changes to the section. Not much text was added, but I think it helps. You will find it on the latter half of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second half of it is more along the lines that I want, but I think there needs to be more of it. Possibly the tributes like the lake and so forth could be split of into its own section, as is often done in such articles. I would settle for a paragraph or two tracing how Calhoun has been viewed over time. I just don't feel that there is as much substance there as I would like. If a student comes to the section trying to figure out how Calhoun has affected history, he's not coming away with much, I think. I'd be grateful for Rjensen's view on the section in question. This is really my main remaining point.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I divided the sections into "Monuments and Memorials" and "Historical Reputation". and added a quote from Wilson. We now have one paragraph discussing Calhoun's influence on secession and his legacy as one of the most important senators in history, a quote from a historian, and an introductory sentence followed by two paragraphs describing how Calhoun has been viewed negatively for his support of slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Between there and the section on his philosophy, I think that's fine. Very nicely done and congrats for being willing to take on an important (and ever divisive) figure like Calhoun.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

I've never seen anyone use this style of ref= in the templates. It works, but how do I know what has been referenced and what hasn't? This means a lot of work for me; tomorrow I'll have to check manually. It would be much better IMO to use ref=harv in every case, so Ucucha's script could check....

I looked at the harvard template and it looks like what's in place. Could you put one of them in the format/style you're referring to so we can follow and fix? Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lingzhi. If you open the page then Preview it, the system will throw any errors at the top of the page in red so you can address them. CS1 errors will already display in light green in the references section if you have the show hidden errors JavaScript installed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Ford sources, both 1988. Normally I would say they should be 1988a and 1988b, but in this case I strongly suspect only one of the two is actually being used (probably "Republican Ideology in a Slave Society"). If that's the case,"Origins of Southern Radicalism" should be deleted....More later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Your suspicion was correct. I deleted "Origins of Southern Radicalism". Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a Krannawitter 2004 and a Krannawitter 2008 but the refs just say "Kranawitter"..ok so you have "ref=Krannawitter" on one template but no ref= on the other. This works on the surface but is misleading under the hood. Why do you have two Krannawitter sources if only one is used, and...how is the reader to know which Krannawitter the body text cites? You'll say "click the blue number" but I suspect this has the potential to go wrong... yeah, this is how it goes wrong: three sources with ref=Calhoun.

I agree that's weird. I removed the 2004 Krannawitter source because I couldn't find any matches for it. Please remember that I personally did not enter many of these soures in. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing intended to be personal here I'm sure. Hoppyh (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got ^abcde Bartlett with no page numbers.

I noticed this while attempting to improve the sources before nominating this as a FAC. Unfortunately, I have no printed copy of the work, and could not find it on Google Books. I have no idea what to do here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate sources could be used. Hoppyh (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belko, William S. is not inside a template, nor is Capers Gerald M. You need to be consistent. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have fixed this. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get you to ditch this ref = Ford1988 and ref = Ford1994 system and just make everything ref = harv?

See my reply above - could you do one of them in the format/style you're referring to so we can follow that and fix the others? Hoppyh (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also get you to delete unreferenced sources? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. If you are indicating the 2 mentioned, absolutely. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lingzhi is saying that every item listed under "Sources" needs to be referred to in the article or should be removed from the list of Sources. Hoppyh (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'll remove them if I see any more. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He rarely mentioned religion... although he loved to discuss the subject. Spot the contradiction. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The second part was actually unsourced. I took it out. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a fuddy-duddy, but I am very much not a fan of dangling a lone quote thing at the end of the article: " The whole South is the grave of Calhoun" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a quote box for this. I still don't think that it looks excellent, but it does appear to be an improvement. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend incorporating the quote and author's name into the body of the Legacy section in order to remove this objection. Hoppyh (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have bad news Display name 99. template:quote box is only for pull quotes. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Checkingfax, I have placed it in the body of the article as suggested by Hoppyh. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Display name 99. It is a powerful quote. Now that it is in the body you can add it as a pull quote in a little quote box. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I think I would rather leave it in the body of the text. It seemed to be positioned as a pull quote before, which was what caused the concern. There are plenty of other quotes in the main body, and I think this will do fine with them. Thank you for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is above all sectional and factious prejudices .. Historian Charles Wiltse agrees, noting, "Though he is known today primarily for his sectionalism". Spot the contradiction (being "last" doesn't negate it). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When considered, there isn't really any contradiction. The quotation from Adams comes in 1821, when Calhoun was still recognized as a leading national figure, rather than as a representative of Southern interests. The quotation from Wiltse in some way affirms Adams's comment by claiming that Calhoun took longer than many other political leaders of his day to take a sectional position. There might be a way to make that more clear though. You may suggest something to that end. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to remove the apparent contradiction. Hoppyh (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better now. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If the whole community had the same interests..." Mine eyes glazeth over. Is there really no option other than a blockquote large enough to swallow a small country town? Is there no way to break this down into its key parts, and render them more digestible to the reader? BTW, I'm consistently not a fan of blockquotes hanging at the end of a paragraph anyhow (see two items above) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have some time later on. I will attempt to determine if anything can be done then. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in the aftermath of a minority veto, when the ubiquitous demagogues betray their constituencies and abandon the concurrent majority altogether... is missing some quotation marks somewhere. Direct quote... and.. did Freehling quote there or did you...? And... stop me if I'm wrong, but... are there sorta kinda lots of direct quotes embedded in sentences w/out quotation marks up in there? I was taught the magic number is 3: more than three sequential directly quoted words means you must set it off as a quote somehow. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I barely have a clue WTH you're talking about. Please explain more clearly. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW...the text here does look highly intellectual and does make me wonder if it needs quotation marks. Hoppyh (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppyh, I just copy/pasted the phrase that Lingzhi quoted, and was only able to find it written in places that seem to copy directly from Wikipedia. Once again, I do not have the text of the source available to me, and cannot find it on Google Books or jstor. As for the intellectual sound of this sentence, at least one of the primary writers of this article before I first began work on it apparently wrote with a very eloquent style. I suspect that it could just be that. Lingzhi, please identify any other specific quotes to me that you suspect are not original to Wikipedia so that I can check them. Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your checking this out certainly satisfies me with respect to the quote issue. Hoppyh (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If further help is needed trying to get access to the source, Rjensen may be able to help. Hoppyh (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi, thank you for your comments and advice on improving the article. Please see my responses above. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look, the more inconsistent the refs get. Very tempted to Oppose because fixing this will be a nontrivial task, but will relent because FACs take plenty of time. Why are some instances of {{cite book}} & {{cite journal}} inside <ref></ref> tags inside the body text, but others are in the bibliography section? Why are some author names first middle last ("Patricia Cline Cohen") and others last comma first MI ("Belko, William S.")? What does "|author1 = Ford Jr. |author2 = Lacy K." mean? Choose one method and stick with it, preferably putting them in the bottom section. I will try to help but am feeling a little irritated. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi, I understand the concern and I just got your message on my talk page. There is one editor who, during the GAN and FAN processes and time in between, spend time adding content to the article, some of which I opposed. His referencing style was rather sloppy and I guess I didn't do enough to fix it. I'm not sure if I'll change all the formats as you suggested, but I will try to work to keep things consistent. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Display name 99. May I suggest a consultation with editor Jerome Kohl about F M L vs L, F M ? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: I did a lot of work but much is left yet to be done. I will try again tomorrow. Maybe you can look at what I've done & imitate. Many problems being revealed in this process e.g. two sources for Capers but never mentioned in text; eighty sources for Wiltse but years never given, etc. More later. It is in a mess now because it is in an intermediate state, but it will get better and better. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help Lingzhi. I'll look at it later today and see how much I can replicate. I get the idea that I'm not as good or experienced at this as you are, and I don't want to screw up something and make more work for you. However, I will do what I can. Display name 99 (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Display name 99 (with cc to Lingzhi and Natalie.Desautels). It is my understanding from listening to Jerome Kohl opine that body citations should be in First Middle Last format and that Bibliography and List citations should be in Last, First Middle format. Also, to use harv= parameter, three criteria must be followed. See {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} for details. Please keep me in the loop. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my opinion is correctly represented here. However, since such matters are based on what is actually practiced, it is certainly true that inverted author names are found in footnotes all over Wikipedia. I am not accustomed to seeing this done in books and journals, though my experience may be limited, and I know of no style manual that recommends this practice. (Again, I do not claim to have comprehensive knowledge of all style manuals).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. The plan here is to move all of that mass of multiply-formatted shtuff out of the footnotes and into the works cited section. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the books are looking considerably better now. Not done yet (esp. probs with John Quincy Adams), but much better. Now... journals... I have exactly zero idea why so many journals are listed in the References section (should "Footnotes" be added as a subheading there?) and so many others are listed separately in the "Specialized studies"... and WTH is "Specialized studies" anyhow? Me personally I wanna move all those journals OUT of the notes and into the "Specialized studies" (whatever that means), but that would be a task. I could do it programmatically to save time (as I did for the books), but it would still be a task. Input/opinions from other participants on this page would be welcomed.. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized studies I think is more commonly referred to as Scholarly studies - academic/doctorate desertations etc.. but has fallen into disuse. Rjensen is knowledgable on this. Hoppyh (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Specialized studies" section to me simply looks like it is meant to include any scholarly work relating to Calhoun, that has thus been cited, but is not meant to be a complete biography of him. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the presidential articles don't employ a section like this. Hoppyh (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could we eliminate all 3 of the sub-sections under "Sources", simply leaving all of the works cited grouped under "Sources" or "Further Reading"? Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be consistent with the FA presidents' articles I have looked at. You might keep Calhoun's own works separate under "works" or "primary sources". Hoppyh (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoppyh:@Display name 99:Someone really does need to do an RS check on all those websites to determine their reliability. Some of them are looking shaky to me. Your best option would be to find the exact same information in a book or journal, especially (but not necessarily) one that you already have cited before (just because that saves trouble). In some cases you might even simply delete the info and the web cite, if it doesn't seem all that important or useful.... and finally, if you replace a web cite with a book or journal, you could, you know, move the reference down to the bottom of the page and put a {{sfn}} in the body text where the web cite used to be. :-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 109 is redlinked and needs to be fixed. I tried to repair it myself but, alas, this is not one of my strong subjects. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 05:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes thanks, I mentioned this above. I'm having problems with this and with books that have several volumes. I will try to sort it out later... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

beginning with "Biographer John Niven says..." Here there's an uncited direct quote, but you might not need to add a cite because the quote seems trivial/irrelevant anyhow. Then the pronoun "He" in "He graduated as " is syntactically ambiguous (who graduated?). I would solve all these problems in one swoop by just deleting all the stuff about the teacher. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lingzhi, I removed that material. For what it's worth, it was added in by a different editor about 2 weeks ago over my objection. Display name 99 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand it was just reverted. Display name 99 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

everyone--including Yale this year--says that Yale had a major impact on his political thinking and Niven explains the influence in detail. How an intellectual got his ideas from his most important teacher is not trivial, it's important. so I restored it. 1) Brooks M. Kelly calls Dwight the "mentor" of John C. Calhoun. Kelly, 1974: p138; 2) in Brown, Calhoun's Philosophy of Politics stressed his "his celebrated discussions with New England Federalist Timothy Dwight". 3) Gordon Post (Into to Disquisition p viii) thinks Calhoun got his ideas on secession from Dwight as does Gordon Wood Radicalism p 268. [Dwight's brother was a leader of the Hartford convention of 1815 that called for secession] Rjensen (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well Rjensen. I will not contest it further. However, Lingzhi did have a question about one of the sources. Citation 8 applies to the direct quote as well as the sentence after it, does it not? Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added some depth from Coit's bio. Yes quote = Niven p 20 and next sentence. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that looks good enough, then. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also Rjensen, when citing books, it would be helpful if you would place the full bibliographical citation at the bottom under "Sources", leaving only a smaller page citation in the body of the text. This would be good for maintaining consistency. Would you be able to do this for the 2 sources that you just added in? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Rjensen: The reason we're having this mild disagreement is because what you're saying in the article isn't what you said you're saying. The quotes above (here on this FAC page) look very nice and very relevant. The quotes on the article about " awesome mastery of the classics" look like extraneous padding. Very strongly suggest you remove the "awesome mastery" quote and insert what you wrote just above my words here. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well i don't see a problem. Niven has an excellent statement about the powerful influence of Dwight on Calhoun's mode of thought --[Biographer John Niven says "Calhoun admired Dwight's extemporaneous sermons, his seemingly encyclopedic knowledge, and his awesome mastery of the classics, of the tenants of Calvinism, and of metaphysics. No one, he thought, could explicate the language of John Locke with such clarity.]. that seems very important in explaining how Calhoun learned to understand political philosophy & prepared himself to be a leader in that field. Second is the different point raised by Coit that Dwight & others taught Calhoun about nullification & secession & convinced him they were legitimate options. These became central themes in Calhoun's career and their origins are important. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here, which you don't see, comes from the fact that you know what you're talking about ;-) The implication you hope readers will draw from your quote is too subtle. You imagine a reader thinking, "Oh.. Dwight explained Locke to Calhoun...Calhoun thought this over, deeply, then...compared Locke's beliefs about natural rights to his own beliefs and... OH YEAH, I GET IT!" That's a charming picture, but unfortunately you have forgotten to write to the real target audience: an intelligent but uninformed reader. So what will actually happen is more like this: "Locke... what.. but the article doesn't draw a clear connection... and in Western culture at least, it is the article's responsibility to point out all connections to me, the reader, or at least offer me a clear waypost from which I can draw an inference... so.. this must all be an exercise in padding an article." To make a long story short, please, I beg you, delete the "awesome mastery" quote and add the quotes you offered up above my post here... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok i'll work on it. :) Rjensen (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What makes Haysville Community Library a WP:RS? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

th haysville cite is a long quote from Howe, Daniel Walker. What hath God wrought: the transformation of America, 1815-1848. 2007. Pulitzer Prize winner. Rjensen (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per above. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Advameg, Inc. a WP:RS? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's a copy of a major RS = Graff, Henry F., ed. The presidents: a reference history. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1997. (3rd ed ??) --may be illegal copy Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything proving that it was illegal, so I kept it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes The Rational Argumentator a WP:RS?

I think it's very poor quality. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes law.jrank.org, Net Industries a WP:RS?

I think it is poor quality Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes cwmemory.com (Kevin M. Levin) a WP:RS?

I think it's very poor quality. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes ehistory.osu.edu a WP:RS, considerig thatthe bottom of the page has a caveat emptor warning: "This item was created by a contributor to eHistory prior to its affiliation with The Ohio State University. As such, it has not been reviewed for accuracy by the University and does not necessarily adhere to the University's scholarly standards" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's poor quality. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I removed it. 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Display name 99 (talk)

This looks very fishy: "Jewell, Michael E. (2015) Senatorial Politics and Foreign Policy." Can't find it on kentuckypress.com, which is already a deal-killer, and also his name is Malcolm not Michael. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can attest to this. Jewell is a leading political scientists and I looked. Fulltext is on line at http://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_political_science_american_politics/14/ Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I removed it. Rjensen added another Jewell citation which seemed good enough. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This one is a student project: Andrew Jackson 1767–1845 A brief biography: Tariffs and Nullification – Again American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond. University of Groningen. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Welling project is pretty high quality. I've used it for many years. However, I would rather use a more sophisticated longer source. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. If it is reliable and contains the necessary information, it is sophisticated enough. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problems with the Freehling (1965) reference, and I admit that I might have been the one who screwed it up. But how can a journal article that runs from pages 25 through 42 have so many cites to pages 222, 223 etc.? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sites beyond page 42 hard to have an unknown and uncertain book by Freehling – you wrote a lot of them. So I will try to replace with better sources. Rjensen (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rjensen seems to have done so. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"He saw attacks on Eaton stemming ultimately from the political opposition of Calhoun, who had failed to silence his wife's criticisms" I'm not sure I see this information on the web source provided. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read it that way as OK. However I would delete the low-quality journalism in the previous footnote = http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/04/01/andrew-jacksons-tragic-love-story Andrew Jackson's Tragic Love Story] U.S. News. April 1, 2011 Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99,Rjensen,Hoppyh-- is anyone gonna fix all these, and check for more I may have missed? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi, I'm sorry about that. I fixed a couple and probably would have done more today and yesterday. However, a tornado taking out my neighborhood's electricity got in the way. I should start working on it tonight. Display name 99 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about the severe weather; hope there was no serious damage. No rush on this FAC of course, so long as it gets done some day or other. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

Lingzhi, please see my responses above. I will soon take care of the last of the concerns voiced in the image review and in the last review by Wehwalt, and from there I hope we can begin voting if nobody else has anything to say. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Display name 99 There are still direct quotes with no page numbers, and books cited repeatedly with no page numbers. The former is definitely a deal-killer, and the latter leans that way. So these must all be fixed. I am on vacation and not able to do any more extensive reviewing, but can make quick responses like this one. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Organization and strategy were widely demanded " still missing page number. Are there more direct quotes w/out them? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi, could you show me where that quote is in the article? I believe that I have taken care of all other direct quotes without page numbers. Display name 99 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:BQ, then come back to this article, hold the CTRL button and type F, then enter this text into the box (without quotation marks): "Organization and strategy were widely demanded". Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen, is there any way that you could help determine the page number for this quote? It is found as a blockquote at the bottom of the "Slavery" section. If you are able to find the page, you can give it to me here and I'll take care of the formatting. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need. searchable Google books is a wonderful tool for occasions such as these. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used an electronic version without page numbers. but it's Dict Am Bio v 3 p 416 Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are now no quotations in the article that are without corresponding page numbers. Display name 99 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi, I know that you can't do any full reviews now, but I'm letting you know that today I was able to add page numbers to 7 different citations. That leaves only 7 more book citations without page numbers, 5 of which are from the same book, and none of which are for exact quotes. Display name 99 (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi, I was just able to replace one more citation that did not have a page number with a citation that does have a page number. That leaves us with only 6 citations with no page numbers, 4 of which are from the same book. One of these 6 citations, number 102, "Calhoun 1851", does not need one in my opinion. It is there to verify that a book was published by Calhoun, and is just a citation to the book itself. Display name 99 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Floride_Calhoun_nee_Colhoun.jpg needs a US PD tag, as per the wording of the life+70 tag
File:Statue_of_Hon._John_C._Calhoun_erected_in_Statuary_Hall_of_the_Capitol_at_Washington._Proceedings_in_Statuary_Hall_and_in_the_Senate_and_the_House_of_Representatives_on_the_occasion_of_the_unveiling,_(14762688871).jpg: per the Flickr tag, are any more specific copyright tags available? We need to account for both the photo and the statue, since the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculptural works
File:JCCalhoun-1822.jpg: source link is dead, is a new/updated one available?
File:Closeup_of_John_C._Calhoun_grave_IMG_4649.JPG: what is the copyright status of the monument? Per above, no freedom of panorama here
File:G.P.A._Healy's_portrait_of_John_C._Calhoun,_Charleston_City_Hall_IMG_4589.JPG: a simple reproduction of a 2D work does not warrant new copyright protection in the US. What is the copyright status of the pictured work? The given tag appears to be for the photograph rather than the work itself, which is what we need to worry about.
File:JohnCCalhoun.jpeg needs a US PD tag
File:Jcctypo01.jpg needs a US PD tag and a source - the current sourcing is circular. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC) amended 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I'm here, IMDb is not a reliable source.Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed IMDb by replacing its first citation with a more reliable source and removing the second part altogether after finding too little on the film. Just so that everyone knows, I am unsure of how to deal with all of the other concerns. Display name 99 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Display name 99, I've expanded a few of the above points, and if you have specific questions I'm happy to try to answer them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the link to File:JCCalhoun-1822.jpg is dead. I clicked on all the links and was directed somewhere. Also, I tried adding US PD tags to all the pictures on Commons as you suggested, but am unsure that I did so correctly. Would you please examine those edits to be sure? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the image description page, there are two links under 'Source' - one redirects to the image description page itself and the other returns a 404 error. Looking at the tags you've added, File:Floride_Calhoun_nee_Colhoun.jpg stands out - to use that tag you need to show that the image was published, not just created, before 1923. Can that be done? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I believe that I have fixed all the links. However, I can offer no proof that the image was published before 1923. However, Mrs. Calhoun died in 1866, and I highly doubt that the image, which was most likely created near the middle of her life, remained unpublished for as many as 57 years after her death. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was the first publication that we can confirm? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that I can't confirm anything. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. From what I can tell the portrait is in the collection of Fort Hill - could they be contacted to verify its history? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in 1917 book = William Montgomery Meigs (1917). The Life of John Caldwell Calhoun. Neale Publishing Company. p. 80. Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great Rjensen. Your efforts to improve the sourcing for images and content in this article are appreciated. Display name 99 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Front image[edit]

Recently a high-quality, dated photograph by Brady was replaced by an undated painting as the front image, and I do oppose this change. Never mind that the painting is a WP:FP, but compare it with the photos of similar age (one earlier one later) and note the difference between the artist's impression and reality. We do prefer photographs to artworks AFAIK. Materialscientist (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist, it was decided by several other editors, Jdcrutch, Hoppyh, and Wehwalt here to switch the image. I will quote Wehwalt and Jdcrutch, as I believe that their arguments adequately express why the image was changed.

"I do not think the lead image shows the man as he ought to be pictured by the world. While I understand photos are preferred, I don't see this as an absolute rule."

"The Brady photo shows Calhoun in the last year of his life, as he was dying of tuberculosis, not as the vibrant, charismatic man who nearly became president of the United States, and was twice elected vice-president."

There are many figures from this time period for whom photographs are only available of them near the end of their lives. A photograph taken of Calhoun in 1849, a year before his death, while of very high quality, is of a very sickly man. The Healy painting makes him look somewhat more presentable. In addition, I really don't see a big difference in Calhoun's physical features between this painting and photographs from around the same period. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard several times that photographs are preferred on Wikipedia over paintings and drawings, but I have never seen any WP policy to that effect. Can Materialscientist point us to one?

There appears to be a widespread prejudice in favor of photographs, to the effect that they are more "accurate" than "art works", but anybody who has even a passing acquaintance with the photographic process will realize that such a prejudice is unfounded. Photographs are art works. They are composed, just as paintings are (although some may be composed in an instant, or by selection after the fact). Alexander Gardner, who made many of the pictures Matthew Brady claimed credit for, once dragged the body of a soldier many yards to stage a photograph. (He may have done it many times, but we know certainly of one instance.) Photographs are affected by the quality of lighting used, and by the chemistry of the plate or film employed. They may be manipulated in development, and in the printing process, as well, such as by cropping, burning and dodging, touching-up, and so on. Such manipulation may be falsification, depending on the intentions of the photographer; but it may simply be art.

On the other hand, a given painting or drawing may be more "accurate" than a given photograph, particularly where, as here, the painting is in color and the photograph is not. A painting may convey truths about its subject that are known to the artist but not visible at the time of sitting to the mechanical eye of the camera. Such a presentation is necessarily subjective, but not necessarily more subjective, or less accurate, than that of a photographer.

Of course, what we mean by "accurate" is itself subjective. All two-dimensional graphic representations are inherently inaccurate, in that none reproduces exactly what the human eye perceives. All, obviously, are in two dimensions, whereas human vision is three-dimensional; although both can suggest the third dimension. All have definite boundaries, which vision in general has not. Both paintings and still photographs present an active subject as stationary, though both can suggest movement in various ways. A line-drawing may be called "a perfect likeness", even though its subject isn't really made up of lines and cross-hatching.

The point is that no medium is inherently preferable. Each image must be judged on its merits, and compared to other images without prejudice, but with regard to the purpose for which the image is to be used. Both paintings and photographs may be bad. Either may misrepresent its subject. Either may be better than the other for a particular purpose, and in a particular context.

In the present case, although the Brady photograph is valuable, and an important record of Calhoun in his last year of life, I believe the painting to be a better summary representation of the man and his character throughout his career, and therefore preferable for the lede. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Compare the c. 1843 photo and the c. 1845 painting. The painting has an odd, asymmetric "crop" (hand is cropped by the bottom) and shows a distorted, twisted face expression, which is an artist's impression (there is no evidence he ever produced such), while the photo shows a natural one. Colors are often distorted too, both in paintings and photographs, so this is a weak argument. Compare the c. 1845 painting with this one, for example. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calhoun's face in the 1845 painting looks to be less full. This actually makes sense, as based upon the c. 1843 photograph and the 1849 Brady photograph, Calhoun does appear to have grown very thin in the last decade of his life. Calhoun's hair in the 1834 painting also looks different, but based on the photos I think the c. 1845 painting actually got it closer. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the point - per WP:NOR we should avoid speculations ("I think .."), and photographs help us in this. Paintings do the contrary. The arguments above that photographs are also distorted are both true and useless - any fact is distorted by the observer, but photographic distortions are predictable and relatively small. As to "I think the c. 1845 painting actually got it closer" - no, they were made in different years. Yes, his health deteriorated in 1849, and this affected the photograph. This may well be mentioned, but this is not a reason to substitute reality with artistic view. For obvious reasons (money, fear of criticism, etc.) those who were asked to paint a portrait of a famous person tended to embellish that person. Very few did not, but then they might overshoot and exaggerate (the ugliness). Is this masterpiece close to reality? Nobody knows, but it deviates from other portraits. Further, we often deal with photographs of paintings, which are made in poor museum lighting, and the color deteriorates with time in old paintings - note the color variations in different versions of this same artwork. Lighting and image degradation don't affect professional b/w studio photographs that much.

Hence WP:NOR, hence avoid paintings when possible. Materialscientist (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for the pre 1850 period I think paintings are much more accurate. a professional photographer in 21st century takes dozens -- even hundreds of shots-- with control over lighting lenses and photoshop editing. In 1850 the film, the lighting, the pose was all poor quality & artificial by 2016 standards -- the subject had to freeze in a pose for examples. One shot was usually all they got, not 50. The painter spent days getting the pose, facial expressions, etc as good as possible. with color of course, not artificial b&w Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<indent>Thanks. I do value your opinion, but this is again WP:OR. Materialscientist (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By your definition of original research to include someone attempting to capture the likeness of a person through paint, how do you avoid including under the umbrella of original research all those works which seek to capture the likeness of someone through words? By your definition, any work from anyone that attempts to describe anyone else must be considered original research, and thereby to be discredited. Where does that leave us? Display name 99 (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to make Materialscientist sigh, but I still find her or his arguments unpersuasive. He or she has not pointed to any Wikipedia policy favoring photographs over paintings, and merely continues to assert, without citing any objective evidence or authority, the opinion that photographs are more accurate than paintings. This she or he seeks to prove through an entirely subjective contrasting of some paintings with some photographs—which is no less "original research" than anything Materialscientist has pointed to. This only reinforces my argument that neither photographs nor paintings should be regarded as superior per se, and that each image must be evaluated on its own merits, in light of the purpose for which it is to be used.

Let us remember, after all, that nobody is suggesting the suppression of any of the images we have to choose from. We're really only debating placement of the various pictures within the article. It's quite evident that Calhoun had one of those faces that seem to vary markedly, depending on angle of view, lighting, mood, etc.; and that his appearance altered considerably over the course of his life. (This has led to the misidentification of at least one photograph as Calhoun's. See this archived discussion.) The article should accordingly include every available image of Calhoun, so that readers may compare them and draw their own conclusions. (Note that there is a life mask of Calhoun, unfortunately not dated, but apparently late; a photograph of which was deleted from Wikipedia for reasons of copyright. I suspect the Princeton library, assuming it's the copyright holder, would grant a license for WP to use the photo, but I haven't pursued it.)

The picture in question here, in any event, is for the info box, and will stand above the rubric, "7th Vice President of the United States". It therefore seems to me most appropriate to use an image of Calhoun made during his tenure in that office, if one exists. I would expect there to be an official vice-presidential portrait of Calhoun, though I haven't been able to find one with a cursory search of the web. If none exists, then I'd suggest the 1834 Peale portrait, which is close in time to Calhoun's second term as vice-president, and is the work of a celebrated portraitist. Failing agreement on that, I'd still prefer the c. 1845 Healy painting as a better general representation of Calhoun the statesman, over any photograph that I've seen. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the life mask of Calhoun, mentioned above, please note that I have uploaded a different photograph of (presumably) the same mask, which is dated 1844. See my note on the article's Talk page. Note also that that photograph looks very different from the photograph of the same mask on the Princeton web site, a fact with some significance for the discussion above. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

~~Oppose~~ - for the time being. There are problems with the references. This script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors will highlight them. Graham Beards (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards, I have been unable to find the "Smith 2011" citation within the article. Do you know what number it is? If I can find it, I will either add the book or journal to the Bibliography or find a different source. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is cited - hence the problem. (There are others) Graham Beards (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards, not cited where, under "References" or under "Sources"? I'm not finding it anywhere. All I see with the name "Smith" is a thing from 1911 under "Sources". And though you said "There are others", this is all that came up when I clicked on the script. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here they are:

17. Wilson 2003, p. 254. Harv error: link from #CITEREFWilson2003 doesn't point to any citation

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

105. Adams 1848, V, p. 361. Harv error: link from #CITEREFAdams1848 doesn't point to any citation

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuic, V (1983). "John C. Calhoun's Theory of the Concurrent Majority". American Bar Association Journal 69: 482. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFKuic1983.

Done. Moved to "Further Reading". Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meigs, William Montgomery (1917). The Life of John Caldwell Calhoun vol. 2. Neale Publishing Company. p. 80. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMeigs.2C_William_Montgomery1917.

Done. I got rid of it. I have no idea what it was doing, especially with a version without a page being cited right above it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smith, Henry Augustus Middleton (1911). "Calhoun, John Caldwell". In Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopædia Britannica 5 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFSmith1911.

Done. Moved to "Further Reading". Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adams, John Quincy (1874–1877). Adams, Charles Francis, ed. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams: Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848. 12 v. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co. ISBN 978-0-8369-5021-2. Retrieved June 12, 2016. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAdams1874.E2.80.931877.

Done. The source has been replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adams, John Quincy. Charles Francis Adams, ed. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams: Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848. Lippincott. ISBN 978-0-608-43349-3. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAdams.

Done. I removed them without re-adding them to "Further Reading" because, unless they are being cited, Adams's memoirs don't belong at the bottom of a Calhoun biography. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boucher, Chauncey S.; Brooks, Robert P., eds. (1931). "Correspondence Addressed to John C. Calhoun, 1837–1849". Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1929. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBoucherBrooks1931.

Done. Moved to "Further Reading". Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calhoun, John C.; Wilson, Clyde (1959–2003). The Papers of John C. Calhoun. University of South Carolina Press. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFCalhounWilson1959.E2.80.932003.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards, I think I've taken care of it all. Thank you for your help and please let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks Ok now. Graham Beards (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian Rose. It's been 4 days since the last comment here, with one vote in support of the nomination and none against. Can you tell me when I may expect a decision to be made regarding the article's possible promotion? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we try not to think in terms of 'votes' here but rather resolution of critical comments, per the FAC instructions. That said, articles do require several reviewers to declare clear support for promotion once issues are dealt with, so we need more input here before promotion. If I were to close the review now I'd have to archive it as not having gained consensus to promote but I'd prefer to give it chance to garner some further reviews, so I've listed it at 'FAC urgents' at the top ofWT:FAC and we'll see how that goes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi, as I have been unable to gain consensus so far to promote this article, would you please say whether or not you believe the issues that you addressed were resolved to your satisfaction? I ask this so that this nomination can be concluded. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maunus[edit]

It may be because I am a Social Justice Warrior but I find the usage of the phrase "minority rights" to refer to the rights of a parliamentary minority (in this case the parliamentary minority's right to keep abusing their ethnic minorities) to be grating. Is it possible to find a way to make it clearer earlier on that he was defending the rights of states within the federal system, not the rights of citizens as I believe the phrase "minority rights" are most likely to be understood by the naive reader in the 21st century? I am particularly referring to the first sentence in which the phrasing frankly comes across as self-contradictory (being a proponent of slavery and minority rights) - the sectoin where Hofstadter points out that his usage of "minority" differs from the meaing of that term also suggest that the term cannot stand alone undefined in the first sentence. I am unfamiliar with the literaturw but I think that perhaps his idea of "minority rights" corresponds best to what is today called "State's rights" in American politics?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has caused confusion before. The conclusion that you reached is basically correct. Calhoun saw the South as a sort of beleaguered minority that required special protection from Northern tyrants attempting to deprive its citizens of their rights. In the process, Calhoun developed a whole philosophy regarding the protection of minorities, which is where the concurrent majority and nullification come in. But Calhoun's ultimate goal was to free the Southern economy of burdensome tariffs and prevent the North from making any move against slavery. To achieve these goals, Calhoun sometimes went against his states' rights ideology, most noticeably by insisting that a new territory or state had no right to abolish slavery even if its people voted to do so, which was of course total hypocrisy. I'm open to suggestions that you have that would help clear this up.Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about writing something like "best remembered for his strong defense of slavery and for advancing the concepts of "concurrent majority" and "nullification" in order to protect the values and interests of the South from perceived threats from the Northern parliamentary majority"?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, I think that the term "minority rights" is important to use here. Whether we in the 21st century like to think of it that way or not, Calhoun's ideas had a lot to do with understanding the need to protect the rights of political minorities. It is important to give him credit for that. The sentence ends with this: "which he did in the context of defending Southern values from perceived Northern threats." That should make it clear what specific "rights" were, in Calhoun's view, at stake. Display name 99 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dn99 as to minority rights. Some concepts are complex and should not be simplified. It is not unreasonable for Wikipedia occasionally to send readers to the dictionary. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think some kind of work needs to be done to show that the term in his use is not at all related to the current usage of it - I dont think it actually sends the users to the dictionary unless they are made clearly aware that it means something other than what they are likely to assume. I will of course not insist, but I do think that many future readers will be perplexed and annoyed at the current wording. (note for example that looking in Wikipedia for Minority rights does not make us any the wiser regarding Calhouns ideas on the matter)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, Calhoun was concerned with political or social minorities. And once again, the very next phrase of the sentence, "which he did in the context of defending Southern values from perceived Northern threats", shows that Calhoun's arguments for minority rights and 21st century definitions of minority rights are very different. If people are still confused or annoyed, they should take a closer look at the man. The use of this phrase in the first sentence of the article has been questioned several times, and I'm just not sure that there's anything else that can be done to make it easier for people to understand. Display name 99 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relation of the third paragraph of the section "State Sovereignty and the 'Calhoun Doctrine'" to the tpoic of that section? Sounds more like it is about contemporary evaluatoins of his political style in general.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to "Rhetorical style", which is actually where it was once before it got moved for some reason. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little odd with an entire section on "Film and Television" with only one sentence in it. Any possibility of consolidating this into the legacy section?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made it a subsection there. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IN the Legacy section, going from "Wilson 2015" noting that the "run of the mill historian" is critical of Calhoun due to his defense of "the bad", to saying in the next sentence that "Recently, however, Calhoun's reputation has suffered" seems a little counter-chronological. Surely that is exactly the viewpoint Wilson is defending Calhoun against.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I moved it to the end of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, please see my comments above. Thank you for the helpful review. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry, while the nominator has been diligent in attempting to address critical comments, this has been open over a month and a half without achieving consensus for promotion so I'm going to archive it and ask that further improvements be made outside the FAC process. I'd recommend putting it up for Peer Review and inviting anyone who's commented here and at the GAN -- and also relevant Wikiprojects via their talk pages -- to look it over and when that's complete to renominate here; you can then leave neutrally worded notes that the article is up for FAC on project talk pages and on the talk pages of people who've previously commented. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2016 [4].

Fountain pen[edit]

Nominator(s): Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 21:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the historical background, mechanisms and accessories to the humble fountain pen. I am aware that this article was demoted from Featured Article status in 2006. This article's contributors have made the necessary revisions (as per the removal notes), thoroughly developing the article and paying attention to the Manual of Style encyclopaedic format. The extensive variety of nibs, filling mechanisms, inks and cartridges is comprehensively explored. Thank you for your consideration! Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 21:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, recommend withdrawal -- sorry but this nom is premature, I haven't checked prose quality but extensive sections of the text are uncited; I would suggest that after researching and referencing the article should be taken to Peer Review before considering another FAC nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, recommend withdrawal many uncited statements and very poor referencing formatting. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I just started a GA review (Talk:Fountain pen/GA1) and it's not currently at GA level, although it has the potential to get there within the review. As such FA is premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Laser brain (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2016 [5].

Jack Verge[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkyCanute (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jack Verge, an Australian international rugby player who died while on active service in the Gallipoli Campaign in WWI. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. A minor point: I'm not sure if the military history tag makes sense on this article. I've asked the question at WT:MIL#Jack_Verge. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye and Nikki disagree, so the tag is probably fine. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
"a treat to witness" (x2): See WP:INTEXT. Anything in quote marks needs to be attributed in the text ... or paraphrased, or deleted, which would probably be better here.

Deleted. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the second XI", "taking two for 22": Articles that pass FAC generally show up for one day at WP:TFA, and a summary of the article will be the first thing that 10 million readers will see that day. Most of those who go on to read the article won't know what you're talking about. Be kind to your readers.

Kindness supplied. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Slow bowler.": Not a sentence. Combine and link it.

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Blarney", "Spragg", "Wickham": I'm guessing these are last names. Do you know the first names?

No, Yes, Yes. Added to first encounter plus wikilink. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"played a game at full back ...": INTEXT.

Attributed. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got about halfway through it, down to 1904 season. I may come back and support on prose, later. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits all look good. I haven't been able to find out what "threequarter Blarney" means. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked this sentence; threequarter is wikilinked earlier in the section. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Verge took the catch at pace and ran for the corner but was pushed into touch", "threequarter C.": Kindness needed.

I've edited both sentences, and added a wikilink for Charlie White. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is other reviewers are going to want you to trim some details and game commentary. That's not my department, though.
Otherwise, Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 08:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dank, very much appreciated. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Jack_Verge.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:NSW_Officers_1914.jpg

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:1904_Lions_in_NZ.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the creator is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago

Changed tag to PD-anon-1923. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also a general note on sources while I'm here: NLA's "Wikipedia" citation results in a lot of junk data in the output - the location and date range held aren't part of the newspaper name, and the location of the original publication isn't the same as the location of the "publishing" library. These will need tidying. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've started on this, but it's soul-destroying, so I'll come back and finish later. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All cleared up now. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I only looked superficially at this stage, but over all it looks pretty good. Rugby isn't my game, though, so not sure I can accurately gauge the content. I have the following suggestions (all very minor): AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AustralianRupert. I've made a few quick edits and will come back and complete. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

per MOS:ALLCAPS the titles of the newspaper articles such as "FIRST GRADE TEAMS" should be "First Grade Teams" or "First grade teams"
- Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a little more context could be added to the Military service section, for instance you could mention what war he fought in, and who the forces at Gallipoli were fighting against, and why they were sent there (it probably wouldn't need much more than a short sentence or two in this regard).
perhaps mention that the light horse units were sent as reinforcements after the initial landing
"threequarter — and captain — Lonnie Spragg": per WP:DASH the emdashes should not be spaced here;
inconsistent initials, compare: "C. A. Verge" v "AJ McKenzie"
- Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"England aboard the RMS Mongolia on 25 May 1907": --> RMS Mongolia
- Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Not a regular FACer and don't follow rugby that closely, but this caught my eye for some reason.

"against a touring British Isles team, in Sydney, on 2 July 1904" wouldn't bother with that first comma, don't think you'd take a pause there

Done a bit of a copyedit here. No way he could have won both his caps on one day! FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"relatively light compared with other contenders for his position" were there really people contending for his position? Maybe "contemporaries"? ... Ah, just read further on, makes more sense now, but wouldn't be opposed to tacking on something like "in the NSW and Australian team"

I don't feel this is really necessary. Why wouldn't there be contenders for fullback? And indeed there were. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've muddled myself on this one, should have just removed it once I'd read further. Please disregard. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear that St Paul's College is a college at USyd, sounds almost like it's a later institution he studied at

Yes. I've revised this sentence. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the change, only quibble is should it be "residing at" rather than "resident at"? I'm honestly not sure. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either/or... FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"of the First Australian Imperial Force in October 1914 attached to the" I'd have a comma before attached

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"He passed his first year of medicine in 1901" is this really necessary? I'd just cut it down to "He graduated in 1904."

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"University 2 against Balmain 2" is "2" the standard form in rugby? I would have assumed reserves/seconds or even "II"

Gone with II. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the more specific University of Melbourne Cricket Club?

Yes. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe standard practice is to link terms like runs and wickets on first usage because they can be confusing to non-Commonwealth readers

I will go through and make sure it's done. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Inter-State" shouldn't be capitalised

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link Queensland to Queensland Reds

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"at the University Oval, Sydney" don't think "the" is correct there

OK. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"inside the Queensland 25" any way this can be reworded to be more universal? Something like "within 25 yards(?) of the Queensland goal line"

Fair enough. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"chased fast after it" would change "fast" to "quickly" (or similar)

Why? FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was reading it as an adjective when it's actually being used as an adverb. For some reason it still sounds a little clunky to my ears, but I have nothing reasonable to back that feeling up with, so leave it as you think is best. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The score at the break was 4–3" sorry, but in whose favour?

Clarified. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Wickham dropped a goal" isn't "kicked a drop goal" the more common language?

OK. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there relevant links for South Sydney and Western Suburbs by any chance?
- Guess not, that's OK. As a complete aside, it would be fascinating if someone ever wrote late 19th/early 20th century rugby clubs in Sydney in some depth. I think with most RL clubs claiming 1908 as their formation a lot of that earlier history has gone missing. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bit of a nosey around this topic last year. There's a lot of material in the NLA digital archives, if you're prepared to hack your way through it, and piece it all together article by article. It was a sidetrack for me, as I'm really focussed on the rugby players KIA in WWI, at the moment. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"So the selectors for NSW" the "so" is unnecessary

ok. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Verge's good game" any other word we can use instead of "good"? It doesn't tell the reader a lot
- I was going to harp on this, but having glanced at the source I see they said he was "good" as well, so I think this can stay as is. I blame a teacher I once had who used to get stuck into me every time I used "good" or "nice" in my writing. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I'd agree. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"for its part," doesn't add anything, should be removed

Changed to "in contrast", which is the point I'm making. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. Makes sense to me now. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"They were proving very quick" I'd add "to be" between proving and quick, sounds a bit odd otehrwise

ok. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"dominated by the home team, with Britain forced to defend, and prevented Australia from scoring" would change it to something like "dominated by the home team; Britain were forced to defend, and prevented Australia from scoring"

Put in a full stop. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Verge's kicking, on this occasion, was good" again, not sure "good" gives us much, would prefer something like "Verge kicked well on this occasion, according to Joe Bloggs/whatever newspaper"

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Verge did not play in the third test but returned to play for the University team" why did he not play in the third test? Surely he didn't prefer to play at a lower level instead

Clarified. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Both Dr A Verge, as he was then styled in the match lists" seems like puffery, I'd reword to simply "Both Verge"

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All uses of "Dr" should be removed per MOS:DOCTOR

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"which the home side won 21–0 easily"--> "which the home side won easily, 21–0"

Yes. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"brought in at five-eighths" isn't it five-eighth?

Yes it is, and I've added a link too. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Although Otago again came away the winners, 6–3, no points were scored in the first half, although the visitors came close to getting a try but were held up on the line." this reads oddly, I'd go with "No points were scored in the first half, although the visitors came close to getting a try but were held up on the line. Otago scored (maybe not the right word) 6–3 in the second half to again come away winners."

Modified. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Verge was attached to the 1st Australian Division, landing on 20 May, just after the failed Turkish attack on Anzac Cove" rather than running on with it, I'd split this into two sentences "Verge was attached to the 1st Australian Division. They landed on 20 May, just after the failed Turkish attack on Anzac Cove"

OK. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably being pedantic on something, feel free to disagree with anything. Overall I think it's a really nice article, most of these are very minor quibbles. Jenks24 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks24, thanks very much for the review. I hope you don't mind if I take a few days to respond, while we digest real world events here in the UK. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, take as long as you need. Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going through it in so much detail, Jenks24. Good and fair comments, and I've made a number of revisions. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your changes, FunkyCanute, and I agree with the ones you've left (see further responses in line above). Looking through the sources, I thought I'd make a few comments about those too, if that's alright. For reference I'm talking about this revision. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#2 needs an access date

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#3 no page number

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#5 no page number

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#12 is there something more we can give here about how you accessed this (e.g. website/URL?), I'm assuming you didn't go in person but could be wrong

{{cite web}} added. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#34, #36 no page number, no access date

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#50 what's with the "(2623)", you don't have it for the other Otago Witness refs

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#54 seems like a stray comma after the volume number

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#71 no access date

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#74 same thing with #50

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#76, #77, #78 no page number, no access date

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#79, #80 no access date

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

biblio: use location for both or neither

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, only minor things. Referencing on the whole was solid, all to reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks24, thanks, and all done. And I've added a couple of comments further up. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. I've just had another re-read of the article and everything looks in order to me, so I'm happy to support. For the benefit of the FAC delegates, I should say I haven't looked at any image licensing and haven't checked for close paraphrasing. But everything else (well written, comprehensive without being overly detailed, consistent citations, etc.) I'm happy to support on. Jenks24 (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you! FunkyCanute (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~In the rugby career section, would be it possible to add first names for the other players, when available? For example, we have an article on John Maund, who might be the player we call Maund here.~~

Yes, I think I've now added all the ones available. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~The British Isles tour of Australia: The last paragraph is a bit stubby at one sentence. Would it be possible to merge it with the previous paragraph?~~

Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~End of rugby career: Per MOS:DOCTOR, the use of "Dr" at the start of the last paragraph is a style violation.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 22:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got rid of all the Drs now, hopefully. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Giants2008. Very helpful. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

Oppose for the moment: I've been meaning to have a look at this for a while, and it looks in pretty good shape. However, there are quite a few little prose issues so that I don't think we're quite there yet. I've done some light copy-editing so far.

"Although he was relatively light compared with other contenders for his position, he was repeatedly praised for his tackling": I understand that the weight of a rugby player would affect his ability as a tackler, the general reader might not; in any case, the two parts of this sentence seem jammed together a little uncomfortably. And "contenders" doesn't seem like the right word. Some kind of rephrasing needed I think. Furthermore, I can't find this information directly stated in the main body.

I've now revised this statement, and given a more balanced and thorough appraisal of his skill. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"After graduating, he practised as a specialist in skin disease": Again, I can't find this in the main body but maybe I'm being stupid.

Well spotted. I've added it in. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"He embarked from Sydney for Alexandria, Egypt": This doesn't sound quite right. He could embark for Alexandria, but would it not be simpler just to have "He travelled from Sydney to Alexandria"?

Agreed, but travelled sounds like a holiday. I've edited the paragraph. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the lead has three out of the last four sentences beginning "He". We also have two lots of "where he" in close proximity.

Amended. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"He attended the King's School, Parramatta, where many of Australia's rugby players were schooled": This is a little tricky. As written, it looks like this was something that has always been the case, but it comes from a 1913 source. Also, I initially read it to mean the national rugby team, but the source simply seems to list teams that "old boys" play for. I think a little rephrase is needed.

Edited. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of early life reads horribly; why do we need to hear about the lives of his family? This reads like padding. We have successive sentences beginning "his, his, he, he" but I'm struggling to see the relevance.

I've shortened this and made it more pertinent. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In his second year he began to be noticed, especially for his defensive play": Noticed by who?

Clarified. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"University II against Balmain II": I think we need to spell out what II means here.

I disagree... This has changed a few times, depending on the personal preference of the review. The notation is standard. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and it was reckoned that he was as good a cricketer as a rugby player": This reads clumsily, and "reckoned" is not really formal enough for an encyclopaedia.

Modified. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting more sentences that all begin with "he", and a scan through the rest of the article makes me think we might have a few problems with repetitive sentence structures. It might be worth taking a look at this.

I don't see all the sentences beginning with 'he', unless you're referring to the final paragraph of the lengthy rugby career section, which contained three; just the one now. As for repetitive sentence structures, please be more specific, since I've used a fair range of them, but undoubtedly in a substantial article, they might be repeated. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, but I think this still needs a bit of work and possibly a full copy-edit. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this in depth. However, I think 'a full copy-edit' is possibly an exaggeration, but I'd appreciate any further pointers you might have. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, all comments now handled. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: Sorry, the oppose stands. I apologise for taking so long, but real life is a bit hectic right now. I've glanced at the changes since I commented above, and I notice that the point about him being light is still not mentioned in the main body, but only in the lead. I'm not entirely sure that the other changes are improvements either. For example, we now have "he began to be noticed by the rugby press, both for his defensive play and kicking skills". This is still clumsy; what about "he attracted press attention for his defensive play and kicking skills" or "the press praised his defensive play and kicking" (Do we need "skills"?) Also, I've took a quick look at the whole "rugby career" section and noticed these points.

Consecutive sentences begin with "In"; three consecutive sentences begin with "he"; the whole structure is repetitive with "In XXXX, he [verb]"
"He also played cricket at University, initially for the second team,[17] and he was considered to be as good a cricketer as he was at rugby": We could cut "also". Who considered him to be as good? Everyone? One newspaper report? Critics? His team-mates? Why is University capitalised here? "considered to be as good a cricketer as he was at rugby" lacks a little elegance.
"and at one time, he was the most successful bowler at the University": When? In what sense? Wickets? Average? Economy rate? How many games did he play? We need some sense of how good he was rather than the article just stating it.
"Verge was up for selection to the University first XV, either at fullback or threequarter, and also for NSW as fullback": Up for selection is not really encyclopaedic. What about "in contention for selection" or "in contention for a place in..."? Putting his university and NSW places together in this sentence does not really work as we don't mention NSW again until the end of the paragraph.
"He took the place at fullback on the University XV from A. J. McKenzie": Who? Why did he take his place? What convinced the selectors?
"By June 1902, Verge was gaining recognition in the press": This needs expanding; what did they say? If this refers to the quote from The Referee in the following sentence, this whole sentence is rather unnecessary. If others reports said the same thing, we need to know. And "gaining recognition" looks like they simply knew what he looked like!

I'm going to stop there, but I could give a whole list, and this is just examples from one section. I don't really want to give a line-by-line review because I believe there is too much to address here. That is not to say that article is in a bad shape, but I still think the prose needs a lot of work to give it that final polish. I think we are struggling on criteria 1a ("its prose is engaging and of a professional standard") and I would again recommend a full copy-edit. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- It concerns me to hear suggestions of a full copyedit in a nom open this long so we clearly still have a way to go before consensus to promote, regardless of earlier supports. I'm therefore going to archive and suggest a PR before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2016 [6].

Wrestle Kingdom 9[edit]

Nominators: リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) and starship.paint ~ KO 04:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is our third attempt at WP:FA for this article, as the first two attempts didn't generate enough discussion. The article is about a 2015 Japanese professional wrestling show, the premier annual event of NJPW, and was praised by critics. It received an award as the Best Major Wrestling Show of 2015, and one of its matches was awarded 2015 Pro Wrestling Match of the Year. Ribbon and I have created the article, brought it to DYK, GA and peer review.

To encourage activity, I'm willing to exchange reviews for anyone I haven't already given help to! Whereas Ribbon said he would try to help in his own way! :) starship.paint ~ KO 04:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Sorry to see you've had so little luck getting reviews after three nominations.

~~Any reason for the citation on the first sentence? Cites aren't usually needed in the lead except for direct quotes and contentious statements.~~

Removed cite. starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was originally there to show that the full name of the event is "Wrestle Kingdom 9 in Tokyo Dome" and not just the "Wrestle Kingdom 9" that's used throughout the article. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The full name is now in the Background section in the body! starship.paint ~ KO 02:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Tanahashi-Okada heavyweight title match also headlined Wrestle Kingdom 7 and Wrestle Kingdom 10": I think this means that 7 and 10 also had a heavyweight title match between Tanahashi and Okada, but this phrasing isn't quite right -- "The Tanahashi-Okada match" refers to a single instance of a match, not to a matchup. Just changing the lead "The" to "A" and making it "had also" might do it, though you could also rephrase.

Changed, thanks! starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it; see if that's OK -- the problem is that Wrestle Kingdom 10 is not in the past at the time of Wrestle Kingdom 9, so using "had" only works for WK7. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked a bit again. starship.paint ~ KO 02:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The appearance of Pro Wrestling Noah wrestlers led to a storyline where NJPW's Suzuki-gun group began wrestling in Noah": I don't know enough about wrestling to really follow this, but I think it's saying that the Suzuki-gun group began wrestling under the Noah promotional banner, or in Noah events. I think this would be clearer to non-aficionados if you provided a timeframe -- e.g. "led to a storyline at the following week's Noah event".

Edited, thanks! starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014, to take place at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015. That day NJPW announced a partnership with Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling, which it approached about bringing the event to a new market." I think this should be "which it had approached", since the approach presumably precedes January 4, but wouldn't it be better to make this strictly chronological? Something like (and I'm guessing at the date for the first part): "Early in 2014, NJPW approached Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling to suggest bringing the Wrestle Kingdom event to a new market. On August 10, 2014, NJPW announced that Wrestle Kingdom 9 would take place at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015, and on November 4 GFW followed with an announcement that the event would be presented live on ..."

Personally, I would think that NJPW approached GFW about the PPV thing after August when the partnership between the two was announced, but this isn't specifically stated in the source given. It could also have happened before August. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the date's not in the source then it's moot, so I've struck my comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Ross attempted to obtain Mike Tenay for color commentary, but was turned down by the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) promotion": What does TNA have to do with obtaining Tenay?~~

Tenay is employed by TNA. I clarified, is it alright? starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Others considered for the job were John Pollock, Mauro Ranallo and Kevin Nash, before GFW settled on Matt Striker": Do we need to include details of people who were not, in the end, involved in the event? If this is the sort of thing wrestling fans find interesting, I'm OK with leaving it in, but it seems a bit peripheral.

Most wrestling fans recognize the names of Ranallo and Nash and I think would find the idea of them being considered interesting. I'm fine with removing them too. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; I was just making sure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very knowledgeable about wrestling, but it appears kayfabe applies to Japanese wrestling too. Wouldn't it make sense to link "scripted" to kayfabe instead of to script (recorded media)? Or is the term not applied to Japanese bouts?

Changed the link and the text too. In the period of time that this FAC was up, WP:PW reached a consensus that the old "wrestling is scripted" disclaimer should be rewritten. starship.paint ~ KO 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you say "the main event" you can't really say "other main event"; you either have one main event or two main events.~~

Changed. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tanahashi/Okada paragraph of the Storylines section goes back and forth in time in order to bring the reader up to date, and it's a bit confusing. I'd suggest sequencing the information like this:
1. ~~The two have an extensive history; this is the seventh match between them, etc.~~

Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's improved; just one more comment. Can we get rid of "As a result, this slated"? It's redundant, and "slated" is journalese. I think you can just say "The Wrestle Kingdom 9 main event was the seventh match...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Wrestle Kingdom 9's other main event was determined at the November 8, 2014, NJPW Power Struggle event": "event" used twice in a short span.~~

Changed the second "event" to "show". リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Nakamura and Ibushi had a previous match at the 2013 G1 Climax": why is this relevant in this article?~~

The 2015 match played a lot off the 2013 match. It was like a sequel... Furthermore, the 2013 match was highly rated just like the 2015 match, it was rated the match of the year by Tokyo Sports. starship.paint ~ KO 02:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- can something to that effect be added in the text? For a reader unfamiliar with the wrestlers, it seems a bit of a non sequitur, since many of the wrestlers will have had prior bouts. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tweaked it, so how is it now? starship.paint ~ KO 02:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In one Wrestle Kingdom 9 match": not a very good opening to the sentence, though I can see you have to vary the intros to each paragraph in this section. How about something like "Another title that was contested at Wrestle Kingdom 9 was the IWGP Tag Team Championships" as the lead in?

Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck; I'm not going to object to every use of "slated" but I think it should be used very moderately -- we want to sound like an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The rivalry took a turn in May 2014": I don't think you can say it took a turn if you've given no previous history. Something like "Wrestle Kingdom 9 also showcased a rivalry between Toru Yano and the Suzuki-gun group, which had begun in 2012 [or whenever]. In May 2014 Yano's tag team partner ..."

Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~"...by Fish on Nick. first Chasing the Dragon...": missing "The" at the start of the sentence?~~

Added in, thanks! starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One instance of "Styles Clash" is italicized, and one is not; which is correct? I see some other italicized move titles; are these usually italicized in the sources? "High FLy Flow" is also once italicized, once not.

They're not italicized in the sources but in wrestler articles Bobby Eaton#In wrestling if the wrestler gives a special nickname to the move instead of its technical name, then they are italicized in Wikipedia like Alabama Jam. starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- if it's a WikiProject style and is consistent, that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~The link from "huracanrana" indicates that it should be spelled with two "huracanrrana"; I didn't fix it because I don't know which is correct.~~

Two of the sources say "huracanrana". I've always thought it was spelled that way. If it's a misspelling, it's certainly very widespread. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...with a High Fly Flow crossbody to Okada on the floor. After Tanahashi's High Fly Flow crossbody back in the ring...": assuming these are the same move, this could be compressed to avoid the repetition.

Not the same so I clarified! starship.paint ~ KO 02:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"puroresu is, beyond a shadow of doubt, indeed ichiban": I haven't got a clue what this means. If it's important to leave in, could you add an explanatory footnote? Aha; I see a link later for puroresu, but I still don't know what ichiban is.

Linked to wiktionary! starship.paint ~ KO 02:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS doesn't forbid linking in quotes, but it discourages it. How about a footnote instead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made into a note and reordered the reviews so that puroresu link is above. starship.paint ~ KO 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"English-language commentators Ross and Striker "enhanced the show in their own ways": this is a bit vague and I think could be cut. You might need to paraphrase more of Powell's comments in that paragraph as a result, to avoid having almost the whole paragraph be a straight quote.

I expanded his review and tried to paraphrase more. starship.paint ~ KO 02:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Martin wrote that New Japan had transcended puroresu and was "some of the most passionate and poignant performance art today." ': New Japan is a group, so we can't say "New Japan is performance art"; it should be something like "has produced some of".

Fixed, thanks! starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- I've completed a pass; I'll wait for your responses and then go through again. Haven't looked at the sources yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie and Ribbon Salminen: - thank you Mike for dropping by. I've addressed some but don't have much time now. I'll do more in the days to come. Ribbon you want to handle the Background/Storylines stuff? I'll add more about Powell in the Reception section, at least. starship.paint ~ KO 03:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck most points above; I'll look at the remaining points this evening and read through again then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I think we've responded to all the above comments :) starship.paint ~ KO 03:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck almost everything; a couple of minor issues left. I should have time to do another read-through this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put in more replies! starship.paint ~ KO 04:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the last point, but I'm out of time tonight; more tomorrow, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! starship.paint ~ KO 07:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read through again and made a couple of minor copyedits. I think the text is now fine. I will take a look at sources, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For reference, I used the WP:PW/RS wikiproject reliable source list when editing. starship.paint ~ KO 03:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did some source spotchecks and only found one issue -- the following is too close to the original and needs to be paraphrased further.

Article: "Flipps announced that the stream would not work on Chromecast, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, three of the four most common devices listed as compatible with the application"; source: "Flipps TV is saying ...that the live stream won’t work on Chromecast, Xbox 360, Xbox One, or LG smart TVs. Yes, Chromecast and the Xboxes, three of the four most common devices listed as compatible with Flipps".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my hand at paraphrasing, Mike Christie. starship.paint ~ KO 12:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Prose is fine; I didn't do a thorough source review but checked a handful and the sources seem reliable for what they're used for. I did find one close paraphrase and perhaps it would be good if another reviewwer did a couple more spotchecks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MPJ-US

Only fair I comment on one of the few other pro wrestling FACs on here. I will be providing more comments over the next day or so. MPJ-US 20:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prose - nothing jumped out at me on my first readthrough.
Images - Going through them it looks like they all have the appropriate tags and licenses needed. The poster being fair use is allowed under the fair use rights so that checks out IMO.
Sources

1. 3 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
2. 4 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
3. 8 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
4. 10 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
5. 19 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
6. 23 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
7. 24 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
8. 41 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
9. 42 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
10. 43 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
11. 45 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
12. 46 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
13. 48 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
14. 49 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
15. 50 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
16. 52 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
17. 53 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
18. 55 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
19. 56 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
20. 57 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.

Thanks for the help. I've added dates in those citations. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 21:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. Honestly that's all I have, it's a very well written article and from what I can see sources and images check out as well, happy to lend my Support to this. MPJ -US 03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Wrestlinglover, GaryColemanFan, Freikorp, and James26: - notifying editors who commented on the old FACs and peer review - would you comment on the article at this point? Thank you! starship.paint ~ KO 13:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been moving and been busy with building a house more than I expected. I'll see what I can do tomorrow.--WillC 08:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry, I realise this is getting close but with no comments for a month and more required before promotion, I feel we have to archive this now; I'd suggest notifying all previous reviewers at the very beginning if you renominate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: - alright. I will renominate, but do I need to wait two weeks? starship.paint ~ KO 13:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2016 [7].

Ridge Racer (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past months, I have worked hard on this article, and believe (hope?) it might now meet the FA criteria. I'm not sure if any more info can be added, and have tried my best to make the prose as good as possible, and the citations consistent. Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from czar[edit]

I think I've said this in another review but superscript footnotes like "^{[2](pp84–90)[3](pp50–51)[4]}" are an impediment to reading. The page ranges should be shifted to be somewhere within the footnote/bibliography section. And 84–90 is not a great page range for verifying a single fact—you want to be as specific as possible. There's also an excess of fair use images—see the WP:NFCC and the individual images' fair use rationales for congruence. There should be a very specific reason for why the prose necessitates each fair use screenshot, and I don't see the case for needing to visualize the soundtrack album. czar 21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the parameter of |page= for the page numbers instead. Having really long inline citations is distracting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Czar: @Anarchyte: Am I to understand that any article using the {{rp}} template cannot achieve featured status? That kind of defeats the whole point. If I cite the same source multiple times, but merely different pages, surely it's much better to have the page number in the citation rather than have 20 different citations to the same source? Is there any other way of having different page numbers without having lots of otherwise duplicate citations? If long citations are distracting, then we should never use Harvard or any other citation style, as they're much longer than this. Adam9007 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting that? I don't think anyone would say anything if the whole footnote was "^[2]:80" but you're using multiple page ranges in a single superscript—the point of footnotes is to store the information within reach but not distractingly in the reader's face. I wouldn't say it's much of a help to have two page ranges as verification for a single sentence, no. This is straightforward so I fail to see the hesitancy. If you disagree, let's see what other reviewers say.

czar 18:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Actually, it's not a single sentence it's verifying; it's all that's written up to that point:

“

In the PlayStation version, a mini-game of Galaxian can be played as the game loads. If won, eight additional cars become available.[2]:50 The cars are varied in their specifications; some feature a high top speed, others excelling at acceleration or turning, and others being more balanced. Certain cars are named after other Namco games such as Solvalou, Mappy, Bosconian, Nebulasray, and Xevious.[2]:84–90[3]:50–51[4]

”

Pages 84-90 of the first book give the names and specs of the cars. Pages 50-51 of the second book support the fact extra ones are unlocked on winning Galaxian. Page 4 of the first book also supports that, so I got rid of the second citation, and the citation after the second sentence and changed it to "[1]:4,84–90[2]". Is this good enough? Should I try to do this throughout the article? Unfortunately, I can't help the way the books are organised. Should I perhaps put such citations at the end of the paragraph? I've also got rid of the ps as suggested. Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote can/should be helpful more than it is short. For instance, you can explain in the footnote itself: "For car specifications, see pp. X–Y. For etc." The superscript footnote isn't meant to support more than a few quick numbers, and even then that gets unwieldy ("[2]:18,24,30,40[6]:5"). There's no reason to not bake whatever the numbers are meant to signify into the footnote itself. I would keep citations specific to each sentence, where possible. Remember that the idea is verifiability. If you move a horde of citations to the end of the paragraph, it'll be even harder to trace any of its information. czar 03:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: So it's possible to put all the pages used in the same footnote? There's no need for umpteen footnotes for the same book just because different pages are used? Adam9007 (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few ways of doing it. One would be to have a separate "Sources" section with generic citations and to create {{sfn}} short footnotes, each with page ranges off of the generic footnote. Knight Lore is an example of this. Another option would be to use the full citation for the first mention of source and then to use short footnotes after, if you don't want a separate Sources section. Another option is to use a custom {{refn}} footnote and to spell out what exactly the pages are used for what—this is the academic way. So perhaps you'd have a Notes section that entries like "Namco 199X. For car specifications, see pp. X–Y. For A, see B." and so on, and then you could have a separate section where Namco 199X is expanded. It's your call, but not having it in the text itself would be an improvement to readers. czar 00:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I'll do whatever it takes to get this up to FA. But to be on the safe side, I think I'd better wait and see what other reviewers think before radically changing anything. But there's another problem; the track list and album cover art. Should I get rid of them? Dissident93 simply said "no tracklistings". He didn't say why. I have seen FAs with both tracklistings and album cover art.; what makes this one different? Adam9007 (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG consensus for track listings is to only include track lists when the soundtrack has some notability of its own. Personally, if the depth of coverage of the soundtrack is currently expressed in the article, the track listing doesn't appear to augment anything in the text (none of the track are mentioned by name by reviewers, etc.) In that case, you certainly wouldn't need the infobox as well—anything important from it can go in prose. While we're here, I'd also change the format of the reviews. There's way too much data in each box. I'm not sure that "PS1" needs to be repeated so often. And then there's the issue of jamming the page numbers next to the superscript in that small box... But it's fine to handle that with other reviewers. czar 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to link the policy, but forgot. Per WP:GAMECRUFT #15, we shouldn't list tracklistings. Even the ones on the FA Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross articles got removed, and if they aren't considered notable, Ridge Racer shouldn't either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but is there any way this can be put on hold or something? I had a bit of a drama at ANI, and I think it's best if I just take a break from not just that area, but the whole thing for a while. Adam9007 (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, @Adam9007. Hopefully you'll be back soon. There's plenty of work besides the A7 queues. As for the FAC, you can always withdraw it for now and open up "archive2" in a few weeks when you're ready. czar 06:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Adam, no shame in needing a break so if you want to do that I'd prefer this was withdrawn and you can begin a re-nomination when you're ready. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not having heard back from the nominator after three days, I think it's time we archived this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2016 [8].

Gospel of John[edit]

Nominator(s): Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 06:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Fourth Gospel of the Christian New Testament: its origins, history, content and structure, comparison with the Synoptic Gospels, and scholarly analysis. It was recently promoted to GA status (note: I was nominator and resolved most of the issues brought up in the GA review process), and I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Please note that this is my first FA nomination; based on simply reading the criteria, I would say it qualifies, but I have no firsthand experience of these criteria in action. Of course, I'll be happy to help improve the article during this process as well. Thanks in advance to all the editors who will be involved in this review. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 06:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maunus[edit]

I am sorry to say that this still needs work. The lead is so short and inadequate that I wouldnt even let it pass GA in that condition - but this is easily fixed. A bigger problem I think is that the sectoins are very short and list like, which makes for poor article flow. The writing style is positively telegraphic with short sentences that states piecs of information but which do not really tie together to become fluent prose. The integrated lists such as the "comparison with synoptics" only makes this worse. The composition and setting section could and should be much longer given the size of the literature on this topic. I also find the theology section lacking, especially in not showing the way that John has been interpreted differently in different theological traditions. Again, given the compexity of the gospel and of the voluminous literature of exgesis I think the theology section is quite simply too deficient. the article currently has only 66 inline citations - there is no way this can be considered to adequately represent the voluminous literature on the Gospel of John - and indeed most of the works in the bibliography are not in fact cited (either they should be cited or removed from the bibliography - clearly I would suggest that they should be incorporated into the article to satisfy the requirements of comprehensiveness and well-researchedness). I would not support the article without a major expansion, and addition of a lot of prose and a much better attempt at summarizing and presenting the entire literature on the topic. It is very laudable that you have taken the article under your wing, since it is extremely important and vital to the encyclopedia. But the topic is very large and requires a lot of reading to be able to become fully comprehensive. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Authorship, date and origin" section I really want a much more comprehensive discussion of the evidence. What is the evidence of authorship and the arguments for and against identifying John of patmos as the author? What is the evidence used for dating? What are the oppposing arguments? What is the evidence for the proposed three textual versions? (Also I think the discussion of anti-semitism material seems tangential to do the origin, dating and authorship material and probably deserves its own full section somewhere). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general problem with the use of "main" articles throughout - the article linked as "main" should not be a general article, but a more specific daughter article of this one. For example the main article for the section on "Christology" is not the general article on Christology, but rather the non-existing article on Christology in the Gospel of John, and similarly the "main article" for the section on "textual history and position in the New testament" is not Biblical manuscript but Textual history of the Gospel of John. When such specialized articles exist the section should be a summary of that article and the reader can then click on the "main" link to find more detailed information, but in most cases in this article there are no more detailed articles that can be used as "main" articles which means that all the detail that Wikipedia should have on a subject should be in this article. This is also why most sections need to be much longer than they are now, because they are not in fact summary style sections untill there is a detailed article for them to summarize. Until there is then they need to provide the full information on each subtopic, which currently they don't.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with ·maunus's points, and think the amount of work involved is too much to do during FAC. FA is very different from GA. I'd recommend a Peer review, after a period of improvement. The "Representations" section is especially poor, with only one ref, and the striking claim, in a one-sentence para, that "The Gospel of John has influenced Impressionist painters, Renaissance art, literature, and other depictions of Jesus, with influences on Greek, Jewish and European history", is completely unreferenced, and without useful links that would get the reader to any expansion of this claim. There should be a section on the pre-modern reception and interpretation, and how John's differences to the Synoptic Gospels were explained and interpreted. Minor point: there's a strange sentence in the lead, starting: "The discourses contained with this gospel seem to be concerned...". Was that meant to be "within" ("in" would be better, and "discourses" is probably not the best word)? Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto[edit]

The first thing I noticed was that the article is relatively short: only 14kb of readable prose. (Though you have quite a lot of content that is in bullet-point/numbered list form, and thus is not counted in that). That's not necessarily a problem for a featured articles (the recently promoted Dorset Ooser is shorter), but FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, and the Gospel of John is a topic which has been discussed extensively for almost 2000 years: I would expect that a comprehensive article on the topic could be longer.
Reading through the article, even as someone who is not a new testament scholar, there are obvious places where the article could stand to be more comprehensive: the article has barely any discussion of the question of authorship, and even less on dating, for instance. The section on textual history is very short. There is virtually no discussion of the development of the new testament canon: was John's position as a canonical gospel ever in doubt? (e.g. the Marcionist canon consisted solely of Luke and Paul's epistles) Nor is there any real discussion of how the canonical order of gospels (MMLJ) was developed, though the article notes that it was not always consistently so...
Lots of the lists don't do the article any favours. A comparison with the synoptic gospels could be rewritten as prose, for instance, with paragraphs discussing respectively the differing material presented, how the theology differs, contradictions, and genre/stylistic differences.
The section on "representations" is a bit generic and doesn't currently add anything to the article. "The Gospel of John has influenced Impressionist painters, Renaissance art, literature, and other depictions of Jesus". Well, fine, but how? How has the Gospel of John specifically, rather than the gospels in general, influenced artists and writers?

The above are the major issues, but there are also some more minor nitpicks:

According to WP:EL, there should usually not be external links in the body of the article. I can see at least four instances of this.
Some wikilinks are repeated. There are at least two links to Beloved disciple and to Jesus Seminar. There may be others. Per MOS:DUPLINK, these should be removed.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (I wrote this before there were any comments on the page, but got edit-conflicted. No doubt some of the prior reviwers will have beaten me to the draw on some points). This is an important article, rightly recognised as such in various Wiki projects. It was recognised as GA a few days ago, and has had no significant preparation for this FAC. I note that this is the nominator's first stab at FAC; there is a considerable rise in standards between GA and FA, and I would normally expect a first FAC nomination to have gone through a comprehensive peer review before coming here. While the article is interesting and well written, it falls short of FA requirements in several respects:

Citations: there are numerous uncited statements throughout the article. Note in paricular:

End of "Textual history" section
First paragraph, "Chronology" section
First paragraph, "Gnostic elements" section
Numerous statements within the "Comparisons" section
Most of the "Representations" section

There is overuse of bullet points rather than narrative, especially in the "Comparisons" section
The "bibliography" needs to be divided between cited texts and additional reading.
There is a confusion in that, having declared the authorship of the gospel to be anonymous, with the claim of "John the Evangelist" "rejected by the majority of modern biblical scholars", you then regularly ascribe authorship to "the evangelist". Who have you in mind? It might be better to refer simply to "the author" or "the writer".
I note that this article "incorporates text from" a 1910 article featured in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I'dlike to know what use you have actually made of this somewhat outdated source.

The above are some of the points that a thorough peer review could deal with. In its present form I think the article will struggle at FAC, and it may be wise to consider withdrawal and a later nomination after further article development. Brianboulton (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that the criteria are much more demanding than for GA, and that several editors have suggested putting this through a peer review first. I would be supportive of ending this FA nomination and initiating a peer review instead. What would be the most appropriate way to close down this discussion to begin that process? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notify the FAC coordinators, here, that you wish to withdraw this nomination. When this is done, go to WP:PR and open a peer review in the "Philosophy and Religion" section. Then notify the reviewers who've commented here and invite them to contribute to the review there (I will certainly join in). Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator wishes to withdraw: @FAC coordinators: I would like to withdraw this discussion in order to replace it with a peer review. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Laser brain (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2016 [9].

Gail Halvorsen[edit]

Nominator(s): Alexislynn(BYU) (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about retired U.S. Airforce officer and humanitarian Gail Halvorsen. It describes Halvorsen's early life and career and focuses on his initiation of and work with Operation "Little Vittles". After seeing and speaking with some of the destitute children of Berlin during the Berlin Blockade, Halvorsen had the idea to drop his candy rations via handkerchief parachute to the children. After Halvorsen's commander officially sanctioned the project, Operation "Little Vittles" expanded drastically. From September 1948 to May 1949, Operation "Little Vittles" dropped over 23 tons of candy to the youth of Berlin. The article goes on to detail the rest of Halvorsen's professional career and his legacy-including both his awards and continuing humanitarian work. Halvorsen was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the Cheney Air Force Award, and the Legion of Merit. He also planned candy drops over Bosnia-Herzegovina (as a part of Operation Provide Promise), Kosovo, Japan, Guam, Albania, and Baghdad, Iraq. Because of his international renown, there is a plethora of information on Gail Halvorsen in various places. I believe that this article is one of (if not the) most comprehensive biographies of the man and his life's work. Alexislynn(BYU) (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now at least -- recusing from my coord duties, I note there are large sections of uncited text; each paragraph should end with a citation at the very least (indicating all preceding text in the paragraph may be found in the cited source -- more granular referencing may be necessary). On a procedural matter, I note also that a Peer Review is still open; either this FAC should be withdrawn until the PR runs its course or the PR should be closed -- the two should not be open simultaneously, per FAC instructions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Peer Review has been closed, and I have read over the article again and added a few citations to specific sentences. I failed to find large sections of uncited text, however, and am hoping you could point those out so that I can add the necessary citations? Thanks for your time! Alexislynn(BYU) (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You've added about eight citations, which is good, but I still see several uncited end-of-paragraph sentences:

"Halvorsen would serve as part of Air Force Systems Command for the next four years." This reads like padding and I think could be simply removed
"After his official retirement in 1974, Halvorsen continued to serve the local, national, and international community in a variety of ways." You need to provide examples of the "variety of ways", together with appropraite citations. Or lose the sentence.
" Halvorsen also performed multiple candy drops throughout the United States" - I've added a citation tag.

Also on the matter of citations, there is considerable over-referencing in the lead, of information that is adequately cited in the text. Most if not all of these should be removed.

On a more general issue, some of the prose does not seem encyclopedic in tone. For example, "Colonel Halvorsen's life, and especially his work with Operation "Little Vittles", had a profound impact on many, many lives both in the United States and throughout the world" – that's more like magaziney schmooze. I also think that you should refer to your subject as "Halvorsen" throughout, rather than variously as "Lieutenant Halvorsen" or "Colonel Halvoresen", and you should give your readers more information about his promotional path in the USAF: did he skip the ranks of captain and major? All in all, I'm inclined to agree with Ian that this nomination is at present somewhat undercooked. That's not to say that it's miles off, but I don't think that the peer review was adequate, and believe the articles needs a more thorough preparation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest closure of this nomination I don't want to pile onto this well-intentioned nomination. However, I agree with the concerns raised by Ian and Brian and think that this nomination should be withdrawn for now. As some comments which I hope are helpful in improving the article:

The prose should be reworked so that it is encyclopedic in tone. At present the article reads like a lightweight magazine article, and doesn't do its subject justice as a result.
In particular, watch out for nice-sounding but inaccurate statements like "During that time he founded "Operation Little Vittles", an effort to raise morale in Berlin by dropping candy via miniature parachute to the city's residents" - the article states that this was done by Lieutenant General William H. Tunner (and military operations are "initiated", not "founded") and ""Little Vittles" was not the end of Halvorsen's military and humanitarian career, but the beginning" - he had been in the Air Force for six years before it began.
The lead is overly focused on the "candy bomber" aspect of Halvorsen's military career. The somewhat misnamed "professional career" section makes it clear that he had a very substantial career in important roles, and the lead doesn't do justice to this.
Please also check the technical details in the article against high quality sources. For instance:
- "After fighter pilot training with the RAF" - was this really "with the RAF"? It looks to have been with one of the many facilities established in the US to train British pilots.
- "During his flights he would first fly to Berlin, then deeper into Soviet-controlled areas" - please check this. My understanding is that the Allied pilots could only fly in a small number of direct routes between West Germany and Berlin, so it's unlikely that he flew further into East Germany after departing West Berlin (expect possibly a trivial distance while turning?)
- "Support for this effort to provide the children of Berlin with chocolate and gum grew quickly, first among Halvorsen's buddies, then to the whole squadron" - but it's previously stated that the general in charge of the airlift ordered it to be expanded. This makes it sound like it was some kind of hobby for only one unit.
- "used to ferry supplies into the starving city" - West Berlin never starved as the airlift was highly successful
The more-serious aspects of "Little Vittles" could be elaborated on. For instance: why was morale low? why did this help? what exactly was Halvorsen's role once it was up and running? (did he remain only a pilot, or gain a coordinator type role?) how significant and successful do serious modern historians consider it to have been?
What Halvorsen did during his university career isn't explained at present. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Substantive issues have been raised that indicate this is not ready. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. —Laser brain (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Laser brain (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2016 [10].

Bharat Ratna[edit]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 04:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about India's highest civilian award. Instituted in 1954, the award is bestowed upon 45 recipients and has been surrounded by several controversies. The article is copyedited by a GoCE member (@Blackmane:) and has undergone a peer review. Looking forward to see some constructive comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler This is a premature submission. I'm surprised that it was granted Good Article status. There is no point in wasting the time of conscientious editors by asking them to read an article large parts of which need to be rewritten, reduced, and made free both of political points of view and of repetition. The nominator should work with some editors from the league of copy-editors as well as from WP:India, to rewrite, and to resubmit later. It will be a good thing if the reviewer who granted it Good Article status will explain why he or she did so. Please do not ask me to explain more. If the WAC officials decide my comments are not actionable, so be it, but this really is nowhere near FA class. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments by Fowler&fowler:
- The claim in the lead, which is repeated in the controversy section, that India's first prime minister nominated himself for this award is sourced to some recent sources, which are not reliable, at least not for an FA class article. More reliable, contemporary, sources described it as something different. Here is one: Singhvi, Laxmi Mall; Sarkar, Bidyut Kumar (1956), India: Government and Politics, Human Relations Area Files, South Asia Project, University of California, p. 366 Quote: "... many politically-conscious Indians are convinced that future historians will not miss the tangible significance of Mr. Nehru's role in contemporary history. This confidence was expressed when India's President Rajendra Prasad, in July 1955, took the "unconstitutional" (i.e., without the Prime Minister's recommendation) step of conferring on Nehru the title of Bharat Ratna (Jewel of India), the highest award the Indian Republic can offer. (p 366)" Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The speech of Indian president Rajendra Prasad delivered on the occasion of Nehru receiving the Bharat Ratna confirms that it was he (Prasad) who nominated Nehru without the latter's knowledge. See: Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Correspondence and Select Documents: Volume Seventeen. Presidency Period January 1954 to December 1955, Allied Publishers, 1984, pp. 455–456, ISBN 978-81-7023-002-1 Quote: "I have felt that I can do no better than conferring on him the award of Bharat Ratna which is the highest award of honour that we have. In doing so, for once, I may be said to be acting unconstitutionally, as I am taking this step on my own initiative and without any recommendation or advice from my Prime Minister; but I know that my action will be endorsed most enthusiastically not only by my Cabinet and other Ministers but by the country as a whole."

Since this will not available to everyone, I will copy the entire speech on Talk:Bharat Ratna. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: With your post comment edits on the article, it looks like you have objection with the controversies related to Gandhis as you have simply deleted the particulars. The similar concern was brought to the article's talk page by 5-edits user a month ago. When asked for the online source for the claim, the user has not yet come back with the details. Interestingly, you have raised the same concern but provided the source, which is good in a way. This particular source about Prasad's speech should be considered as a primary one and should be backed by one or more secondary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. The content that was deleted by you was published in various contemporary reliable sources/newspapers like The Hindu, Telegraph, Outlook India etc. and thus cannot be and shall not be deleted outrightly. Rather, post your source, we may need to rephrase the content to put forward both the sides.

About Indira Gandhi awarding herself, none of your sources provide any support to your claim. So that definitely should be restored back. Unless you have source to support it. There are various books and sources available which labels her action as "patting-her-own-back". - Vivvt (Talk) 13:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivvt: Who are the Gandhis, in the plural, in this instance? It is Mr Jawaharlal Nehru and Mrs Indira Gandhi. I picked them because they were right there in the lead. I then looked for evidence in the Criticism section, whose first paragraph I removed because it was entirely sourced to op-ed pieces or memoirs in newspapers written by unknown people (i.e. people with no scholarly antecedent in the historiography of Mr Nehru, Mrs Gandhi, or the Bharat Ratna). Wikipedia is fairly clear that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are ... are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." In other words, this is not a significant viewpoint. Also, the claim about the Right to Information query (RTI) is mentioned in no op-ed piece you have cited. The information released in the RTI queries, in any case, as @Sitush: has observed, "would most likely be tailored very specifically to the questions asked, which could significantly skew results. (See here.)" Predictably, upon an on-line search I could find evidence of only one RTI, written up, replete with photograph, in a guest story by a reader with one name, in a dubiously partisan web newspaper, which seemed to be nothing but a case in point (of Sitush's observation).

How did you manage to keep that claim in the article when all you had were Indian newspapers opinions making that claim, but providing no evidence from a primary source for it? In other words, other than saying that Mr Nehru awarded himself the BR, where is the evidence of any primary source (a handwritten or typewritten note from the PM to the president, a memo, a telegram, a record of a phone call) in these newspaper stories? You will need to produce a scholarly secondary source, such as I have produced above, from the University of California, Berkeley, publication. I included the Rajendra Prasad speech in full because the Berkeley publication refers to it. I have now also added, on the article's talk age, a Times of India front-page story from, July 16, 1955, the day following the award, and a shorter New York Times mention, both confirming that Mr Nehru had no previous knowledge of the award. As for the Indira Gandhi claim, you will still need to produce a scholarly source for that as well in a Featured Article. One of your sources, The Hindu opinion piece, in fact, suggests the opposite: "it is generally believed that it was the then President, V. V. Giri, who had suo motu decided to award a Bharat Ratna to Indira Gandhi after the Bangladesh war." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2016 [11].

Heavy metal (chemical element)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 1807 Humphry Davy first discovered metals (potassium, sodium) that floated on water. Scientists of the day debated if these new elements were really metals since all other metals then known were relatively heavy, and sank in water. After some consideration of the other properties of potassium and sodium, they were admitted to the metal club.

A little while later Leopold Gmelin, another chemist, distinguished between light metals and heavy metals on the basis of their density.

Fast forward 199 years to the present day and the term heavy metal seems to have become vernacularised in the language of science even though it has no widely agreed definition. Indeed, an earlier report (2002) described it as an effectively meaningless term.

This article surveys the field of heavy metal definitions including those based on chemical behaviour, sets out the many uses of heavy metals, and summarises their toxicity and their nutritional value.

Smokefoot expressed some amusing and well-intentioned reservations about 2009 and 2015 iterations of this article which prompted me to look much closer at the term and its use in the literature.

John had a pre-FAC hack, and offered some suggestions which I’ve since incorporated. A few other editors, such as YGB; Plantsurfer; and Frietjes, made improvements along the way. Sandbh (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by R8R[edit]

My comments have been addressed and the article greatly improved during this FAC. I am happy to support the article. --R8R (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC) ~~I'll review the article during this week.--R8R (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

A proper review will follow soon, hopefully tomorrow, but is it not worth mentioning in the lead (or at least putting it into a note) that there is a similar term "heavy element", which refers to a different concept (high atomic number, not density)? --R8R (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yes, this is worthwhile. I added a note in the definitions section to say that, "More generally, any element having a high density, atomic weight or atomic number may be referred to as a heavy element." I had thought that 'heavy element' referred just to elements of high atomic number but, after looking around, I see that it can also be applied to elements of high density or atomic weight. Sandbh (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a good article. A few comments:

A general comment that comes to my mind (please correct me if I'm missing something) is that, rather having a single undisputed definition, the term has multiple definitons depending on context, and this would be great to underline in the text. It makes little sense to talk about "heavy metals" as of dense metals in the contexts of nuclear reactions, as densities don't make the most important thing in this context, as it makes little sense to underline high atomic number in a context of, say, producing new alloys. (Lead, for example, is a heavy metal in the context of atomic numbers as well as in the context of densities.) This could possibly interfere with the small para on the term "superheavy metals."

I also note this should be underlined in the lead section. Right now, it only defines "heavy metals" as quite dense metals, and says there are some other meanings (no clue in how they differ from the first definition). See, for example, the lead section from the Polish article (as translated by Google Translate):

Heavy metals - imprecise term for variously defined set of metals and semi- characterized by high density, often toxic properties. In various publications can meet differing significantly limits the density above which the element is considered to be a heavy metal: 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 6 and 7 g / cm³. There are also a number of definitions based on atomic number - eg. Metals and semi-metals having an atomic number greater than 11 ( sodium ) or 20 ( calcium ), or mass number . There are also selected based on the definitions of chemical properties, such as. The number of acceptor ( acidity Lewis ) and definitions made based on a range of applications including, for example. Usefulness in the manufacture of ammunition arms or conduit retaining ionizing radiation [1] .

Perhaps one way to start the article mentioning the possible definitions without going into detail reserved for the corresponding section would be "Heavy metal is a term that depending on context may specify metals of great density, great atomic number/atomic mass, or specific chemical behavior (see [[#Definitons]] below), referring to metals and sometimes some metalloids."--R8R (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I changed the lede so that it also mentions definitions based on atomic number atomic weight, and chemical behaviour. I appreciated your question; I had to think at length about it. Sandbh (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current lead certainly does a better job at introducing a reader into the term. However, I am still a little concerned with density being such a defining property. For example, the newly added information on radioisotope synthesis shows one aspect where density plays no defining role, as lead, bismuth, thorium, and uranium aren't chosen because they are dense even though they are dense; they are chosen because their atomic numbers are high. And as such I don't think it is necessary to start off with mentioning density as concept-defining even though this must've been the case historically.--R8R (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I amended the lede to make mention of differing contexts, and I added examples of these differing contexts in the first paragraph of the definitions section. I think (hope) it's looking good now. Sandbh (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is, and I'll strike the initial comment, but as a side note, one of the sources (Hawkes 1997) says the author was first introduced into the term as defined by (apparently) chemistry, and this might also have to be be listed among possibilities in the first sentence.--R8R (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The opening sentence of the lede now makes mention of some of their chemistry. Sandbh (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(minor) ~~I can't help but notice that densities of the heaviest elements have not yet been measured, so the colored table must have a note on that. Or note the approach the German Wiki uses.~~

Done. Note added to table title. Sandbh (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wiki has also given me the idea to address the red sea in the middle of the table, by splitting it into amber (10–19.99) and red (≥20) like they do (notice how they bold Re, Os, Ir, Pt, and Np)! Double sharp (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The amber is pretty! Sandbh (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Since the Etymology section could be named History, I think it would be great to briefly mention the emerging of the term "heavy metal"/"heavy element" in a context of nuclear reactions.~~

Done. Sandbh (talk) 2:29 pm, Today (UTC+3)

(very minor) "Magee notes that the actinides were once thought to represent..." On reading this, I stopped for a second and thought if this Magee had even been mentioned. I learned that this is indeed the first place where a reader meets this name. I think a little trouble could be saved by moving the reference to after the name, i.e. "Magee[50] notes that the actinides were once thought to represent..."--R8R (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sandbh (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later.--R8R (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really judge the Uses sections without looking too closely, which I must be unable to do for now, but could you explain the general principle on which the uses to be mentioned were selected? For example, it doesn't mention two of the three uses that came to my mind: tungsten wire in light bulbs, lead--acid batteries (batteries have only been mentioned in one word, while this is the largest use of lead), and lead bullets (which are mentioned). There may be a good rationale behind this, but I'd like to know it. (I'd want to add that I can't immediately think of a good way to choose which uses are important enough to be mentioned and which aren't.)--R8R (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I reorganised and supplemented the uses section so that it now refers to general uses, density-based uses, (high) atomic number reliant uses, and other uses. I'm not aware of any atomic weight based uses. I haven't said anything about W in light bulbs because this use, as I understand it, is based on the high melting point of W rather than something more specifically associated with it being a heavy metal. Same principle applies to Pb in batteries. Sandbh (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This explains a lot and the section looks great after the reorganization.--R8R (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I continue the review, I would love to support further great improvements the article is undergoing during the FAC.--R8R (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome onboard :) Sandbh (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll skip the Toxicity section for a while and comment on Biological role. Both sections seem a bit too short. Of course, this can't be an issue to ask to address without specifying what, if anything, is missing, and unfortunately, toxicity and biology are not fields I am an expert at. However, regarding the Bio section, I would like to propose, similarly to what has been done for the Uses section, a general story that focuses not only on what elements do, but also on the correlation with the term "heavy metal". So I suggest the section start like this: "Heavy metals don't have basic functions in living organisms, but some period 4 metals are trace essential elements, with iron used for hemoglobin in blood, zinc for X, Y for A, Z for B, etc. Heavier metals are rarely important for living organisms: of all period 5 elements, molybdenum is essential for humans [and I don't know if any other period 5 elements are used by organisms for anything]. In period 6, only tungsten is used by some bacteria and not eucariots, and the only metal used in biology heavier than tungsten is uranium also used by some bacteria." Maybe it would be great to say they are not so important in organisms because they are rare in nature (if this can be referenced). This, by the way, brings me into the question if we should have a section on occurrence and formation of these elements (which I think would be nice to have).--R8R (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double sharp has pointed me to the fact uranium is not necessary for those bacteria, although beneficial; it would be great to point out there are metals that have this property (DS hints the same is true for tantalum in human body).--R8R (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ta is biocompatible and for that reason gets used in implants. But generally Ti is used instead for cost purposes. Most of the refractory metals work (in particular, Ti, Hf, Nb, Ta, Re). Note that these are the pure metals; as ions, some (Nb) are more toxic than others (Re, which from limited animal studies appears to be about as harmful as table salt – i.e. not very). Double sharp (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited and augmented the Bio section, so it now surveys the period 4, 5 and 6 elements, as well as the ones that are not essential but have beneficial effects anyway. We can discuss further but I see no value in referring to the period 4 elements in this section as something other than heavy metals---they meet the criteria and even the literature refers to them as essential heavy metals. I'll see if I can find something about the heavier ones not being so important, due to their rarity. On a Formation and Occurrence section, I presume you're talking about nucleosynthesis, the iron peak, and whether they are lithophiles or chalcophiles etc? Sandbh (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply it should somehow be noted that period 4 elements are not heavy metals or something---perhaps wrong wording on my side. Re Formation and Occurrence: yes, exactly.--R8R (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BTW I found a reference on the link between essentiality and abundance, and have weaved that into the paragraph as an intro to the heavier heavy metals. Sandbh (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Toxicity and Biological role have been merged (which generally makes sense), I'll look at what's been done closely when reviewing the part on toxicity.--R8R (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully read the resulting section and I see no major issue with it. There is a minor one, however: I think it's illogical to have information on positive effects of heavy metals to be both preceded and superseded by the information on negative effects; I think the latter should be put in the beginning of the section?--R8R (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was good feedback. I've split the Toxicology and biological role section back into two sections (which is the way I always preferred it) and made some other adjustments. I think the flow should be OK now. Sandbh (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'll strike the initial comment--R8R (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, my review is finished, and I am waiting only ~~for the issue just above to be resolved or explained and~~ for a new section on formation and occurrence. The article has undergone great changes and I'll be happy to support it once these are resolved.--R8R (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new section on formation, occurrence and abundance has been added. Sandbh (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Just two notes:

"Rather, they are largely synthesised by neutron capture." -- I think it would be great to briefly mention the difference between the s- and p-processes, mainly because you later explain what happens in the s-process.

I added a note to the end of the neutron capture paragraph, giving examples of p-process drivers. Since the focus of the paragraph is on the major production route for the post- iron peak elements, and p-processes are minor players I think a note will be appropriate in this case. Sandbh (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A typo on my side: I meant the s- and r-processes. Anyway, I just added a little info on that (tried to add not too much to not go off the topic); reorganize that in any way if you want.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Stars lose most of their mass when this is ejected late" -- this caught my eye while I was reading it. What's "this"?~~ Oh, I got it; come to think of that, it was clear enough, but I put "it" instead.--R8R (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

--R8R (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

(these comments will not affect my readiness to support the upcoming promotion, as the following is not something explicitly stated in the FA criteria; still, they are worth addressing)

The red used in both tables makes symbols to difficult to read. Easy solution: replace it with #FFAAAA. An explanation would include the fact the color for wikilinks is #0645AD, and color contrast between the background and text should be greater than or equal to 4.5 to follow the standards (this, by the way, does make the text easier to read).
I changed the color a bit; do they look better?--R8R (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most outstanding metal in the occurrence table shouldn't have the least distinguishable color.--R8R (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new colours are fine. Are you wanting the background colour of Fe to stand out more? I'm not happy about the width of the abundance table, and am not sure why it is wider given it's based on coding used in the density table but I presume this is a minor point that can be worked on in the background. Sandbh (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. (Also, it would make sense to me if the most abundant metals were red and orange going to green and blue, but I won't insist. Again, color picking is not a part of the FA criteria and this is an FAC, after all.) My first thought was that it was because the table had to fit in all the labels: I've changed the font size and, as expected, the table became smaller; is this what you wanted?--R8R (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fe looks like a beacon now, which is good. The colours are that way so that the less abundant heavy metals have the more alarming colours. There's a little bit of literature on this re shortages of strategic metals. Does that make sense? The table width is better, thank you. I hadn't thought about changing the font size. I thought it had something to do with the column widths not behaving whereas they do behave as expected in the density table. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know I helped. Re red--blue transition: oh yeah, reasonable enough. I took a closer look at the table, and the solution turned out to be poor (working, but not being nice): both tables now had equal widths but different font sizes. I spent almost an hour trying to find a good solution, and the solution was to simply break the title of the second table into two lines.--R8R (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty colours! Double sharp (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I adjusted the table heading some more so that it's nicely spaced and centred. Thank you for your well spent-hour. Who would've thought it was the stupid title, even though the row spanned all 20 columns. More later---have go and walk the dog. Sandbh (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double sharp: thanks for your compliment. I basically applied what I learned from DePiep when constructing my first version of recolored PT: all colors should have same saturation and value in the HSV color space. To pick them, I sought for a shade of read distant enough from wikilink color to pass the distunguishability test and constructed other colors with same S and V (they all pass the test as well).

Sandbh: thanks for your appreciation. I was surprised as well, I tried that when I couldn't find any reason why the tables were different even with a text analyzer. Who could've thought.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Lead_shielding.jpg: can you fix the auto-generated source?

Done. Sandbh (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laser_glass_slab.jpg: if you follow the "site policies" link from the current licensing tag, you'll find that "they consider their work potentially copyrighted" - can we clarify this status? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. The site policies page says that Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory '("allows "non-commercial, educational, or scientific use," but other work potentially copyrighted)'. I presume our proposed use would fall within the non-commercial etc policy. Is this acceptable? Sandbh (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No - Wikipedia does not allow non-commercial or "educational use only" licenses, except as fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right then. I've changed the image. How does it look now? Sandbh (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nikkimaria: Could you have please review the new image for compliance? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N[edit]

Oppose I am sorry, but I seriously think this article does not cover the subject matter very well. I have yet to see anybody call vanadium a heavy metal, and the article spends more time talking about vanadium and chromium than say lead, gold, mercury. No serious chemist in their right mind would call iron or zinc heavy metals. Most times I've heard the term heavy metal has been in reference to environmental and toxicity aspects so I suggest expanding a bit on that. I seriously recommend restructuring the article to focus on period 5 and 6 and try to only mention casually definitions including anything in period 4 since pretty much almost all elements up to zinc are used in biology. Nergaal (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal, this is good feedback.

To address your concerns I:

adjusted the lede so that toxicity was mentioned earlier on, and added some words about environmental concerns
moved the toxicity section (and the accompanying ~~nutrition~~ biological role section) higher up in the article and added a paragraph on the environmental aspects of heavy metals
added a paragraph, in the definitions section, mentioning the disputed status of some of the period 4 d-block metals as heavy metals (i.e. Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn).

Counting individual mentions of elements, those in periods 5+ are now mentioned nearly twice as often as those in period 4.

In light of all of the above, could you please reconsider your Oppose? Sandbh (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DOn't get me wrong, the article is nice but I do find it misleading. It is slightly better yet it is still tilted towards 1st row. Maybe outside my field people actually use this term loosely, but AFAIK, all (maybe except chromium) metals in 1st row plus Mo and W are used in biology in various enzymes. So to a certain degree I think it is unlikely that these elements are "toxic heavy metals". On the other hand, exactly because all the other are not used in any roles in the cell, they are likely toxic. I would like to see a quote saying Mn Co and Ni are heavy metals. I suggest focusing even more on the non-1st row with something like "while 1st row has been mentioned as HM, pretty much everybody agrees that elements after X are heavy metals. For examepl, y is bad, z is really bad, zz is deadly, etc." Currently definitions and etymology feel like they overlap quite a bit. Also, most references need cleaning up since they have no "." after initials. Nergaal (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

1st row metals

I think you are right. All the metals from V to Zn (Mo and W) appear to be used in biology. With the exception of hexavalent Cr, I wouldn't think of any of them as being particularly toxic (except if I was exposed to some of their fumes or carbonyls). Looking at the metal toxicity article, I can see entries for Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn poisoning; and Emsley, in Nature’s building blocks, talks about mining or industrial hazards attributed to Ti and Ni. So I can see that these metals are toxic in some situations, as well as being essential nutrients in trace amounts.

Anyway I found a better reference challenging the status of all the metals from V to Zn as heavy metals, and I found another reference disputing the status of e.g. In, Rh and Os as heavies, on the grounds that they're too rarely encountered as environmental hazards. So I updated the paragraph about all of this in the Definitions section, to give it more diverse perspective.

I presume that since Mn, Co and Ni are now picked up as metals whose status as heavy metals has been challenged, it won't be necessary to include a citation that mentions them as heavy metals? They're picked by any of the density-based definitions, and by Hawkes' periodic table location definition.

I’ll have a closer look at your suggestion about y is bad, z is really bad. It may not be feasible. The only possibly bad non-1st row transition metal that comes to mind is Os. I suspect that none of the others are particularly "bad" except for the ones that are mined a lot and I'm guessing there are not many of these among the heavier transition metals (whereas a lot of the 1st-row metals are mined a lot/used by industry).

I reviewed the toxicity of the transition metals; the period 4+ post-transition metals and metalloids; the Ln; and the An up to U. Here are the results (elements not listed have no more than low/mild/moderate toxicity):

Period 4

Sc...some of its compounds (it has been suggested) are carcinogenic

Cr…can be toxic in excess; hexavalent form is carcinogenic

Mn…dust/fumes damage the central nervous system; permanganate ion is toxic

Fe…> 5 gm in soluble form causes liver and kidney damage and can be lethal

Co…a large dose could be life threatening; suspected carcinogen

Ni…associated with mining and industrial hazards; dust is carcinogenic; carbonyl is lethal

Cu…can be toxic in excess; 1 gm of copper sulphate can be fatal; survivors have suffered major organ damage

Zn…can be toxic in excess

As…bad

Se…> 5 mg is highly toxic

Period 5

Mo…highly toxic in larger doses

Ru…little threat; RuO₄ is toxic

Pd…could be toxic in higher doses

Ag...extremely toxic to aquatic plants and animals

Cd…bad

In…toxic if more than a few mg are consumed

Sn…organometallic compounds are toxic

Sb…can kill

Te…2 gm of sodium tellurate can be lethal

Period 6

Os…little threat; OsO₄ is toxic

Hg…bad

Tl…bad

Pb…bad

Bi…damages liver if taken in excess

An…radiation aside, U is poisonous

On this basis I don’t see a need for changing much. Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the toxicity section and merged it with the biological role section, so that the whole section now talks about the more toxic HMs, then the essential HMs but with the potential for toxicity; and lastly the non-essential ones. Sandbh (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap: Definitions and etymology

The two sections look at the topic from different perspectives. The Definitions section covers the present situation; the Etymology and usage section traces the chronology of the term and its usage over time. At the expense of some overlap, I think its preferable to keep the two perspectives separate for the benefit of the reader who may not be that interested in the historical details.

Tilt towards 1st row?

I rechecked mentions of named first row transition metals, and other heavy metals (not counting the Notes). Going by section, the count is Lede (0/0); Definitions (0/4) [excl. the challenge para.]; Etymology (2/1); Toxicology (5/11); Biological roles (7/1); Uses (20/42)—Overall (34/59). This appears to be a reasonable distribution. In the Biological roles section, the 7:1 tilt in favour of the first row transition metals is due to the fact that these metals happen to be ones with nutritional roles.

References: "." after initials

I’ve been following the referencing guide from my alma mater, which doesn't use " . " after author initials. Is there a MOS requirement for this? (if there is I could nae find it) Sandbh (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class A/B donors is something I haven't heard and is not wikilinked. Are your referring to hard/soft donors? Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. The hard/soft terminology, as I understand it, comes from Pearson (1963, 1968, 1969). His work is based on Ahrland et al. (1958) who introduced the class A/B/borderline categories. Nieboer and Richardson (1980) took the hard/soft concept, which they said was restricted to inorganic systems, and applied it to biological systems. Sandbh (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply alter, but could you find a way to emphasize the elements that everybody agrees are heavy? For example metalloid has a clear group of commonly recognized ones. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I amended the lede to make mention of Cd, Hg and Pb as examples of heavy metals that are toxic. I guess these are the three most well known heavy metals in that context. I left out As given it seems to have some kind of biological role, and it's commonly regarded as a metalloid. Sandbh (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The element articles are not particularly good sources. Just check out IDLH and see how many elements not listed by you are there. The reason people don't tend to discuss some of the heavier elements is because they are not commonly encountered in everyday applications, not because they are not toxic. Even W is listed if you seach here. Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nergaal I appreciate your thoughts. I was guided by Emsley's assessment of the toxicity of the period 4–6 HMs, supplemented by the other seven references cited in the toxicity section. (W is mentioned in the note at the end of the first paragraph of this section). Metals I haven't mentioned apparently have relatively low/mild/moderate toxicity. For example, going by IDLH and Emsley, V₂O₅ causes local respiratory effects after a few hours of exposure; Zr compounds "possess a low order of toxicity"; Pt may cause an allergic reaction in some sensitised individuals in which they experience symptoms similar to asthma or a cold.

Of course, any substance will be toxic if administered in a sufficiently large dose. My objective in this article was to present a global view of heavy metals rather than concentrating on any particular aspect, such as toxicity. For that reason I've attempted to focus the toxicity discussion on the more notably toxic heavy metals, rather than every heavy metal (which is something I suggest would be the purview of an article such as metal toxicity).

In any event I checked for entries in the IDIL index for the other HMs not mentioned in the toxicity section: Sc, Ti, Ga, Ge; Y, Nb, Mo, Tc, Pd; La/Lu, Hf, Ta, Re, Ir, Au, Po and At. Either there was no entry or the entry appeared to be benign. Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: I'll cross check the toxicity section against Casarett & Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, which seems to be the gold standard. Sandbh (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassarett & Doull's chapter on the toxic effects of metals addresses the following HMs:

Period 4: V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, As, Se

Period 5: Mo, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Te

Period 6/7: Pt, Au, Hg, Tl, Pb, Bi, U

Having checked this chapter I've added V, Ge and Pt to the toxicity section. How does it look now? Sandbh (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the occurrence section. Why aren't the two PT images containing the same highlighted elements? And what are the lines/boxes supposed to represent? Nergaal (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large discrepancy in the second table and the Goldschmidt classification one. Nergaal (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first table shows the density of all the elements, including the artificial ones; the second table shows the abundance and primary geochemical classification of the naturally occurring elements in the Earth's crust (thanks to User:Double sharp for help with the second table; also there is a note at the end of the Least abundant legend saying that elements having abundances a lot less than the 1 part per trillion of Ra and Pa are not shown). The dividing line divides the lithophiles from the chalcophiles. The boxes around Au and Sn show that although these two elements lie on the chalcophile side of the table they actually occur as, respectively, a siderophile and a lithophile. This is mentioned in parentheses after where it says "chalcophiles". The Goldschmidt periodic table shows the geochemical classification of the elements in the whole of the Earth, rather than just the crust, hence the difference. Does this help? Sandbh (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Did you have any other concerns? Sandbh (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At this point the references are very poorly formatted. ~~Initials on names are missing "."s.~~ There are very few links to any online content for references. Surly there are some google books and web sites that will be usable. There are also very few wikilinks for authors, or publishers. ~~There are other minor problems such as ref "Close F" with date: 12015.~~ Some references are quite old, and should be replaceable by newer ones. ~~Also the Neodymium sulfate picture has no alt text.~~ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Graeme.

I’ve been following the referencing guide from my alma mater, which doesn't use " . " after author initials. Is there a MOS requirement for this? (If there is I couldn't find it.)

There are 15 links to online references, including Duffus' IUPAC paper, Hawkes' discourse on what is a heavy metal, and Habashi's paper on Gmelin's 1817 Handbuch, in which the latter appears to have first distinguished between light and heavy metals on the basis of density. I don't link to Google books since, in my experience, Google periodically changes the results the views it offers for any particular book. In the past I've saved Google books links in other topic areas only to find that when I wanted to go back and recheck the search result I can no longer access that particular view. If I find relevant and reliable web pages I'll link to them however I find that the bar for reliability eliminates the sizeable majority of them.

Wikilinks for authors and publishers is not something I knew was an FAC requirement. It wasn't for the last FAC article I worked on in April 2015 (Astatine) and I see there were no publisher wikilinks on yesterday's FA article, Robert of Jumièges (nor Google books links). Are wikilinks for authors and publishers an FAC requirement?

I've rechecked and corrected the formatting of the references.

The older references appear to largely deal with descriptive chemistry. This kind of chemistry writing largely dried up from about the 1950s onwards, or has been forgotten. As I understand it, age doesn't disqualify older works; they still have value. I remember looking for more recent references in some cases however later references tend to deal more with principles and gloss over descriptive nuances. If there are any particular references you think need to be updated I'd be happy to review these.

The neodymium sulfate image now has an alt tag. Sandbh (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see many edits to improve what I complained about. So I may have to change my mind. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will add some more small issues.

Thank you Graeme, I appreciate your proof-reading-fu. Sandbh (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~in "Densities of metals and metalloids in the periodic table" there is some strange characters around "I", probably to center it, but K and F do not have this.~~
~~In this same table C appears as "C|"~~
ref: Rainbow PS 1991, "The biology of heavy metals in the sea", in J Rose (ed.), Water and the environment, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Philadelphia, has a bad kind of dash in page range 415‒432
~~Author of "Gunshot wounds: Practical aspects of firearms, ballistics, and forensic techniques," (DiMaio) appears on actual book cover as Di Maio (half fixed)~~

Fixed

In note 9, I think it is a bit undue talking about Astatine hydroxides and sulfides. I do not think that Astatine, or other substances too radioactive to form a liquid or solid would be classed as heavy metals! Also the Duck J. Yang, William L. Jolly, Anthony. O'Keefe reference caused me to laugh, due to the Duck and Jolly, but perhaps this is serious!

I understand your concern about At. Condensed At has been predicted to be a metal; with sufficient cooling, it has been suggested that it may be possible to observe condensed At. For those reasons I thought it was worth including.

Yes, very occasionally I see author names that are interesting. There are two references in the list by the same two authors, for different volumes of the same work. Luckey & Venugopal, and then Venugopal & Luckey. That cause me a double-take but it turned out to be right. Sandbh (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~density units should be standardised. we have gm/cm.3 gm/cm3 and g/cm3 (should be g/cm³)~~ (I fixed another two, density is important for heavy metals!)

Fixed

~~jewellery or jewellery?~~

The first version is preferred; the second version appears because that is how it was recorded in the journal article title

~~Macmillan or MacMillan?~~
Advanced Motorsport Engineering uses capital letters in its title. (Actually most titles in the list are incorrectly capitalised) The alma mater referencing guide needs to be ignored and the best practice on Wikipedia needs to be used. This is supposed to be the "best work", not something that is just good enough to pass criteria.

Clarification requested: I couldn't see any caps in the title in question, nor caps in most of the titles in the list (aside from journals). I have, however, added periods after author names.

The periods are good. My issue is with book titles, which should use title case. Journal titles can use title case or lower case. I am happy to change this, but first I like to see us all trying to achieve the same thing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the penny dropped, after I posted my comment. Please go ahead and change the book titles to title case and thank you for the offer. Sandbh (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have title cased the books now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Structure-property or Structure–property~~

Fixed

This does not look to be changed, but since one is in a reference title and one is in a quote, I will say it is not a problem.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has now been fixed, properly. Had an iPad moment when I mangled the edit summary. Sandbh (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

stiking some fixed issues. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to merge the "citations" and "references" sections as much as possible? They really only need to be distinct where there are more than one reference to different parts of the same work. It would be useful if there were many different pages from just a few books used for the whole article. As it stands it makes navigation to the actual reference extra complex, and for most of these there would be only one use any way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will also investigate whether there are DOIs for some of those journals, and whether authors have article here on Wikipedia or not.

Coordinator note: Substantial issues have been identified here that should be worked on outside of the FAC process. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2016 [12].

F.C. United of Manchester[edit]

Nominator(s): odder (talk), Delusion23 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a supporter-owned, semi-professional, non-league football club based in Manchester, England. Founded in 2005 by Manchester United fans, F.C. United currently play somewhat entertaining football at level six of the English football pyramid. Since their foundation, F.C. United have been the subject of many a newspaper articles, television programmes and a couple of books and documentaries, and are one of the most known non-league clubs in England.

I'm moving forward with this nomination hoping to get the article promoted to FA status in time for the 11th anniversary of the club's first ever match on 16 July. After a considerable amount of work I put into the article over the last few months, I feel it meets all FA criteria, and I look forward to listening to your suggestions and comments. Thanks, everyone. odder (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

I read this at peer review and was happy with alot of it. More comments: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015, ready for the 2015–16 season. - makes it sound like the 2015–16 season hasn't happened yet. Might be better as "United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015 and was used for the 2015–16 season"

Sentence 2 and 3 in the Formation section both begin with, "Although.."

Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Cas, I've now reworded that paragraph to avoid this unfortunate repetition. I also fixed the sentence on the opening of the ground, so both issues should now be fixed. odder (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro[edit]

Comment: I hope to give this a full review, but a quick glance through at the sourcing gave me a few concerns. Here are a few sourcing questions, but this isn't an exhaustive list and there could be a few other issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book by Robert Brady appears to be self published according to Google. What makes it reliable?
- How do you know it's a self-published book? I own a copy, and I can't tell if it's been self-published or not. The book—one of only three books written specifically about F.C. United—is reliable because it was written by a member of the club's steering group (or, "steering committee", as some call it), which was the group that worked on actually creating the club, including its registration with the Football Association, hiring the manager, signing players—everything that needed to be done to get the club off the ground before the inauguaral members' meeting on 5 July 2005. When it comes to facts about F.C. United's beginnings, and in particular the events of May 2005, it doesn't come more direct than that. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Says on Google Books here that he was the author and publisher. However, in the circumstances, I think this would be fine to use. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have the Sunday Mirror as a source, which I think is questionable as a RS (see WP:PUS)
- This is a tough one, as the article was published in February 2005, and as far as I am aware is the only printed source that covered the idea suggesting the formation of F.C. United. The idea was originally proposed in an article published in Red Issue, a Manchester United fanzine, and was then subsequently reported on in that Sunday Mirror piece, which I accessed through the news database Newsbank at a library. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I really think we could do with a better source though. The Sunday Mirror is frowned upon. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find any other source confirming the name of the author of that original Red Issue piece, so I ended up removing it, and referenced the date of that article and the fact that the idea was originally floated during the attempted Murdoch takeover to an article published in the journal Soccer & Society. odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes "The Set Pieces" a reliable website?
- They are an award-winning football blog (1 and 2 although the website itself doesn't look much like a blog). They're also part of the Guardian Sport Network and are regularly featured on the Guardian's website, but if that's not enough then I guess I'll see if I can replace this reference with something else. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are a little questionable unless by a recognised authority, I believe. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above; I couldn't find any sources confirming the identity of that Red Issue writer, so I removed it and used a journal article instead. odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

57 of the 140 sources are to fc-utd.co.uk, the club's own website. This seems a very high proportion to me, and we should not be using the subject of the article to provide so much information on itself
- Some of these references are used to provide the score, date or venue of particular matches; I'll try to replace them with outside sources, but I'm afraid it's probably mostly going to be the Manchester Evening News. The article is already using MEN materials 19 times at this moment, so I'm not sure if this isn't going to be a problem. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think MEN would be better for at least some of these; that would be better than using the club's own site. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got that number down to 39 (out of 136) by replacing news pieces (updates) from F.C. United's website to articles published in the MEN; I tried to link to on-line versions where available, but some of those articles apparently never made it to the MEN's website, in which case I used the news database Newsbank which I can access as a reader at the Manchester City Council Libraries. odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 25 seems to go to an error page; and what makes North West Counties Football League reliable?
- You might need to try again, as that website appears to be having temporary issues. It certainly works for me. And as what makes the North West Counties Football League reliable, well… it's the North West Counties Football League, the organisation that runs the league that F.C. United were first accepted into, all the way back in 2005-06. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is Mancunian Matters, and what makes it reliable?
- It's a local on-line newspaper (news website) co-published by News Associates (Manchester branch), which apparently is the second-best sports journalism training centre in the whole of the United Kingdom (never knew that). odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of local press coverage, which is fine, and a few BBC items. Is there nothing in the sporting/football press about the club that could be included Sarastro1 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As F.C. United are a semi-professional, non-league club, there is a very limited fotballing/sports coverage available apart from local papers, and in particular apart from the Manchester Evening News, Manchester's most popular daily paper. The article does include a few references to FourFourTwo, one each from ESPN, the Non-League Football Paper, and a few references to general British press such as the Daily Telegraph, the Independent, and the Guardian (which due to its past has a particular interest in all things Mancunian).

In any case, @Sarastro1, thank you so much for such a detailed review of the sources used. It's super helpful, and I will try to fix the issues that you pointed out. Due to work and other Wikimedia commitments this is likely to take some time, though; I expect to be able to work on this tomorrow (Tuesday) evening as well as Wednesday, and will update you once I'm done. Please do feel free to mention other issues that you find, and thanks again for your work on this, really appreciate the feedback. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I think I've now fixed all the outstanding issues; I also used this opportunity to replace some other low-quality sources, so referencing should be a bit better now. Are there any other problems that you can see? Thanks, odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I think this looks in reasonable shape overall, but could stand a little tightening. A few points from the lead to begin with. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"United entered the North West Counties Football League Division Two in their inaugural season. They achieved three consecutive promotions in the first three years of their existence and were promoted for a fourth time to compete in the National League North for the 2015–16 season": Is it worth saying what tier they begun at, to give some contrast?

This is mentioned in #North West Counties years (2005–07). odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In cup competitions, F.C. United reached the second round of the FA Cup during the 2010–11 season and the first round during the 2015–16 season. They reached the fourth round of the FA Trophy during the 2014–15 season and the third round of the FA Vase during the 2006–07 season.": I know what we are trying to do here, but it's a little bit of a list as it stands. We could either limit this to mentioning their best results in the cups, or make more of their achievements. For example, it is not immediately obvious to a non-UK football person that reaching the first round of a competition is actually an achievement, and involves winning games. I think I prefer the first option.

I think you're right; I guess I'll remove the 2006-07 FA Vase and the FA Cup 2015-16 results, as reaching both FA Cup second round and FA Trophy fourth round are bigger achievements than that. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is done. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The club shared Gigg Lane with Bury until 2014 and in the 2014–15 season Bower Fold and the Tameside Stadium with Stalybridge Celtic and Curzon Ashton respectively. F.C. United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015.": Again, we are getting list-y here; perhaps cut to "After initially sharing grounds with other clubs, F.C. United opened their own ground..." etc.

Nice catch. I'll try to shorten this a bit. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed in the meantime. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a little light. Rather than list grounds and Cup results, we need a brief summary of each of the main sections in the main body. I would imagine Supporters, Organisation and Criticism (even if there is no longer a criticism section!) need a little more. WP:LEAD says somewhere that we need a summary of all the main content in the lead.
- This has been already mentioned during the article's peer review, and while I agree that a short summary of the Supporters and Organisation sections might be necessary—and I'll happily do that—I object to the inclusion of Criticism in the lead. I have read, re-read and then read again all featured English football club articles, and none of them mention any criticism in their respective leads. F.C. United's article is already unique in even mentioning the criticism (given the circumstances around the club's formation I guess it's fair play), however I think that including this in the lead would be pushing it a bit too far. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't been done. I added a short summary of the Supporters and Organisation sections—one sentence each—to the lead but I haven't summarised the Criticism section and I'm not planning on doing so for the reasons outlined above. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the prose could stand a little tightening in places in the main body. I'll take a look, and if you have no objections I'll copy-edit directly. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: No objections whatsoever, and thank you for the edits you've already made. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History:

"Although the fans had various reasons for their dissatisfaction": Can we list at least a couple of these?
- There exists a whole variety of sources mentioning those—particularly the early Manchester Evening News articles about F.C. United, mostly from May-August 2005 and I could certainly cite them, however see below for my reasoning as to why I haven't done that yet. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just doing a quick spot check of ref 3 and 4 gave two references to AFC Wimbledon. Do we need to mention this as some sort of inspiration/precedent?
- AFC Wimbledon officials provided F.C United's steering committee with a lot of help in the early days, and Wimbledon's chairman was actually present at the Apollo Theatre; this is mentioned in a lot of sources, including Brady's book. I never covered this in the article as it felt to me as being too small a detail as compared to the bigger picture, but including this is certainly doable. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are missing a little detail about the public meeting; the Guardian says that "At those meetings, £100,000 was pledged and a name selected by founder members"
- I think there is a bit of a confusion here. The name that this passage refers to is "F.C. United"; it was originally suggested in that breakthourgh Red Issue piece, and then refused by the FA for being too ambigous. The name "F.C. United of Manchester" was selected by people who have pledged money to the club—as this was even before the club's inaugural member's meeting which only happened on 5 July—through the internet and the post rather than during the two public meetings at the Central Hall and at the Apollo Theatre. The £100,000 that is being referred to also was pledged in a variety of ways, including through the post, the internet, over the phone, etc., and not just during the meetings. But overall, I think this is too detailed to be included in this article per WP:DETAIL. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and "Newton Heath United"": I think this name at least warrants more explanation.
- See below. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Porter (ref 12) appears to be a thesis; what makes it a RS?
- According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP PhD theses can be used if they're cited in literature, as Porter's thesis has been (Peter Kennedy, David Kennedy, "Football in Neo-Liberal Times: A Marxist Perspective on the European Football Industry", ISBN 9781317576266; Simon Gwyn Roberts, "Sport, Media and Regional Identity", ISBN 9781443886666).
"During F.C. United's formation, the owners of Leigh RMI offered to merge the two clubs, but United refused the offer as they believed that taking over an existing club would be hypocritical, given the manner in which F.C. United were formed.": This does not quite match the source, which says the clubs considered merging but decided against it. Also, the hypocritical suggestion came from the Chairman of the Leigh RMI supporter's club.
- As far as I am aware, the offer was rejected by F.C. United, however I agree that this isn't what the source say and I will reword it. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is now done. odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead, F.C. United's first game was a friendly match against Leigh RMI": Instead does not quite work here. Instead of what? Merging? But that's not what the source says in ref 18; that says it was more of a thank you for Leigh's support and to help that club's finances.
- I agree; it doesn't. I'll reword this. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that this has now been taken care of. odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're a bit light overall on the formation of the club. It goes from an idea by fans, to an idea in a fanzine, to a fully formed club very, very quickly. Who were the guiding figures? Who organised the meetings? Who sat down and said, "We're going to do this!"? Where did the money come from? I just think we need more detail here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit torn about this. During the recent peer review, I have considerably shortened the history section (covering the actual football history of the club) and expanded the formation sub-section; I think the article is quite balanced as is now. I could certainly provide some of the information that you mention—such as names of the steering committee, name of the Club's first secretary; but then not all of them as there is a very limited number of reliable sources covering the quite chaotic formation of the club—however I'm worried that it would lead to the formation section outgrowing the rest of the article. Same for the inclusion of Wimbledon's help, the name Newton Heath United, and others. Is this detail necessary and proper in this kind of general article? For instance, Manchester United F.C., Liverpool F.C., Arsenal F.C. and Aston Villa F.C., all curent FAs about English football clubs, provide only one sentence about the actual formation of their clubs, and go into detail in their respective history articles, which seems to be the standard approach. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My view, for what it's worth, is that the article is currently too sparse. Probably the most noteworthy aspect to the club so far has been their formation and the reasons for it. This requires more I think. As for concerns about the formation section growing too large, it is not at the moment. It's about a third of the history section, and I think it could be longer. Comparing FC United of Manchester to Manchester, Liverpool or Arsenal is hardly appropriate as those clubs have a much longer history and focusing on their formation would be a little undue. If there was ever a fear that the article was growing too long, the formation section could be spun out into its own article. Perhaps the best comparable article would be AFC Wimbledon, which has a very tight, very focused formation section (and a rather well-written one at that) but also an article (Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes) which covers the whole story, including formation of the new club. I don't think the Glazer ownership article covers the formation of FC United of Manchester much at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just found this. I don't think we use it at the moment, but there's a lot of early detail. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. The article actually does not introduce any new information that isn't already covered in the article, however it does provide a lot of detail on the sums and organisations that provided funding for Broadhurst Park, so I have now added that piece as a reference there. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2005-07:

Were they promoted as Champions in their first season? I can't quite check the reference as the webarchive link simply goes to a main page for the MEN.
- I'm not sure why you would click on the archive link as the link to the actual article is live; in any case, both the original article and the archive work for me without any problems. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"were promoted to the Northern Premier League Division One North after beating Ramsbottom United.": As written, this looks like they won one game and were promoted.
- This isn't what the sentence says; the full sentence says after a successful season (…) F.C. United were promoted (…) after beating Ramsbottom; I think the meaning of the sentence is quite clear. odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"They confirmed their promotion with a 7–1 win over Atherton Laburnum Rovers on 18 April 2007,": Hang on, we just said they were promoted after beating Ramsbottom...
- I've now reworded this to say "they secured their second successive league title with a 7–1 win…". odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why did they not play in the FA Cup until 07-08? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- They weren't eligible. odder (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indopug[edit]

Comment per WP:NPOV, sections such as "Criticism" tend to act as POV dumps and content forks. I think this article doesn't need such a section at all and its contents can be easily moved elsewhere. For eg, the Fergie critique to Formation, and the stuff about the club allegedly betraying its principles to Organisation (where said principles are laid out) and Supporters as appropriate.—indopug (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@indopug: Thanks for the comment. Can you explain exactly what you have in mind when saying "POV dumps" and "content forks"? WP:NPOV#Article structure says that no rules prohibit particular article structures as long as the overall presentation is broadly neutral, and I think both the article as a whole as well as the Criticism section specifically are indeed broadly neutral. I'm also a little bit confused about your saying that this article doesn't need such a section at all. I only expanded this section about two weeks ago after it was suggested during the article's third peer review that I do so, and I feel like I'm caught between a rock and a hard place here… odder (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find indopug to be generally correct on these things. By POV dump, he means any time someone passes a comment in the real world, someone slaps it in the criticism section. And I think I agree that the content in the criticism section could be split. It certainly needs to be kept, but perhaps not in its own section. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination has not earned any support for promotion after more than a month. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2016 [13].

Mont Blanc massif[edit]

Nominator(s): Parkywiki (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a very significant range of high mountains within the European Alps. Whilst numerous pages exist on discrete elements of the massif (including Mont Blanc itself), I have enhanced this one from a simple List into a full article that now gives a good, sound, informative overview of all major aspects of this important alpine region. Parkywiki (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Burklemore1[edit]

I figured I'd add some feedback after you initiated an impressive review on my FAC. I'll start with geography, then work with the lead and later sections.

Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 are at present without references. The third one does have a citation, but the rest of the paragraph does not. Think you may need to go through this.

Done - geographic description was derived from French online IGN maps, but I've now added refs to books and paper maps. (Schoolboy error). Thanks for offering to comment - it's you're chance to get your own back for my detailed critique of your FAC! Parkywiki (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, this is an impressive nonetheless and I'll probably not find many issues. I'm quite busy with a few articles I've been working on, including Nothomyrmecia of course, but I'll definitely find some time for this. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for my absence with this FAC. Will definitely review this sometime, but I wouldn't mind seeing the issues given below all addressed first. It'd just make my reviewing process easier just in case I repeat some comments already provided. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes eminent sense. I will ping you and the other reviewers who left helpful comments (which I am about halfway through addressing) once I believe these to have have been fully dealt with. Parkywiki (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from jfhutson[edit]

This is nitpicking, but you appear to be using en dashes in place of hyphens. See MOS:HYPHEN. Examples: north–eastern (MOS:COMPASS), Massif du Mont–Blanc (see the French Wikipedia version of the article), sight–seeing. --JFH (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Nitpicking is good! I've now only left en dashes between date ranges, or where sentences are broken sentences.Parkywiki (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're using the URL of the website hosting the document cited in footnote 4 as the website parameter. This makes it show up as the italicized "work". In this case, I'd say "International Boundary Study" is a series and "Italy – Switzerland Boundary" is the title. All that website is doing is hosting an already published document. For all your cite web templates, you should use the title of the website rather than the URL of the website if that website really is the larger "work" in which the cited page is being published.--JFH (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into this article, but in my opinion it needs some fundamental reworking.

The article's structure is confusing, particularly in the history section - we start with a chronological account and then jump into a thematic organization, including subsections that are only sort of historical in nature. We also seem to be missing pieces of the story - for example, there's mention of plane crashes as an aside under Glaciers, but no mention of these anywhere in the history. Normally we'd expect to see significant events of this type described in the history narrative.
There's an overemphasis on tourism details throughout
The article is generally underlinked - many people won't know what "biotite mica" or "vascular plants" are
Tables can be hard to interpret. For example, what is your definition of "largest" in the Glaciers table? Where does the information under Observations come from? Conversely, details of climate data might be better presented in table form rather than as prose.
The article would benefit from a run-through for MOS issues - blockquotes shouldn't have quote marks, adjectival measurements should use hyphens, 'see also' shouldn't repeat links included inline, there shouldn't be spaces between footnotes, etc.
Images

There are a lot of them, to the point that they're disrupting the layout and causing blank space
Some of them seem to be more 'artistic' than encyclopedic. For example, the ibex image is visually interesting but doesn't really give us a sense of what the full animal looks like.
File:Zentralbibliothek_Zürich_-_Vallée_de_Chamonix_Traversée_de_la_Mer_de_Glace_-_400017818.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? This is a 20th-century image so it's quite possible they did not
France does not have freedom of panorama, so depictions of statues and buildings need to include details on the copyright status of the pictured thing as well as the photo itself

Sourcing

Spotchecks found a few instances of material not supported by cited sources. For example, I don't see mention of a pollution-reduction rationale in this source
Formatting is generally inconsistent - sometimes books include publisher locations and sometimes not, Further reading is hand-formatted while References are templated, some publication names aren't italicized when they should be, etc
Daily Mail is not usually considered an RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nikkimaria, for taking the trouble to read and leave your views on the article. I have since addressed a number of the concerns you raised, and will continue to address the remainder. Unless you would prefer me to comment on progress in a line-by-line manner, I will follow WP:FAC guidelines and return with a single commentary when the points you raised have been addressed, though I might offer an explanation now that I excluded plane crashes from the history section as I felt none were historically significance to the mountain range as a whole, but did serve to demonstrate the slow, inexorable movement of ice down the mountain in the glacier section. I could be wrong, though. Parkywiki (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but I would counter that some of the events you did include - eg. Winter Sports Week - are no more significant to the mountain range as a whole. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Progress update: I thought it might be appreciated if I reported back to advise that I have been working through each one of the helpful points highlighted above, and have nearly completed these tasks. I will report back again next week once I have completed these. Major changes in response to feedback now include: two climate data tables created, section re-structuring, correct referencing and thinning-out of images. Inevitably, for a high mountain range without permanent residents (apart from in the valley bottoms) creating a full historical narrative is not really practicable, so I have responded to concerns by adding a timeline of significant tragedies occurring across the range, which I hope helps address this. I excluded significant mountaineering accomplishments so as not to further expand the tourism / alpine climbing history any further, or straying into the domain of other articles. Meanwhile I would welcome feedback as to whether it is acceptable for me to have included so many links to non-en wiki articles? I'll happily remove them all - especially in the Flora section - as I appreciate they are generally discouraged, but felt their inclusion did support the article by linking to the best non-english pages, even if they did make the page appear overly red-linked. Parkywiki (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that linking style. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Substantial issues have been identified here and, while I recognize progress is occurring, this scope of work should be performed outside FAC and the article re-nominated when it's ready. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2016 [14].

Ladislaus I of Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a late 11th-century King of Hungary who consolidated the Christian monarchy. He is considered as "the incarnation of the late-medieval Hungarian ideal of chivalry". Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the map
File:Béla_elnyeri_a_koronát.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info

Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ladislav1_denar1.jpg should explicitly account for the copyright of the original work (PD-old-100)

This is a medieval denar issued by King Ladislaus I (r. 1077-95). --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zaruke_hrvatskog_kralja_Zvonimira_Celestin_Medović.JPG needs a US PD tag, and given the current tag the given author cannot be correct

Added the name of the original Croatian painter who died in 1920. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hungary_11th_cent.png: what is the source of the data conveyed by this map?

Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:King_St._Ladislaus.jpg: what is the status and source of the original work?

This is a 14th century reliquary (herma) of King Saint Ladislaus I of Hungar, owned and exhibited by Diocese of Győr. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derzs4.jpg: given licensing and author info does not make sense

I don't understand your problem. This is a medieval mural in the Unitarian church of Dârjiu, Romania. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, which is why the modern-day uploader is not the original author. For the purposes of Wikipedia, which uses primarily US law, taking a photo of a 2D work does not generate a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Szent_László_legenda_4.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:LaszloOradea.jpg.

Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:046CupolaSPietro.jpg: since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, we need to account for the status of the building as well.

Sorry, but I could not find that image in this article. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in the portal bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, thanks. The building is St. Peter's Basilica, completed on 18 November 1626. I quote from Commons:Freedom of panorama: "Under Law N. XII on Copyright of January 12, 1960, the Vatican decreed that unless church law says otherwise, the precepts of Italian copyright law apply in Vatican City. As noted above, Italy does not allow for freedom of panorama. Thus, sculptures and other works, including buildings, are not ok until 70 years after the death of the architect or designer [...]". --Norden1990 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. ~~Tentative oppose~~. The current image review is almost identical to the image review at the first FAC. If you're having problems understanding reviewer comments, it's better to ask than to just resubmit a FAC with the same problems. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Yes I am having problems understanding the comments. Sorry, but an extremely simple-minded person like me cannot easily understand that a picture with copyright problems can be displayed in Commons, but the same picture cannot be used in articles. All the same, I will seek assistance. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding "extremely simple-minded"; I certainly didn't say that. This isn't a comment about you, this is a comment about FAC. We have limited volunteer labor available. FAC can't possibly work if we ask all the volunteers to be willing to do the same work over and over again. Nikki is perhaps the most experienced image reviewer we have at FAC. Personally, I'm mystified by image requirements; I can't answer your question. But she knows what she's talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons, like Wikipedia, is a work in constant progress; just as Wikipedia articles can often be improved, so too can Commons image descriptions, and just as Wikipedia articles sometimes warrant deletion, so too do Commons images. That being said, I expect most of the images in this case fall into the first camp rather than the second. If you have specific questions about what improvements are needed, I'm happy to answer them. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am sure I am unable to understand WP policies about pictures, so I already sought community assistance. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose, in light of progress. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MPS1992

MPS1992, thank you for your excelent edits and thorough review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"jumped on Ladislaus's lance from a thorny bush and went up to his chest" - this feels slightly ambiguous. Does it mean it jumped onto his lance and then jumped onto his chest?
- Thank you for your comment. I modified the text: [15]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Solomon was defeated in the battle" - this sentence feels slightly awkward tacked onto the end of the paragraph. Perhaps it would read better if made longer with a little more detail.
- Modified: [16]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Upon Helen's demand" - I have rephrased this to "At Helen's demand", but, do the sources support such a strong wording? In other words, could it be "at Helen's request" rather than "at Helen's demand"?
- Modified: [17] Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In 1090, Ladislaus had a meeting with the bishop of Prague, an old friend. Do these two facts really add anything? Presumably he met various bishops and other important personages quite often; did the meeting have any significance or significant outcome? It seems out of place amidst military actions of long-lasting import.
- Deleted: [18]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, " The same year, he wrote to Oderizius, Abbot of Monte Cassino in Italy, about his conquest of "Sclavonia"" appears to be inserted almost randomly into a paragraph that is otherwise almost entirely about the invasion of Croatia. This sentence should be moved to the following paragraph.
- Modified: [19] ("Sclavonia" was identical with Croatia in the context). Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" The occupation of Croatian territories resulted in a dispute, because..." - this is awkwardly worded. Perhaps it could be recast on its own or together with preceding sentences.
- Modified: [20]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"because Bács was situated closer to the Hungarian-Byzantine border" - it would be good to make a little clearer how this is related to the needs of the English refugees and the moving of the sees.
- Deleted: [21], wl to "New England" in the "See also" section: [22]. (Makk's theory is not closely connected to Ladislaus and is only a POV). Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" Historian Gábor Klaniczay writes that the whole story was probably invented during the reign of King Béla III of Hungary, who was actually planning to lead a crusade to the Holy Land in the 1190s.[100] However, Ladislaus did plan to invade Bohemia" - the article seems here to decide that Klaniczay is wrong, and says so in Wikipedia's voice. What makes one source right and the other (later) one clearly wrong?
- Modified, but I am not sure, I understand your concern: [23]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I got confused between the two campaigns here. It looks fine now. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" Ladislaus's family and relatives who are mentioned in the article are shown in the following family tree" - I think this sentence should be removed entirely, but I presume the citation at the end of it indicates the attribution for the family tree diagram. Perhaps the attribution could be included in a caption. The note with the asterisk is probably unnecessary.
- Modified, but I am not sure, I understand your concern: [24]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
bondsman should be wikilinked to something relevant. Neither of the items on the disambiguation page for bondsman are suitable. Perhaps it is slavery or perhaps it is something more subtle on the Russian model.
- Sorry, I do not understand your reference to the "Russian model". Why do you think any kind of "Russian model" is relevant here? Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My thinking is that we should either explain "bondsman" or wikilink it. Best to wikilink it. But "people [who] paid for their passage to the New World" is not the right wikilink, and neither is "any person, agency or corporation that will act as a surety and pledge money or property as bail for the appearance of persons accused in court". So either the correct wikilink is slave, but there is a risk that is inaccurate in this context, and that serf might be more accurate. Although Wikipedia suggests that serfdom only became dominant in Eastern Europe a few hundred years later. Perhaps something similar to serf (he was the son of a craftsman, not an agricultural labourer.) What do you think? MPS1992 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. I added the wl to serfdom. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" a bondsman, named "Tekus, son of the craftsman Dénes", opened Ladislaus's tomb" - this is slightly confusing for the reader. It should be made more clear that this was part of the canonization ceremony, and not that Tekus took it into his head to vandalize the tomb one day.
- Modified: [25]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the texts about Ladislaus's life and reign in 14th-century Hungarian chronicles, were written during Coloman's rule" - Coloman lived c. 1070 – 3 February 1116 (that is, from the 11th to the 12th century) so how can a 14th-century chronicle have been written during his rule?
- Modified: [26]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made these edits. MPS1992 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think these now all look OK, thank you for making the changes. I greatly enjoyed finding out about the very English-dominated nature of the Varangian Guard in this era, which I had not known about before. One stylistic point and one minor point:

There are substantial quotes from primary sources and other antiquated sources at various points in the text. I don't know if the Manual of Style permits attributed quotes of out-of-copyright sources of this length, though they seem good to me. But, some of the later ones seem to have their text in italics, whereas the earlier ones do not. They should be consistent. (All of the work names seem to be in italics already, which is consistent and is good.)

Thank you for your comments. I changed the last two quotes (I preferred non-italics for them). Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second, and this is very minor and perhaps more nuanced, is the Illuminated Chronicle, dating from 1358 or later, really a primary source about a king who died over 250 years earlier? Perhaps it is a primary source for views taken by Hungarians in later centuries, I'm not sure. MPS1992 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Hungarian historiography the Illuminated Chronicle is treated as a primary source, because it is the earliest copy of the so-called "Old Gesta", a chronicle which was written in the late 11th century and later modified and expanded. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of my concerns have been addressed, and I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled as there has been no activity for well over a month. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2016 [27].

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American model and actress Emily Ratajkowski. This is my final attempt to get this promoted in time for consideration at WP:TFA on her 25th birthday (June 7). Currently TFA is scheduled out to May 25. FAC4 was closed with a comment ending "I would expect to see deep work done to address concerns about sourcing and prose outlined by Ealdgyth, SlimVirgin, TrueHeartSusie3, and others [In FAC3 and FAC4]." I have been editing the article furiously in the last 2 weeks. It now stands at 18965 characters of readable prose. For comparison notice how much content has been changed/removed since the following milestones:

22080 character 21:26, 26 April 2016 version when FAC4 ended

23556 character 06:41, 26 April 2016 version last comment at FAC4

23805 character 23:42, 24 April 2016 version when I started actively chopping down the article

24671 character 12:11, 20 April 2016 version when I responded to TrueHeartSusie3 comment on the article's length on April 20 in FAC4,

24541 character 04:13, 18 April 2016 version when I started FAC4,

25889 character 13:02, 9 April 2016 version when FAC3 ended.

I am especially hopeful that my revisions are satisfactory since both Drmies and Linguist111 have given unsolicited thanks (e.g., here) for my edits to the page in the last week, which I hope is a sign that my recent edits have substantially changed the page in a good way.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Drmies had derided the article length when it stood at 25997 characters just three weeks before thanking me for my edits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying

WP:GOCE1 reviewer User:Baffle gab1978

Talk:Emily Ratajkowski/GA1 reviewer User:Cirt

Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 discussants User:Cirt, User:SNUGGUMS, User:Kiyoweap, User:Sigeng

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 discussant User:Cirt, User:MaranoFan and User:Karanacs

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 discussant User:Bollyjeff, User:SandyGeorgia, User:Masem, User:Nikkimaria, and User:Elcobbola

Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 discussants User:White Arabian Filly--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page's most active editors: Tinton5, Baffle gab1978, General Ization, All Hallow's Wraith, Nightscream, Chaheel Riens, American In Brazil, Cliftonian, Thewildone85, SNUGGUMS, Guat6, N0n3up, and Mbinebri

WP:GOCE2 reviewer User:Twofingered Typist

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 discussants: GRuban, Cirt, SlimVirgin, General Ization, White Arabian Filly, Nightscream, Figureskatingfan, Chaheel Riens, Ealdgyth

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 discussants: Cirt, TrueHeartSusie3, GRuban, The ed17, Chaheel Riens, Twofingered Typist

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to FAC coordinators (Ian Rose and Laser brain): The article currently has an open GOCE. In FAC4, Laser commented that "an article with an open GOCE request strikes me as admittedly unprepared". In this case, the open GOCE was made during FAC4. Given all the changes I have made to the article since then (noted above), I don't think the open GOCE is an admission of unpreparedness. It remains open only because 1.) it is at the top of the GOCE queue and likely to be addressed promptly, 2.) I don't think a GOCE would hurt the nomination, and 3.) This is now a time-sensitive nomination. If either of you thinks I should close the GOCE in order to go forward, I am willing to do so. Also, I am willing to suspend the nomination (hopefully for no more than 48 hours) if a GOCE is considered disruptive to the nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Drmies[edit]

I will just say that I think Tony has done a good job cutting this down. I think more needs to be cut. A 91k article on a minor, minor figure, with minor parts in maybe two notable movies and a few TV things, with 205 references from mostly the entertainment press, and six full paragraphs on her "activism and advocacy" which, while verified, is minor in the grand scheme of things, I just don't think that this is the kind of thing we ought to be doing. Yes, the stuff is verified, and well-organized--but it's stuff, just stuff. I don't want to start a fight but FA criteria 4... BTW, yes, I thanked Tony for an edit that pruned the article some, and I will gladly continue to do so. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- this edit was the one you thanked me for. It took the article to 19447 characters of readable prose. I have not often seen people discuss the wikitext size of articles at FAC. I think it is the readable prose count that matters. Yes she is a low-importance actress. The question is not whether her acting career has been impressive. Note that no one known primarily as a model has achieved FA for some reason. Should we really discount entertainment press sources so much that a model cannot achieve FA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I do my thing, you do yours. She is a low-importance actress, and devoting this much space to a low-importance actress, with low-level sources (not a single book, I don't think), and then putting it in the FA window for the Wikipedia shoppers, sorry, I have a hard time with that. I've made similar comments before on GA reviews and, I guess, all over the place, not just in K-pop articles. I made a suggestion or two. She [well, the article] can get to FA status without 205 references and with less text and less table porn. I think it's high time that we take item 4 seriously--not just here, but also, and perhaps especially, in GA reviews. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - At GA, there seems to be no relation between importance and the viability of a nomination. Thus, articles of all levels of importance seem to be viewed as deserving of the same level of detail. However, here everyone wants to say that this subject is low-importance and thus less worthy of consideration for FA and less worthy of editorial attention. I.e., since she is not an award-winning actress, she should not be detailed on WP. At GA, there is no such relationship. Here it seems that WP:WIAFA 4 is used to say that an article is being detailed more than a higher importance article that would be more deserving of that level of detail. There is a clear disconnect between the interpretation of WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. I believe I had addressed all the source review issues prior to closing FAC3, but the reviewer had not evaluated my responses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, one of your reservations was "six full paragraphs on her 'activism and advocacy'". I have been looking at the other actress FACs and have reorganized this content. I was wondering what you think now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I should be clear. I was comparing the organization to the articles of Emma Stone, Freida Pinto and Kalki Koechlin, which are current FACs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better Tony--thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Numerounovedant[edit]

The article has little issue with the prose and its quality and is well written. However, IMO it does not have enough substance to work with. Most of the article is self analytical, it talks more about itself rather than the subject. Review after review for minor roles, ~~sub sections which barely have a purpose~~ and the ~~unnecessary table~~. I will have to look at further such articles to actually see how much of this article is even required. Even the references are cluttered and not required in places. ~~Have no issues with the prose though.~~ NumerounovedantTalk 11:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Vensatry that the article muddles with the tense at times. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the most recent copyedit by WP:GOCE, it seems that your article is actually incorrectly using WP:MOSTENSE. When a critic discusses a film the summary is suppose to be present tense. I find this confusing and had considered commenting on your review. However, I think you consistently use the past tense incorrectly when summarizing and quoting critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there has to be more to it. All the FAs that I referred to use past tense. NumerounovedantTalk 12:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger Regardless, I didn't mean to point out at the use of past/present, it is the variation that bothered me. NumerounovedantTalk 12:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant, I did catch a few wrong tenses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSTENSE gets very confusing. Take the following consecutive sentences: "Piers Morgan states that Ratajkowski's form of feminism is a misguided affront to true feminism,[182] labeling it pseudo-feminist gibberish.[183] After Morgan wrote that "Feminism Is Dead", the Chicago Tribune's Heidi Stevens as well as Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter and The Daily Telegraph's Helen Pankhurst said Ratajkowski neither killed nor bolstered feminism.[184][185]" Ratajkowski's feminism is an ongoing thing criticism about it are in the present. However, the following sentence is about a particular time in the past that must be written in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant, @FrB.TG: and Vensatry, Looking back at the history of tenses in this article and my confusion/belief about how to interpret WP:MOSTENSE and WP:FICTENSE, I see that in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3, GRuban complained about tenses on 03:00, 30 March 2016‎. This led to my own March 30 revisions to the page here and here based on MOSTENSE and FICTENSE. At some point GRuban was satisfied with these changes. I asked Twofingered Typist to consider MOSTENSE (among other issues) in the copyedit. He never actually made tense changes in his copyedit and I assumed this was a ratification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., as I have stated elsewhere, I believe that WP:MOSTENSE and WP:FICTENSE mean that we should consider films ongoing present things rather than past events. Unless a critical commentary is made at a past event (like a film festival panel discussion), it is written about in the present until the critic dies or the film is lost in my opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant, I am not sure what is meant by self analytical. Please point out examples because I do not understand.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it loses focus a lot, instead of focusing on the subject it talks about just "stuff". Some instances just from the "Leading Roles" section-

Around the time of its release, Ratajkowski was prominent in the media with cover appearances on Grazia France, British GQ, harper by Harper's Bazaar, InStyle UK, and InStyle Australia as well as a role as a 2015 MTV Video Music Awards presenter. The British GQ cover story was photographed by Mario Testino, who produced a short film for the magazine's website." - How is the latter part important?

To my knowledge she has worked with 5 photographers who are notable enough to have their own WP articles. I wanted to work in Testino's name as I have worked in the other 5. He not only photographed the cover story, but also produced a video used on the magazine's website. I thought this was a good way to mention him. I am open to suggestions on how to work in his name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just realized it was unclear the short film was about Ratajkowski.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. There are a couple more instances. NumerounovedantTalk 05:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratajkowski's We Are Your Friends performance received mixed reviews. She played Stanford University dropout Sophie, the love interest of Efron's character and girlfriend/personal assistant of Wes Bentley's character. Ty Burr of The Boston Globe and Nell Minow of Beliefnet are unimpressed. Kyle Smith of the New York Post, Jordan Hoffman of Daily News and Glenn Kenny of RogerEbert.com praise her performance. Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph and Morris note Ratajkowski's rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal previously seen in "Blurred Lines". Duralde of TheWrap states that Sophie was a thin role (as did Burr), while Christopher Gray of Slant Magazine described Sophie as a muse. Bilge Ebiri of Vulture.com says that Ratajkowski's role takes a back seat to the love triangle's central Efron/Bentley relationship. - Aren't those a little too many? Not to mention they add little value to the article, most of them have no praise description of what the critics actually thought of the performance, the rest just describe the role, and not the performance. Again an example of the analysis of the film maybe, but definitely nothing to do with Ratajkowski. NumerounovedantTalk 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to too many, the article currently includes all 11 critics whose reviews were mentioned by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and who both have their own WP articles and whose reviews were in media outlets with their own WP articles. As you may have noticed you are at FAC5. I have been under pressure to shorten the article. If you look at the version when FAC3 ended, you will see that I described the critical commentary more fully in that version. It sounds like you are suggesting restoring some of that. I could make it look shorter by not mentioning each affiliated media outlet. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are examples of prior content that was removed: Ty Burr of The Boston Globe says Ratajkowski's performance is "lovely to look at and surpassingly dull".[130] Nell Minow is also unimpressed.[131] Kyle Smith of the New York Post, Jordan Hoffman of Daily News and Glenn Kenny praise her performance with descriptors such as "entrancing", "sweet", "sexy" and "sensible".[132][133][134]

In fact it once (23:10, 15 March 2016) said: Ty Burr of The Boston Globe described her performance in the role as "lovely to look at and surpassingly dull".[124] Nell Minow was also unimpressed.[125] Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing", while noting her physical contribution to the film.[126] Jordan Hoffman of Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet".[127] Glenn Kenny was satisfied with her presentation of her "sweet, sexy, and sensible" character.[128]

Numerounovedant, can you tell me what you think might need to be restored?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest bringing down the number of reviews based on their relevance. What good are 11 reviews if none actually talk about her performance. I'll go through all the reviews personally and suggest the ones which I believe are more relevant. Give me an hour for this. NumerounovedantTalk 05:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, the review with 1) Ty Burr of The Boston Globe says Ratajkowski's performance is "surpassingly dull" makes perfect sense (in context to a negative review), I would restore it. 2) Instead of saying Nell Minow was also unimpressed you can quote him saying that she "does more posing than acting" and merge it into the previous sentence. 3) I would also merge Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing" & Jordan Hoffman of Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet" into one sentence 4) Glenn Kenny doesn't make any critical commentary so I would remove it. Rest I would keep Robbie Collin's part but remove all the remaining commentary because it simply talks about the role and not the performance. NumerounovedantTalk 06:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me why we don't want to describe the role as thin or point out that her first leading role is not actually part of the dominant relationship to clarify things for the reader.--16:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to completely drop the idea, but extensive critical commentary just on the role isn't the way. You could mention the former review which calls the role thin, but the latter about her role in the relationship really doesn't belong here. The article is about her not the film or its characters. Facts like these are better suited in the film's article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the love triangle comment to the film article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the thin comment (Basically as it was before).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that each fact of the article is substantiated with a ref or two. Can you point out examples references that do not support facts. Maybe two or three.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the "Leading Roles" (again not exhaustive) - The second paragraph is not at all informative, and has atleast 6 references thats tand for nothing, because the corresponding text does not offer anything.

I think we have gotten that paragraph restored to significance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to fame- "Much commentary on Ratajkowski's debut focuses on her sex appeal,[68][69][70] but some note that her small role as a "duplicitous and manipulative former student" is critical.[71][72]" Again, nothing about her performances and cluttered refrences. Isn't there a source that talks about the round up? & "Her role as Adrian Grenier's character, Vincent Chase's visually appealing love interest is described in sexist ways in the press,[85][86][87] with mentions of her as the object of multiple affections.[88][89][90]" - Too many references that talk about the same thing. (Not even a significant detail or addition to the article) NumerounovedantTalk 16:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I suppose to support a "Much commentary" claim with one comment. I thought three was appropriate for such a claim unless you just think the claim should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are supposed to cite an article that says so. 2-3 articles about the comments barely support the claim for "Much commentary". For an instance, see the discussion on this page. I really think that such claims need just one source that says so, instead of multiple sources actually talking about it. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I supported a "Some note" fact with two. I thought this was appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not both the "much commentary" , "Some noted" border WP:WEASEL. You rather state names, (if the obsevation is vital to the article) or remove the claims. The latter is the case here (IMO). NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some named.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The round up? What does that mean? Commentary on her roles thus far is somewhat limited.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A round up would be an article that sums up her performance, or rather attributes an adjective to it which can be used in the article. For instance a RT consensus. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is one ref considered better than three?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to refer to WP:CITEKILL (last paragraph from the lead), if you still believe all the references are required try WP:CITEBUNDLE. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by not a significant detail or addition?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this article for instance I would consider - "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood (PPFA).[144][145] She also committed to be in a short reproductive and sexual health film for PPFA.[146][147] Ratajkowski describes PPFA as her main charity because of its role in women's health, and has helped PPFA raise funds.[148]" to be a "significant detail", whereas "She reports receiving a wide range of responses to her involvement, including comments on her bravery." - would qualify as unnecessary/"not a significant detail". NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to cut out unnecessary details and welcome it when you point to them. In regards to the Entourage summary, is it unnecessary to say she was the object of multiple affections or that she was viewed in sexist ways by the press?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the table of contents, I am not sure what the multiple unnecessary subsections are since there are so few subsections.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Early leading roles" - She has had just one film to her credit in the section. I don't know how much upcoming projects account for a "Leading roles" section, they better be separated as upcoming projects and the entire section be merged into the previous one. NumerounovedantTalk 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I created this section after her first leading role and the early development of Cruise which seems to be a leading role. Her more recent upcoming projects are not leading so I think you are right to merge this back. I have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of the table, there was probably a time when a discography or filmography was considered an unnecessary table. We have never had a person notable primarily as a model achieve FA. Thus, I thought I would try to assemble a table detailing her modelling history. A coverography could be shown to be as notable as a filmography is for an actress or a discography is as a musician because there are multiple reliable sources that present the details that I present in the table. I am not just cobbling stuff together. You can go out to the internet and find this stuff fairly easily, IMO. Models.com does the most comprehensive job at covering this, but fashionmodeldirectory.com does a decent job at covering these and there are other sources. Since we are suppose to summarize the secondary sources, this type of table is as interesting an element of summarizing secondary sources for a model as a filmography or discography might be. Its importance to a biography is similar to Template:2010–19 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit in the sense that for people more notable for things other than modelling it is considered irrelevant, but for models it is considered important. Sure a coverography for an actress is not really an important thing, but for a model, it is somewhat defining.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some other observations-

"Ratajkowski was told that modelling could lead to an acting career." - It is again very Weasely, not to say uninformative.

I don't think WP:WEASEL really applies, but I have removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with "curves that put her in a different class from runway models", she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models." - Really doesn't belong in the career section.

I am not sure where to move it. See what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either personal life or media image NumerounovedantTalk 12:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is in media image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" As they touch, they reveal each other. Levine "caresses and serenades" Ratajkowski during the video." - Does not belong in her article, maybe the music video's article.

"Levine "caresses and serenades" Ratajkowski during the video"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A. O. Scott of The New York Times and Alonso Duralde of TheWrap, note Ratajkowski's early disappearance from the film." - How is that important?

Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "March 2013 GQ Türkiye" images should be reduced in size. They are really sitracting this way.

180px-->160px.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards Weak Support (after the remaining queries have been addressed), but I suggest a thorough source review. I wish I could do it myself, but I am afraid that I have prior commitments. Ping me after the source review and I'll be happy to help further. Good Luck! NumerounovedantTalk 13:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant, I have addressed the WP:MOSTENSE issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, I am watching the page, but ping me when the source review is done. I think it's really going to help the article. Good work though. NumerounovedantTalk 06:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant, I just noticed that Catherine Zeta-Jones is getting a lot of support at FAC with a lead that includes the phrase "Zeta-Jones initially established herself in Hollywood with roles that highlighted her sex appeal..." We have wiped out a lot of content supporting a similar claim for Ratajkowski's first two roles. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so as far as Zeta-Jones' article goes it had certain substantiated statements, with full commentary. While that could be a fine addition to the article, the discussion here was more of he said: she said: sort. I wouldn't mind if you add a well substantiated claim on her sex appeal with some actual commentary. For instance, the comment on her rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal here. NumerounovedantTalk 05:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, Since you were the original person who pointed out that the article had WP:MOSTENSE issues (and were an interested discussant in FAC3 and FAC4), could you please comment on your thoughts on the new changes to the tense presentation and state whether you have an opinion on the vastly changed version of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twofingered Typist, since you were the most recent WP:GOCE copyeditor (and a commenter at FAC4), could you comment on the changes to the tense presentation and state whether you have an opinion on the vastly changed version of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger The tense presentation seems fine to me. I have fixed some inconsistencies in the punctuation. I notice a lot of excessive detail has been trimmed so that the article is much more concise and to the point. I'd say it is in very good shape. I still question the need for a box-form listing of covers she's done - this does not appear in other models' articles. You've picked some highlight examples, leave it at that. A complete listing, like listing quote good or bad for an appearance in a film, is excessive.Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Twofingered Typist, have you seen my "defense of the table" above?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by FrB.TG[edit]

I suggest not to link London as it borders on WP:OVERLINKING. And perhaps San Diego too?
London delinked. San Diego not. I am not sure how widely SD is known.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Her modeling career" - don't begin a new para with a pronoun (use her last name).
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"erotic magazine treats! which led" - comma after "treats!"
Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ratajkowski began acting as a youth in" - awkward phrasing, try: "...acting at a young age" or "as a child/teenager" (whatever her age was then)
I think child is appropriate. She began before the Harriet role which was at 13 years and 1 month. She was likely 12 or younger. Not sure if she was per-pubescent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to mention Zac Efron in the lead.
O.K. Someone before you has argued about this. I'll concede.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Currently, she has various acting engagements in development." - WP:CURRENTLY
Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except Planned Parenthood, I don't think you need to link anything in the last para of the lede.
I think feminist is necessary and women's health. I am torn regarding Women's rights--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not come across a biography which mentions the age of the person's parents when s/he was born.
Having parents who average age 42 is a bit out of the norm. I would not mention ages if they were more in the normal range. It is not so far out of the norm as to be WP:LEAD material like being the posthumous child of RFK, but it is probably worth a mention.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"she tried soccer" - soccer as in American football or football? If it's the internationally known football, go with football.
I think for Americans, soccer is used in the article. See Landon Donovan, Mia Hamm, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"nudist beaches" → "nude beaches" at least that's what our article says.
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Teen is an informal term; go with teenager.~~
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of major concern so far (my review is only till early life section). FrB.TG (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing your proposal at several FACs, including Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Stone/archive1, I would like to say that reviews should be in past tense as they are events that have passed. Besides, I have never seen an article to do so (oh and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a poor justification). FrB.TG (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. NumerounovedantTalk 15:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG see commments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive3 and above regarding MOS:TENSE and WP:FICTENSE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Even if I agree with you, I can't say that using past tense is wrong. I would like to hear from @FAC coordinators: on this matter. FrB.TG (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am going to start a discussion at WT:FILM.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using present tense when describing what a reviewer said is incorrect. I would not consider that an actionable request as a coordinator. As a reviewer, I would oppose any article using such language. --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG I think I have reversed myself correctly. Please let me know where the article stands in your eyes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. It looks much better with the past tense. I will add further comments very soon. FrB.TG (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, Thanks. It would be much better for me if you could add those comments in the next 48 hours. I have little free time on Friday through Monday because I drive for Uber those days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"or another limited unwanted role" - better without "unwanted".
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"two 2009-10 third season episodes of Nickelodeon's iCarly" - perhpas better as "two episodes of the third season of Nickelodeon's iClary (2009–10)"
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A Holiday 2012 video and a Valentine's 2011 video" - are they both proper nouns? If not, better as A 2012 holiday video and a 2011 ...
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

""Blurred Lines" is controversial because some feel it..." - still in present tense.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The video is deemed sexist" - I think it's better in the perfect or past tense.
I have tried a perfect tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the next paragraph can be combined with this one.
Combined.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

number 1 → number one.
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"On June 24, she appeared" - do you need to be this specific with date? Just June 2014 would suffice.
based on her social media, I think this date is her mother's birth date. So it may have been a symbolic date for her first major cover. I think we should WP:PRESERVE the detail for this reason. It is also coincidentally my birthday, which is surely a big day in her life, making it even more important symbolicly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In September, Ratajkowski was" - which year?
2014--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"she made her runway modelling debut"
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"On October 22, 2013, Esquire.." - again, I don't think you need to be so specific.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"On February 4, 2014, Sports Illustrated" - again!
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Her acting career had a slow start" - use her last name.
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tables do not meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT).

~~What's with the huge space for "Notes".~~
- ~~fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think it might be of trivial tone as other reviewers have taken note of, but I don't expect anything else in the biography of a model. FrB.TG (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vensatry (a quick scan)[edit]

~~Alt text should conform to WP:ALT (talking about the infobox image). Add the same for other images as well.~~
- Alt added to all media.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Currently, she has various acting engagements in development." We usually don't document current events in the lead.~~
- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~"At birth, her mother and father were aged 39 and 45, respectively,[6] and unmarried" You introduce her parents with ages, why not with names?~~
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ratajkowski is of Polish, German, Irish, and Polish Jewish descent" You need to clarify this since the previous para says both of her parents are Amercians. Further, the following sentence says she considers herself a 'Polish Israeli'.
- I watch two articles where ethnicity is constantly a topic of debate. Stana Katic and this one. Here there are two parts of the article that seem to have a lot of different people weighing in and tinkering. In the LEAD the current consensus is "an American model and actress. Born in London to American parents..." Sometimes it is "British-born American" In the body, the section you point out is often in flux. I do not know policies regarding ethnicity and just let those who think they know tinker. Being American means they were born in the United States or born to American citizens abroad. It does not mean that they were Mayflower descendants. I have removed the German reference that seems unsourced. I don't know what else to clarify and it is sort of beyond my expertise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm talking about the 'Polish Israeli' part. You have explained that her mother was raised Jewish, but we don't have references to Poland and Israel. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is currently WP:V based on ref 16 (Men's Fitness).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Little Match Girl points to the short story.~~
- I have clarified that this is an adaptation of the short story.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's 'unwanted' role?
- She was attempting to avoid certain types of roles. I think there is some reading that needs to be done between the lines here. I guess the sources don't actually say unwanted, but there were clearly types of roles she did not want. I am not sure what correction to make. I looked at this phrase quite a bit when pruning the article prior to FAC5. I was not sure what to do, but advice is welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with "curves that put her in a different class from runway models",[32] she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models." This reads like an editorial.
- Do you want this content removed?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably yes. Otherwise, this needs to be rephrased to make it sound more encyclopaedic. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aoba47 has addressed this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Previously, Ratajkowski had been cast in two other music videos; "Fast Car" by Taio Cruz,[33] which was released on November 5, 2012,[34] and Maroon 5's "Love Somebody",[2] which was released two months after "Blurred Lines".[2][9]" The first semi-colon could well be replaced by a colon. Replace the comma after November 5, 2012 and with a semicolon.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When was "Blurred Lines" released?
- The article notes the date that the video was made public (March 20), which was a different date than when the audio of the song was released (for public download or for radio airplay—not sure which) on March 26. I don't think the March 26 date is relevant to this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Outside the lead, the first para of the 'Music video performances' section is the one that first talks about the video. But I'm not able to find the date (year). —Vensatry _(talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Grazia France - Is it a French edition?~~
- Yes. This is typical magazine naming conventions I believe. Either French Grazia or Grazia France are both acceptable as I understand it. Would you suggest a change?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, include 'France' in the pipe as well. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ratajkowski enjoys freedom of sexual expression "while still being a feminist"[77] and is outspoken about using her celebrity to fight the social implications of supporting the empowerment of women and sexuality" This sentence desperately needs commas.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The filmography table is unsourced. Andrew's Alteration and A Year and a Day are not discussed anywhere in the article.
- I don't see filmography tables source in Kalki Koechlin, Freida Pinto, Emma Stone. What are you asking me to do? Neither of those pre-fame films is sourceable to my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because those articles, presumably, have all films described (with refs.) in the body, which isn't the case here. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is true for Stone and Koechlin. However, for Pinto, the first film is omitted from the Filmography. Is that the proper result.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Slumdog Millionaire? It's discussed in detail with in the body. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Role missing for The Spoils Before Dying in the table.~~
- Added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the article covers the mains aspects of the subject. Coming to prose, a lot of sentences use too much commas (and some with under usage). Also, you keep changing the tenses (between past and present) invariably quite often. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vensatry, I did catch a few wrong tenses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above to Numerounovedant, Based on the most recent copyedit by WP:GOCE, it seems that your article is actually incorrectly using WP:MOSTENSE. When a critic discusses a film the summary is suppose to be present tense. I find this confusing and had considered commenting on your review. However, I think you consistently use the past tense incorrectly when summarizing and quoting critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to initiate a discussion at WP:FILM because this should set a precedent for future articles as well. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vensatry, I have tried to reverse myself. Please let me know what the current status of your consideration of this article is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, TonyTheTiger. I made some edits[28][29] to put Emily's article that much closer to a Featured Article promotion. Ping me back in a couple of days and I will be happy to !vote. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, I noticed that you made the cats fully alphabetical rather than having traditionally leading (birth year and living people) cats first. Please comment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TonyTheTiger. Is there a MoS guideline for putting them out of order like that? I just do what makes sense to me, which happens to be alphabetically. I always put the category with the pipe in it at the top, and the rest I do an alphasort on. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I have asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Category_order.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, have you been following the commentary there?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I will now. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TonyTheTiger. There are at least three sections that lack images yet the Career section has images that are creating a corridor around the text in that section. See what can be done about that. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to add more images from Commons:Category:Emily Ratajkowski? I hadn't because they are almost all from the same 2013 date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TonyTheTiger. I would suggest reducing the number of images in the Career section to avoid the image corridor around the text. I will look around for other images later for other sections. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearranged the images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Happy Birthday, Emily! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Some concerns:

The nude image is non-free and in my view its use here doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
The rationale says the image provides "critical visual information" but doesn't say what that is. The argument in FAC 3 seemed to be that, because a man liked an image of a naked woman enough to offer her another job being naked, we must see the image to be able to understand. Using that reasoning, if a film director offers someone a part based on their performance in a previous film, we could claim fair use of that film to help us understand the director's point of view. Or if someone gets a second book contract because their first book was successful, we could claim fair use of that book to "significantly increase readers' understanding" of why the second contract was offered.
The rest of the non-free rationale should be removed: "Ratajkowski has advocated against censoring female nudity (especially her own) and as the w:WP:BLP subject would take offense to censorship of her nudity." [30]

The horizontal images in the "Music video performances" section look crowded and squeeze the text. Because of the shadow, the lipliner image looks as though something is being smeared on her. The semi-nude image is unpleasant. The captions – "receiving hair spray," "getting lipliner" – could use a rewrite.
It isn't clear that the video from which the images derive is free (see Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot). It was uploaded to Vimeo as cc-by in March 2013 by Eric Longden, who filmed it with Mike Marasco. [31] Is Longden the copyright holder? The video opens with "Tony Kelly for GQ Türkiye" (see Tony Kelly), so I would expect one of them, probably GQ, to hold the copyright. GQ Türkiye uploaded it to YouTube in April 2013 with the standard licence. [32] Longden did the same in September 2013. [33] Someone should ask Longden to confirm the release and that he's the copyright holder (and/or contact GQ), then forward the details to permissions.

SarahSV ^(talk) 14:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming here for the benefit of the delegates that the cameraman and photographer referred to above (Longden and Kelly) have said the video has not been released. This affects several images and clips derived from it (Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot). I've forwarded the emails to permissions, but there's a backlog. In this article, it concerns the three images in the Music video performances section and the two clips in Media image. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The images have been deleted. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your issues to be the following:

Images fail WP:NFCC #8 because
1. Reasoning is that "man likes random nudity which led to more nudity so we need to show the reader the random nudity"
2. FUR needs clarification
  Expanded--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. FUR content unnecessary
  Content irrelevant to WP:NFCC removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Images crowd text.
Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lipliner image looks smeared
We have a whole category of images to choose from, but I am trying to present these as a set for what I think are obvious reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-nude image is unpleasant.
We have a whole category of images to choose from, but I am trying to present these as a set for what I think are obvious reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAPTIONs need to be rewritten.
I could use some advice. I am not sure what the problem is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image free use unclear (Who is copyright holder?.)
INeverCry and czar reviewed the images at Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot. As I understand it, cinematographer, publisher and subject each have some sort of rights, but Ratajkowski's rights are merely {{personality rights}} in this case. I do not understand why a cinematographer can release his copyright and make something free without the consent of the publisher. Thus, I am not sure what verification I am being told to needs to be sought. Given my level of expertise, I would feel more comfortable if someone else sought this clarification or would give me a precise question/set of questions to ask.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder is the only one that can release the video, so you need to find out who that is and make sure they understand the implications of releasing it. In the case of GQ, they will understand, but it might have to come from their legal department. Links here to email addresses for GQ, Tony Kelly and Eric Longden. [34][35][36] See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a suggested email the copyright holder needs to send. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SarahSV, as I understand it there is no claim that GQ has relinquished its copyright or that Kelly has released his. The only relevant inquiry is whether Longden has released his and then we need to determine if his act is sufficient. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct. It is most likely that either Condé Nast (GQ) or Tony Kelly or Eric Longden owns the copyright, not all three. You need to find out which one does. Then you need to ask the copyright owner for a release under a Creative Commons licence and forward that release to permissions. It seems to me unlikely that the copyright holder would release an expensive photoshoot so that others could make commercial use of it. But of course I could be wrong about that; perhaps they had their reasons. But first, you need to find out who owns the copyright. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I know I am not qualified to address the issues of the copyright. However, I do know enough about the issue to tell by your response that you do not understand the issues of the copyright either. You speak of the copyright as if it is a singular thing. There is not one copyright holder for a published work. There are typically 3 or 4. May I ask if you are even a qualified image reviewer because someone who does not understand copyrights well enough to understand this might serve WP well to step aside of an image review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification needs to come from permissions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, who is "permissions"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:OTRS. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard back from Longden and he is not the copyright holder. I'll forward the correspondence to permissions. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- SlimVirgin, I repeat. There is not one copyright holder. There are sort of layers (depending on the medium think about a subject/subject creator, a performer, a recorder and a publisher). The first copyright is the subject creator. I.e., sculptures are always copyrighted in certain jurisdictions. Works of music are often copyrighted by a lyricist and a songwriter or teams thereof. Meanwhile, people are not copyrighted in the United States, but {{personality rights}} are different by jurisdiction. It may be the case that a human subject owns a copyright to photos of them in Turkey. However, I doubt it given the number of photos that we have of Category:Turkish footballers. Given that human subjects in Turkey are probably not copyrightable per se, the next level of copyright is determined by who did the work. A photographer/videographer always owns the copyright to his own work (consider the Monkey selfie issue), but he may be restricted from releasing it if the subject has a copyright. Given what is in Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot, Longden may very well want to take back his released copyright, but if he is in fact the photographer, he can not unless at the time he released the work he did not have the right. Of course, he may have given up his copyright, but if he is the photographer he has/had a copyright. I.e., if he had signed over his copyright to Condé Nast (GQ) as part of a publication contract or performed the work as an employee of Condé Nast, he may have surrendered his copyright. Is he claiming he was not the photographer, that he was an employee of Condé Nast or that he signed over the photographer copyright to Condé Nast?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The director of the video has separately confirmed that it is not under a free licence. It appears that the Vimeo tagging as free was just a mistake. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are talking about Tony Kelly when you say director. Kelly is not required to release his copyright in order for the filmmaker to release his AFAIK. I don't think he was ever a concern for the image reviewers. Unless we are going to claim Longden's input was like that of the monkey and that Kelley has a copyright over the work he directed with Longden, we do not need Kelly's consent or release. Longden is pressing the buttons and has a copyright.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All this misses the point. The question is whether anyone has released this video. There are three entities that we assume might be in a position to do so: Condé Nast/GQ; the director; and/or the cameraman. The director and cameraman have both said the video has not been released.
When we add images to FACs nowadays, we're expected to do due diligence. Sometimes it's obvious on Vimeo, YouTube or Flickr that the person posting a release is the copyright holder and really did intend to release it, but often it isn't. In this case, it's a red flag that someone would release an expensive photoshoot so that other commercial entities can use it for profit.
The safest thing to do in these cases is to email them, ask if they own the copyright, and make sure they understand what a Creative Commons licence entails (namely that anyone can use their work for any reason). When that is confirmed, if you forward the correspondence to permissions, then it's on file that the release was confirmed and understood. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the Vimeo account was his, it does not matter whether he now says he intended to release his copyright. He probably did not expect to see his work all over wikipedia. I am sure he did not expect to see his work posted on WP at Hair rollers, Lip liner, and so on (See the what links here link for Ratajkowski). He could now say he did not want to release it as an attempt to take back his release, but I believe it is too late.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not supposed to take advantage of people who have made mistakes. Someone might have an intern upload something and add the wrong tag. Or they might believe they have released it but they don't own the copyright. Or they do own the copyright but didn't realize what releasing it meant. That's why it's important to email people before uploading if there is room for doubt, particularly if it's for a featured article.
I had a photographer release an image to me once of a person, a very clear release, after I had explained to her what it meant. It was a good photograph, except that she had added a strong orange colour to the person's face. I removed the colour, uploaded the image and added it to an article. She immediately emailed me to say I did not have her permission to remove the orange, and she was upset because she thought it only looked good with the added colour. In fact it looked very strange. I therefore deleted the image and regarded the release as invalid, because it was obvious that she had not understood what a release meant, and I didn't want her to be upset. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest taking the lot (the category) to deletion review on Commons if the video's license is being challenged. There are all kinds of different rights depending on the artistic direction, the cinematography, music, country-specific, etc. and of course whether the cinematographer had the rights to release (was it work for hire?) The "license review" on Commons exists to confirm the status of a release on an external site—so while of course we cannot check the rights situation of every release, it is at least plausible that Longden's official channel has the rights to relicense under Creative Commons. But based on SV's inquiries, this warrants more discussion on Commons czar 01:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, as I wrote below, Longden said that someone his end chose the wrong licence by mistake. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be that simple. The CC license is irrevocable, so our own diligence and grace period separates mistake from regret. But this aside, ticket:2016052410026559 says that GQ owns the copyright and that Longden only has creative rights, so the video would not be his to relicense. I've opened

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot czar 13:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I drafted something that will not see article space anytime soon at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Emily Ratajkowski's blue Koma dress. I am wondering if a fair use image of that dress belongs in this article and whether the article should have more content on that topic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your NFCC issue continues to have nothing to do with either WP:NFCC or the responsive WP:FUR. In response to my revised FUR, you continue to assert that "non-free images must satisfy NFCC" without explanation-19:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC) There are three main points to the FUR. If any of the three are valid it does satisfy NFCC. As an image reviewer, you must communicate why the points are invalid. 1.) The image is one of the two things that has propelled her to fame, 2.) A journalist from The New York Times stated that the image was "artfully composed", and 3.) The director of her breakout music video stated that she selected her because "She looked smart and stunningly beautiful" in the image.

What you need to explain is something like 1.) The image looks not much different from what I would have imagined a fame-propelling magazine cover to look like and adds nothing. 2.) I found the composition to be about what I would have expected of such a magazine cover and the image adds nothing or maybe I found the composition to be overhyped and unspectacular enough that I can not believe The NYT expended any space describing it in various ways. 3.) I found her appearance to be about what I would have imagined based on such a statement and it added nothing.

If you can get back on topic (since you revel in discussing the nudity of the image), and cogently explain why none of these points are valid, we can move forward on whether the image should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. On June 25, you noted that you detailed your objection to the FUR on May 24. However, I am asking you to respond to my May 25 responses to your concern. The pre-May 25 FUR is no longer at issue and you have not made any statements anywhere about the current May 25 FUR, which is based largely on the 3 issues I have been pointing out. This is another example of your lack of fair bahavior. During an FAC the nominator generally responds to concerns and you are suppose to evaluate those responses. You continue to be unwilling to discuss my responses to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GRuban[edit]

Addressed comments

"Ratajkowski staged theatrics for her family as a child." Heh, heh, heh. As a parent, my immediate reaction was "and what child doesn't?" I recommend "shows" or "theatrical performances" or something else that isn't just a synonym for "tantrum".
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also link Cruise; as a major release it should have an article soon, so even a red link is worth it. Similarly In Darkness, and, probably, Easy. (Do most Netflix shows get articles?)
- Cruise (film) use to have an article created by me. It has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruise (film). There is significant doubt among WPians as to whether this film will ever be completed and see the light of day. I'll hold off on linking the others as well for now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finally add at least one word of description to each of the former two - are they films? Stage plays? TV shows? Miniseries? Music videos?
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She said: "... there's different kinds of nudity, and ... the video was tasteful ..." - I would remove the last ellipsis, and put a period after the last quote.
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ratajkowski has a variety of upcoming roles." - As of when? Assume you get hit by a truck and no one edits this article for the next three years. Will this still make sense? Add "as of 2016" or something.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Cruise, which is written and directed Robert Siegel." Add "by".
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist[9] and claimed that the producers "took something that on paper sounded really sexist and misogynistic and made it more interesting",[48] using humor and sarcasm." - the way you have it, with the last 4 words outside the quotes and after the comma means that Ratajkowski used humor and sarcasm in claiming that the producers made the video more interesting. Is that what you meant to write? I'm guessing not...
- Actually, if I recall my GMAT preparation correctly, the referent would be assumed to be the closest subject, which in this case is the producers. The sentence is actually correct I believe. I might wrong and the referent is the closest noun. However, Ratajkowski, is the most remote subject and noun. If I changed the sentence to read "Using humor and sarcasm, Ratajkowski..." then it would mean she used humor and sarcasm.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Beckham's famous catch from 2014" - if it's famous, do we have an article on it, or the game it was in?
- No. You can easily find it on YouTube though.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see you linked it after all, thanks. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: SarahSV's image review. First, a disclaimer - I found the various videos the screenshots came from, and uploaded the first few screenshots, though Tony has since surpassed my work. I kind of agree with Sarah's sexism objection to the magazine cover from previous reviews, but won't oppose because on it; it's an editorial decision, and it's at least arguable as appearing nude is a non-negligible part of what Ratajkowski does. However, I do object to the assertion that before we can use the images from Eric Longden's video, we need to have Eric Longden write OTRS. The entire point of putting a Creative Commons tag on media is that other people can use it without first having to write the author and ask for permission! If you are doubting that Longden has the rights to the video, well, we can hardly demand that he upload his contract, then hire lawyers to go over it. He's the film maker, if he says he can put it under CC-BY, then we need take his word for it. After all, that is exactly what an email to OTRS would be, just his word; why is his word in an email that only OTRS can read somehow more reliable than his word in a publically visible web site like Vimeo? If you're doubting that he works for GQ, well, his web site and his LinkedIn both list GQ Magazine as clients (among numerous others). If you're doubting he has the rights to this particular video, well, the Huffington Post seems to believe him. With all due respect for Sarah's experience and judgment in other areas, and they are great, in this particular case these objections are just wrong. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban, I think you missed the point I was making, namely that we don't know who owns the copyright. The same video has been posted to YouTube by Longden and GQ under a non-free licence. See the final paragraph of my post at 14:04, 24 May 2016. The first step is to establish who the copyright holder is. If it is Longden and he intended to release it on Vimeo (assuming he understands the implications of having done so), and if his later upload to YouTube under a non-free licence was an error, then all is well and no further action is needed. But that needs to be confirmed, because the current situation is unclear. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I really don't think you understand copyrights and am becoming very uncomfortable with you as the image reviewer. As the filmmaker, he has a copyright and unless the subject is copyrighted per se, he has permission to release his own work to creative commons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longden was hired by Kelly to shoot this for GQ. Longden has confirmed that he is not the copyright holder. Kelly has confirmed that the video has not been released under a free licence. The correspondence has been forwarded to permissions, so they will decide how to proceed. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Sarah - you got a response from Longden?!? In one day? Great work. Though very sad, of course. What is your secret to getting the response, though? I admit, one of the main reasons I was so opposed to writing him was that I was sure he wouldn't respond. I've done this getting images of people a few times, and in my experience, writing an actual article subject for or about an image gets no response most of the time, and if any response does come (including "no", that also happens), it comes in three months! So I was sure no response would come either ever, or not in time to be useful. Sarah, tell me your secret! Oh well. You did a great job. I admit, I am not happy with the result, but it was still good work. Thank you. Grrr.

Sorry, Tony. Unfortunately, if Longden does not own the rights, and put up the video in error, we're going to have to pull the images. All those lovely, lovely images, that you and I searched the Web for, scanned the video for, screenshotted, cropped, and edited. Trust me, it hurts me too; you edited them, but I did the searching. We can't make a case out of this; even if we could, we shouldn't, because we're not in this business to hurt people; but in this case we simply can't. If he had owned the rights, and released them, then was trying to change his mind, we could make an argument that the release was non-revocable, we have done that before in a minority of cases ... but here, if he says he simply didn't own the rights, then he didn't. By default, the person taking the photograph - or in this case, the video - owns the rights, but he can sign those rights away, and if he says he did that as part of the GQ shoot, then we need to believe him. We shouldn't do it ourselves, as we don't have his email, maybe his phrasing isn't quite that; but the Commons OTRS folks will see exactly what Longden wrote, and if it is this, the pics will have to go. Very sad. We still have a couple of images from other videos, that's something. C'est la vie. --GRuban (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this guy's web page. He puts up every video that he does under creative commons licensing. I don't see how this one could be by mistake.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I have. That is one of the reasons I thought he was legitimate - i.e., clearly a professional photographer, and consciously releasing all his work - yet also because of that I am willing to believe that this one was by mistake, because he just puts all his work under this license, and may not be looking too carefully at his contracts, which may well be different for different clients. He doesn't just work for GQ, after all, he works for dozens if not hundreds of clients; while I am sure the contracts he himself writes up for the smaller clients give him all the rights to his videos, I wouldn't be surprised if at least GQ, as one of his bigger clients, could set the terms for rights. I will wait for the OTRS folks to read the email Sarah forwarded to them, but I think we should be morally prepared for it to say what she says it does. --GRuban (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, seeing those apparent releases had the opposite effect on me, because it makes no sense for a professional photographer to release all his work, especially such high-quality work, so that other people can make money from it. And at least some of the work probably couldn't be released (the Pepsi ad, for example). If you look at the same videos on YouTube, they're not free. There may be something about the way Vimeo describes its licences that makes it easy to choose the wrong tag. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

""Blurred Lines" was controversial: some felt it promoted rape... Ratajkowski said that; The video has been called sexist for its degradation of women... Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist[9]" These two paragraphs are on the same topic, and should be combined, as all the critics who feel it promotes rape also think it degrades women, and those who don't, don't, and as Rata's responses are basically the same.
- I still think they are two topics, but I have merged the content as best I can.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"On April 29, Russian entertainer Dima Bilan announced his forthcoming music video "Inseparable" (sometimes translated as "Indivisible") via Instagram.[132][133] The Russian-language video, featuring Bilan as a photographer and Ratajkowski as his muse,[134] was recorded in Los Angeles.[135]" Combine into one sentence; it doesn't matter how Bilan announced the video, since it doesn't affect Ratajkowski, and almost doesn't matter where he recorded it. I guess it might be of some interest that it's in Russian; does she speak in the video?
- She just models in the video. Sentences merged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Richard Roeper and Wesley Morris noted that Ratajkowski, who again played the attractive object of affection in We Are Your Friends, again failed to demonstrate acting prowess." - clumsy. How about "In their respective reviews of We Are Your Friends, Richard Roeper and Wesley Morris noted that Ratajkowski, again playing the attractive object of affection, again failed to demonstrate acting prowess."?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In February 2014, Ratajkowski broke up with her boyfriend Andrew Dryden, a creative director and menswear buyer.[136][137] In December 2014, Us Weekly confirmed she was dating musician Jeff Magid.[138] - Remove. We are not a gossip magazine, we are not interested in whom she's dating month to month. Ten years from now, she herself won't remember. If she marries or is otherwise in a long term committed partnership, fine, but just casual relationships are not any of our business.
- I am confused why this content is any different than the content in other actresses at FAC that this section was modeled after. They each seem to summarize relationships that are noted in sources that rise above tabloids. It seems that personal life is suppose to summarize known relationships. I am not summarizing every date. E.g., she went with some designer to the Met Gala a few weeks ago and has social media posts with other dudes. I am not naming random dates. I am summarizing relationships that are significant according to RS. Look around at other FAs and the current FACs. This is what is now deemed proper.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - She's a 24 year old single actress and model specializing in erotica, of course she dates. She similarly eats, sleeps, wears clothes, and swims at beaches, and I'm quite sure we can find articles, with extensive paparazzi photographs, saying "today EmRata was spotted at restaurant X, hotel Y, wearing a new outfit by Z, and/or at beach Q", and none of these would be suitable for her encyclopedia article either. If she didn't date, that might be notable! However, in addition, naming people that don't have articles or don't otherwise appear in the Wikipedia except for dating her can have a huge undue impact on their lives; every subsequent Google of them by another prospective date will bring this up high on the list, which isn't fair to them. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names is basically about this. I am pretty sure this content wasn't there during the last review(s), or I would have said the same there. As for the contention that we do this in other FAs, let's see; I haven't reviewed that many. There isn't an "actresses" section, but there is a Media section. Let's look at the other biographies at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies. Andjar Asmara - no Personal life section; James T. Aubrey - no Personal life section; Kroger Babb - has Personal life section, only romantic interest named is the one who became a life long partner; Vidya Balan - has Personal life section, only romantic interest mentioned is the one she later married; Eric Bana - has Personal life section, only romantic interest mentioned is the one he later married; Joseph Barbera - has Personal life section, only romantic interests mentioned are the two he later married; John Barrymore - no Personal life section, but mentions romantic life throughout (so I may have missed some on a skim) but it seems to mention one person he proposed to, whose murder trial became a major scandal, and three he married; Harriet Bosse - no Personal life section, but mentions romantic life throughout, only naming three people she married; Rudolph Cartier - no Personal life section, only mentions one of three spouses (?!?); Nancy Cartwright - has Personal life section, only romantic interests mentioned are one she married and one she planned to before his death, fallout from which death had a significant impact on her life. Those are the first ten, alphabetically. I'm going to keep my assertion that we should only mention marriages or similarly highly important romantic relationships. --GRuban (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had content like this in at one point and was told to remove it. Then for this FAC, I noticed that the other current actress FACs (Emma Stone, Frieda Pinto, and Kalki Koechlin and more recently Catherine Zeta-Jones) all had personal lives sections and media image sections and were all getting supports. I reformatted Ratas "Activism and advocacy" section to be like the acceptable format of other actress articles. Note Andjar Asmara is not an actor and was promoted in 2012, James T. Aubrey not an actor and promoted in 2005, Kroger Babb not an actor and promoted in 2006. In 2016, actress personal life sections seem to be expected at FAC. I am not going to keep going, but I suggest sorting for FAs promoted in 2016 and seeing what you find. Given the current slate at FAC, I am guessing personal life sections will abound. In an earlier FAC of Brad Pitt (now an FA), I tried to get Gwyneth Paltrow's (not FA) relationship with him mentioned and got a lot of brushback. I now see she is mentioned in his personal life section and the personal life section of Ben Affleck (not FA) and has a personal life section of her own.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Furthermore note that GQ mentions boyfriend Magid in Sept 2015. The article shows that they began dating in December 2014. There are also a host of tabloid mentions of the couple dating in Daily Mail and Daily Express.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hrr. 1. I'm troubled that you searched for actresses only, not actors. 2. Freida_Pinto#Personal_life only mentions an engagement, and a 6 year relationship with her costar in the movie that launched her career. Kalki_Koechlin#Personal_life_and_off-screen_work only mentions her husband. 3. The other FACs only name people who are other actors and have articles of their own. 4. I may well now go to some of these other FAC reviews you link to and oppose on this basis. Thanks. >:-). --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        There are no current actor nominations. I am not sure that the current FACs personal image sections exclude non-notables. I think they just include people in RS. I will try to look up 2016 actor/actress promotions for a better feel. Let me know what happens in the context of other FAC opposes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        O.K. Personal life sections are not mandatory. The 2016 FAs are Sonam Kapoor and Michael Hordern both of which don't have them. I don't think Hordern is a relevant comparison since his life predates the internet era where relationships are quite public. Kapoor's article is void of relationships. I am not sure what is right given the current slate of nominees.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood (PPFA).[139][140] She also committed to be in a short reproductive and sexual health film for PPFA.[141][142] Ratajkowski describes PPFA as her main charity because of its role in women's health, and has helped PPFA raise funds" - shorten, repetitive. Something like: "Rata has raised funds, done public service announcements, and committed to a short film promoting safe... for ... She describes it as her main charity because of ..." Keep the opposition sentence.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"As a woman who enjoys both ballet and pornographic entertainment, Ratajkowski feels that she can be nude in her professional work and also support equality for women." - Umm ... what? That's a striking non sequitur. What does ballet have to do with either nudity or equality? Is it specifically naked ballet? Feminist ballet? (Both exist, I imagine.)
- I think Rata's argument is that society has a non sequitur perspective that a woman can not act certain ways or do certain things and support equality for women. However, Rata herself not only does things professionally but also has a wide range of things that she considers acceptable non of which preclude her stated beliefs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it takes that much debatable interpretation, it's a poorly chosen quote. She has said lots of things in support of the intersection of feminism and sexuality, and we will only pick some of them to quote in our article, so we should choose ones that make sense. Unless we are trying to point out that she often says things that don't make sense? Is she prone to malapropisms? --GRuban (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - She often makes the point that "she can be nude in her professional work and also support equality for women", but it is not always pointed out in which her activities of enjoying ballet and pornography are discussed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you believe that mentioning that she enjoys ballet and pornography is crucial to the article? First, I admit, I kind of doubt it. But, if you really feel strongly about it, it shouldn't be conjoined with her point about sexuality and feminism, as at least the ballet part isn't obviously connected. It would be like writing: "As a woman who is 5'7 tall and was born in Westminster, Ratajkowski supports sexuality and feminism." --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Both Ballet and Pornography are forms of female artistic expression of the body and sexuality, which are what Ratajkowski's message is all about. I have rephrased.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"to counter Gloria Steinem's statement that young female Sanders supporters (and thus Hillary Clinton opponents)" - strike the parenthetical remark, it doesn't add anything
- I have attempted to rework the parenthetical to add what it was intended to add.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and Rachael Moon of The Daily Mirror" - "The" should either be both italicised and capitalized, as part of the paper's name, or neither.
- thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ratajkowski defended Kim Kardashian in a March naked selfie social media controversy" - a bit more description is needed. "... defended KK from criticism after K posted a naked selfie on ... " maybe?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Following her letter and social media statement, her feminism became controversial." - that's just not true, her feminism was controversial from at least the moment she called herself one after appearing nude on the treats cover, if not before. You've got an entire paragraph on the controversy in the Personal life section. In fact, what makes that paragraph go in the Personal life section, and this go in the Media image section?
- I have reworded this from "her feminism became controversial" to "the controversy about her feminism heightened".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same for the Sanders endorsement, what makes that Personal life and not Media image? Though I guess you have to put it somewhere, it's a prominent political endorsement, it's not really Personal life. How about renaming the whole Personal life section to Politics or Activism, since, after removal of the dating sentences, that's what it is about?
- FA bios now have a section titled personal life in which people talk about relationships and causes. I question removing dating content that is in RSs. If you have a cause that becomes a media hot topic, I think it moves down into the media image section. Causes that do not stir a lot of emotions stay up in the personal life section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CR Fashion Book seems to be United States (New York, even) https://twitter.com/crfashionbook--GRuban (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, what do you think of adding a FU image for her August 11 breakout day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er ... ? I'm not sure; let me enumerate why. 1) What's the image? 2) I'm not sure what her August 11 breakout day would be. When she went on tour promoting a film that she had a minor part in? 3) Honestly, I'd recommend asking the opinion of Sarah (SV). She's the main person opposing the current fair use image in the article. There is a lot to be said for making your reviewers happy. Presumably the image you choose would wear clothes... 4) Finally, given the subject, and the occasionally heated discussion, we ... probably should not use FU as the abbreviation for fair use. Just saying. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit by the Guild of Copy Editors[edit]

I have completed a requested copy-edit of this article. Here are the changes I made. I removed very little content, only a sentence or phrase here and there. I moved a couple of chunks of text to more appropriate sections.

I took care to check some potentially controversial quotations and paraphrases against their sources and rephrased or replaced the text in the article with text that better matched the sources.

Let me know if you have any questions. I'll keep this page on my watchlist for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the following: She said: "... there's different kinds of nudity, and ... the video was tasteful".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it as excessive. Immediately prior to that sentence, we have "Ratajkowski did not think of .. and claimed ...", "She said that ...", and "Ratajkowski said that ... and that she believes ...." We don't need a sixth statement in a row from Ratajkowski. Five is already a lot. If you think that the "different kinds" statement adds value, I recommend finding a way to synthesize the previous five messages from the article's subject. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on this copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, Is it "before they settled in the United States" or "before it settled in the United States"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"before they settled in the United States" or "before they moved to the United States" would be correct. "Family" usually takes a plural pronoun, even in American English. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkyCanute[edit]

This is my first time reviewing a FAC, so I posit these as comments.

I see you have done a vast amount of work on this article, which is great. However, fundamentally, the article for me does not appear to be well-written (WP:WIAFA 1). I'd go so far as to say that it is poorly written. It reads like a mosaic of citations, which have been pieced together to make the article. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work, and results in stilted language construction and even, at times, non-sequiturs: the writing (rather than the article), is therefore not 'engaging'. There are also, on occasion, some sentences that need work to be considered 'of a professional standard'. These are some examples, and are not an exhaustive list:

Early life

*Ratajkowski, an only child,[4] was born in Westminster, London, to American parents.[5] At Ratajkowski's birth, her mother, Kathleen Balgley, and father, John David "J. D." Ratajkowski, were aged 39 and 45, respectively,[6] and unmarried.[7] Balgley, an English professor and writer, described by Ratajkowski as a "feminist and intellectual",[8][9] was teaching under the Fulbright Program.[7] Balgley met J. D. Ratajkowski, a painter and art teacher,[8] when they both taught at San Dieguito Academy.

~~I can see how this has been pieced together, but it is clunky. Try instead:~~

Ratajkowski was born in Westminster, London, the only child of Kathleen Balgley and John David "JD" Ratajkowski, both American. Balgley, a professor of English and a writer, was teaching under the Fulbright Program, when she met JDR, a painter and art teacher, ~~when~~ while they were both teaching at San Dieguito Academy. At the time of their daughter's birth, they were aged 39 and 45 respectively. Ratajkowski describes her mother as a "feminist and intellectual".

FunkyCanute, I don't have a lot of time today, but I do appreciate the involvment of better writers than me. This suggestion results in an odd use of when twice in the same sentence. Does that seem odd to you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger Yes, agreed, but easily remedied by changing the second when to while. No doubt my suggestion can be improved further. Part of what it achieves, nevertheless, is a reduction in the number of times that the names Ratajkowski and Balgley appear in the paragraph. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I have made the change above with slight modifications.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - comma before respectively.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - removed the term writer because I do not see it in any of the sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The term unmarried has been omited in your suggestions. Was this intentional?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, my mistake. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Restored.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*As a physically mature young teenager, Ratajkowski endured pressure to suppress expressing her sexuality[19][20] and how she presented herself.[21] Several problems. 1) The sentence introduces the idea that she was physically mature in a sub-clause. 2) The alliteration in 'pressure to suppress expressing' is unappealing; while the second part of the sentence (...and how...) does not follow syntactically from the first. 3) From whom did she endure pressure?

- 1 and 2 corrected. Sources enumerate varous sources of pressure (teachers, relatives, friends, society).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Career

*Ratajkowski staged shows for her family as a child.[22] Her first formal acting role was as Elsa in an adaptation of The Little Match Girl at the North Coast Repertory Theatre School in Solana Beach, California.[4] She played Harriet in the interactive 2004 Lyceum Theatre production of Harriet Potter and the Throne of Applewort.[23] Ratajkowski signed with Ford Models at age 14 and did teen print catalog modeling for Kohl's and Nordstrom.[8] She attended San Dieguito Academy high school in San Diego, while modeling and acting in Los Angeles.[24]

This is a list, albeit presented as prose. It's difficult to understand what is going on partly because the timeline switches between year and her age: 2004, age 14; partly, we have unexplained jumps in location. I appreciate that some previous comments have said it needs to be cut back, but here we need to expand. Something like: "Ratajkowski began acting as a child, staging shows for her family. Her first formal role was as Elsa..." Year? Age? "Later, in 2004, she played Harriet..." What's the cause for the transition form North Coast Theatre School to San Dieguito Academy? Is it the signing with Ford Models or something else? It isn't clear.

- The first 3 sentences show she enjoyed theatre, her first role and a later prominent role. Nothing unusual about that. We can only present time references that we have. If we have a year for one and an age for another that is what we have.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell by this non-RS North coast was as a 6th grader in 2002. San Dieguito was high school. I think age causes such a transition:)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music video performances

*The fourth paragraph, beginning "Blurred Lines" was controversial, is very nicely put together, and is the standard to which the rest of the article needs to adhere, although it would be better not to repeat 'promoted'.

- Thanks. redundancy averted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*The following paragraph repeats the polarised positions of the video's reception, with a little more detail, rather than moving on, as would be expected. Blend these two paragraphs together. Try:

"Blurred Lines" was controversial: it was called sexist for its degradation of women, and some felt it promoted rape. Others disagreed, asserting that it promoted female power and sexual freedom. Martel defended Ratajkowski's performance, saying: "it's very, very funny and subtly ridiculing." Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist and claimed that the producers, through the use of humor and sarcasm, "took something that on paper sounded really sexist and misogynistic and made it more interesting". She said that the song "gave me an opportunity to say the things that I felt about feminism today and about women in general in pop culture." She did not feel objectified and enjoyed performing in a sexual manner: the attention given to the nudity in the video, she said, showed that America had not advanced as far as it should have, and, she believed, society repressed sexuality, which was bad for both sexes.

- You are asking me to merge a paragraph about "rapey" lyrics of the song with a paragraph about perceptions of degrading nudity in a video. The subject of one is lyrics and the subject of the other is a video. I am having trouble with this last instruction as a result.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that GRuban above has given similar instructions. I will reconsider this aain.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are examples, only, and some suggestions for remedying the prose. Most of the article would benefit from some serious attention to the writing.

Aside from this, in my opinion, the article mostly meets all the other FA criteria. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FunkyCanute, I am just getting around to looking at your review. Thank you for taking the time to contribute. I'll be responding and editing in the next 48 hours or so.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to fame

Overall, while this section seems very thorough, it doesn't appear to offer a progression. We occasionally jump from one item to another, and some of the timeline is unclear.

*The title strikes me as WP:PEACOCK.

- This title was probably better before I moved its first paragraph to lead the Media image section. I have changed it to "Breakthrough"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Too many paragraphs begin with her name.

*There are also two consecutive ones that begin "Ratajkowski was cast in...".

- I have addressed this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the paragraphs are very short. Is it possible to combine them in some way?
- I can merge the two 2016 modeling paras at the end.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is about July 2013. The next begins June 24, but is about July 2014. I'm confused about the timeline.
- With the rearranged content the chronology is more muddled. Advice welcome, but I don't think relying on strict chronology will work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ratajkowski parlayed her sudden prominence into supporting roles in major films." I don't know what this means. Also seems to be PEACOCK/WEASEL.
- FunkyCanute, I could use some advice on the fact that the first paragraph of the media image section is in a place that it probably belongs but is now not serving to introduce her breakthrough section. What should I do regarding this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have moved the lead paragraph back to this section and added content to the media image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have some trouble with "parlayed". Apparently, it's an Americanism. In any case, it might be better to use a different word/phrasing here. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is leveraged?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In September 2014, Ratajkowski was a victim..." The sentence that follows is a non-sequitur.
- Thematically, they are not closely related subjects, but they occured in the same month, which causes them to be sequential.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - TonyTheTiger Still, it's a complete change of subject, so it doesn't work. On further reflection, the iCloud story isn't really about her career at all, and probably fits better in personal life. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moved.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*The final four paragraphs are not in chronological order.

- - - Moved.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

"In February 2014, Ratajkowski broke up with her boyfriend..." It would be better to begin by informing the reader that they were together before mentioning the breakup.
- It is on the public record that she dated Dryden from March 2012 until Feb 2014, but I don't think this is a reliable source and am not sure one exists for this fact. I'd settle for one stating that they dated for nearly 2 years or since 2012 if I could find it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger, that's all the comments from me. You've addressed my earlier comments already. I've made a very small number of edits directly to the text. I will read through again. FunkyCanute (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger I've made a few more changes to the article, purely in an attempt to improve the prose. Following these, I give a support for the article's text. However, I have not reviewed any of the images. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FunkyCanute, note that above I asked GRuban about adding a FU image for the August 11 breakthrough appearance. Do you have any thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- TonyTheTiger My feeling is that the article is sufficiently well illustrated already. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SlimVirgin[edit]

Oppose, 1(a), 1(d), 3 and 4. This has been at FAC since January. I suggest withdrawing it, fixing the issues reviewers have identified (even if you disagree with them), then submitting it for peer review.

When the last FAC ended, the article was 3,488 words. The current version is 3,105, which is an improvement, but the article is still very list-like, with a weak narrative structure and too much trivia, which makes it repetitive and hard to read. For example:

Alonso Duralde of TheWrap described the role as thin, as did Ty Burr of The Boston Globe.[105][106] Burr said that Ratajkowski's performance was "surpassingly dull",[105] while Nell Minow of Beliefnet noted that she "does more posing than acting."[107] Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing",[108] and Jordan Hoffman of the Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet."[109] Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph and Grantland's Morris noted Ratajkowski's rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal, as previously seen in "Blurred Lines".[110][111]

The "Blurred Lines" video garnered Ratajkowski notoriety,[11] especially as a sex symbol.[63] In October 2013, Esquire magazine named Ratajkowski "Woman of the Year", over online fan vote finalist Jennifer Lawrence.[64] That December, Rolling Stone magazine listed her among its twenty hottest sex symbols.[63] In February 2014, Sports Illustrated magazine named Ratajkowski as one of twelve 50th anniversary swimsuit issue rookies.[65] In April, FHM ranked her the fourth sexiest woman in the world.[66] Maxim magazine included Ratajkowski at number 62 on its 2014 Hot 100 list.[67][68] AskMen ranked her the third most desirable woman of 2014.[69]

Ratajkowski is regarded as one of the sexiest women in the world. She was ranked in Maxim's Hot 100 list in both 2014 (#62)[67] and 2015 (#2).[164] AskMen ranked her among its most desirable women of 2014 (#3)[69] and 2016 (#14);[165] while FHM ranked her among the sexiest in 2014 (#4),[66] and 2015 (#18).[166] She is also praised for her fashion sense: Ratajkowski made Vogue Italia's Best Dressed List of 2015,[167] and Harper's Bazaar placed her atop its best dressed list at the February 2016 New York Fashion Week.[168]

- It is pretty difficult to figure out how to improve the article based on issues like this. Basically, you are saying: This is stuff that could reasonably be presented in a listified trivia section that should be deleted. However, WP:TRIVIA says "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions..." Thus, I am thinking that this content is presented as well as it could be. The WP:LEAD currently says "She is known for her sex appeal and fashion sense." The third example that you present is an example of grouping and ordering such facts about her sex appeal and fashion sense for an integrated presentation. Alternatively, you could make the argument that we do not need to tell the reader "She is known for her sex appeal and fashion sense." in which case, this content is not necessary, but the main body is currently just supporting the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is promotional. For example, this sentence is pure PR: "As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with 'curves that put her in a different class from runway models',[125] she has said that she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models."[125]
- Can you clarify what you mean by the term promotional in this context. I am not even sure how to attempt to correct the issue because I don't really imderstamd your point. Please tell me how the current article violates WP:NOTADVERTISING.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. Aoba47 has addressed this particular quotation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least two reviewers have highlighted the inclusion of the parents' ages, yet it remains: "At the time of their daughter's birth, they were aged 39 and 45, respectively ..." There is nothing unusual about this, and it looks odd to mention it.
- In the current FAC, both Vensatry and FunkyCanute have helped me refine the presentation of this content without any suggestion that it was not properly included. FrB.TG questioned whether the parental stage of life at birth is an encyclopedic matter. I explained that it may be and can even be WP:LEAD worthy. E.g., a posthumous birth can be Leadworthy in the case of a very notable parent, such as Rory Kennedy. Although not LEAD-worthy here, the parental stage of life at the time of birth (average age of 42) is in the skinny part of the bell curve. Noting a posthumous birth in the article is probably not normal, but in some cases is very encyclopedic. Noting older and unmarried parents is not quite as unusual as a prominent dead parent, but those two facts together make for unusual enough parental stage of life to cause need for clarification, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ratajkowski was a physically mature young teenager who endured pressure to limit expressing her sexuality ..." Better to use the primary source. [37] Many women experience the kind of sexism she describes, but the article almost gives the impression that it's unusual. Try something like: "R has written about her experience of ..."
- As I review WP:PRIMARY, I am having a hard time justifying replacing WP:SECONDARY sources with the WP:PRIMARY source, especially since this is a complicated issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nude non-free doesn't comply with WP:NFCC #8.
- Item #8 is addressed in the revised FUR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Including current and former dates is intrusive.
- By dates are you referring to boyfriends of over 18 months?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph about feminism in the "Personal life" section isn't well-written or sourced. It uses Charlie Burton of GQ, a men's magazine, as an RS on feminism: "British GQ's Charlie Burton stated that she is a feminist with more to say than others. He said that her message is one of sexual empowerment, because sex should not feel like a service and should be beneficial to all involved parties."
- "isn't well-sourced"? The sources are Cosmopolitan (magazine) 2x, Elle (magazine), The New York Times, InStyle, Zimbabwe Metro, and British GQ. By what standards are these not good sources? I think the writing is up to the standards of the sources, but am willing to respond to examples that might clarify your concern. Regarding Burton, WP is suppose to depict all sides of an issue. Including feminism summaries from both men's and women's publications is not a mark against the sources. In fact, it is probably exemplary. We are not suppose to only present the issue from one side. Furthermore, Burton is quite sympathetic to Rata's issues and hardly contradicts or contravenes the women's mag statements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are more paragraphs on sexism and feminism in the "Media image" section. They are list-like, not neutral and not well-sourced. The feminism sections should be combined and reduced, and based only on appropriate sources.
- "List-like"? I am just summarizing sources. I have attempted to model the personal image section and media section based on the articles that were at FAC while this FAC was (Emma Stone, Kalki Koechlin, Freida Pinto and Catherine Zeta-Jones). Advocacy seems to be a personal life issue in other bios. However, specific stories are media image issues in my mind. It seems that you are advocating eliminating all elements of the personal life section. However, it seems to be current expectation that this content be included.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph on Blurred Lines in the "Music video performances" section leans almost entirely toward Ratajkowski's view, which is the minority view. Most sources found the song and video disturbing; the Guardian called it the "most controversial song of the decade." [38] The idea that the song or video said anything about feminism is absurd; that view should not be included unchallenged.
- The idea that the song or video said anything about feminism is the view of the subject of the article. Shouldn't the content focus on the subject of the article? The paragraph clearly states that there are two sides to the issue. Then it expands upon Ratajkowski's opinion. She is the subject of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The second-last sentence attributes a subhead to a journalist (the Saul source). These are usually written by sub-editors. Unless that sentence is also in the article, it should not be attributed to the reporter.
- Amended.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV ^(talk) 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, you are the SlimVirgin-whisperer. I am not finding the issues herein actionable. What am I not understanding? I am trying to WP:AGF here, but feel I am just up against someone who will do anything to keep this article from passing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh - I already got into trouble for mansplaining once, now I'm being asked to do it again! (Well, kind of. Technically mansplaining is explaining to a woman, not quite about one...) Tony, she's not writing in some foreign language that I need to interpret. (If she were writing in Russian, I could do that for you!) SlimVirgin / Sarah (SV) is an experienced Wikipedia editor, FA writer and (presumably, I haven't checked) reviewer. Yes, she does not like the nude image. Since you seem set on having it, there doesn't seem to be a way around that, it will be a road bump. You might be able to get the article passed anyway, if that is the sole objection, but if you have several road bumps like that you won't pass, so addressing the things that you and she can find common ground on seems like a good idea, rather than pushing back on every little thing, and assuming that Sarah is out to get you. She is not. No, she is clearly not a personal fan of the subject; but in the end, she is able to overcome that in an effort to make the article better. She doesn't have to actually like the subject in order to write well about it - her most recent FA is Female genital mutilation, I hope you can accept she is not a fan of that? Addressing the specific things she says, with rare exceptions like the nude image, is quite possible. For example, she is saying that Charlie Burton of GQ magazine is not an expert on feminism. You're saying that there are 6 sources for that paragraph, GQ is only one. Well, just at first glance, then, there seems to be room to meet there; the other 5 are presumably better sources on feminism than GQ, a, by definition, men's magazine. No? Surely the other 5 sources can support most if not all of what you want to write there? (If you would like to insist that Burton is an expert on feminism, please dig up some sources that say so, or noticeable works he's written on the subject, or something like that; it is theoretically possible to be an expert on feminism without being a feminist ... but frankly I suspect just relying on the mainstream papers and the women's magazines will be easier.) --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin could you please ~~strike~~ and reply as appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- SlimVirgin, come on by.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding because pinged, but I'm not sure what further point to make, and it seems that very little is listened to. I wrote above: "Oppose, 1(a), 1(d), 3 and 4. This has been at FAC since January. I suggest withdrawing it, fixing the issues reviewers have identified (even if you disagree with them), then submitting it for peer review."

See WP:FACR: 1(a) the writing is not "engaging and of a professional standard"; 1(d) it does not "present[...] views fairly and without bias" (specifically, it violates WP:UNDUE); 3: non-free images must satisfy NFCC; and 4: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail ...". To that I should have added 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources." There are several sources here that are not appropriate for their use. I offered examples of each of these issues above.

Again, I suggest reading all five FAC reviews and fixing the issues reviewers have highlighted, bearing in mind that reviewers only offer examples of problems. So the examples that are highlighted need to be sorted out, but so do others that are similar in kind. Overall I would say the article needs a rewrite and a rethink rather than a copy edit.

Tony, perhaps you could find someone to partner with who doesn't care about the subject, because part of the problem here is that you've become too close to it. I know that will be difficult, because people who don't care are unlikely to want to work on something like this, but it might be worth asking around. Either that or take it off your watchlist for a few months to create some distance for yourself. I've done that several times with articles I've worked on, and it has always helped. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I really feel that your review amounts to a wiki-filibuster. I have been responding to issues of the 5 FACs for several months. I have addressed some of your concerns and have no idea whether you have even noticed. Since you have the dual role as the image reviewer, it is particularly troubling that you have not articulated a response to my latest fair use rationale, which was phrased in direct response to your prior statements. Note that in this review, I have sought commentary from the other editors who were editing FAC-nominated actress articles. This is the closest I could come to partnering with an interested party "who doesn't care about the subject". Unfortunately, model articles are not common at FAC and Ratajkowski has met with more success as a model than an actess.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the major points I raised have been dealt with. The main issue for me is that the article is not well-enough written for FA. Every other objection from me is secondary to that one.

I responded to the fair-use issue at 14:04, 24 May, second paragraph. The edits to the rationale after that didn't address those points. The rationale implies that any photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job – or perhaps any photograph that changed someone's career – can be uploaded under a fair-use claim so that readers can judge why the job offerers liked them.

Regarding the writing, I understand the difficulty of finding someone to partner with. But an alternative is for you not to read the article for a while. That has worked well for me in the past.

That's really all I want to say, so I'd prefer to leave it there. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, Your fair use argument seems to be double speak to me. Above you note your disapproval of sources of modest notability suggesting that they be replaced by more esteemed and notable sources. However, when I back up a fair use claim with quotations from The New York Times you insist that fair use images justified by the highest caliber sources should be ignored in favor of your own personal beliefs about what constitutes a notable subject. Am I to believe that your opinion/understanding on what constitutes a notable images is a better arbiter than determining what the NYT considers fit to print. I will gladly remove the image when you can explain to me why your personal understanding of notable images is superior to those of NYT editors or maybe GRuban can help me understand your points in this regard. I assume that the NYT editors are capable of determining which images (naked or not) are fit to print. The NYT does not document the notability of "any photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job". I am quite sure they only consider details of certain ones fit to print and whether or not you personally are sophisticated enough destinguish which ones are that notable, they are. Your current NFCC objection is nothing more than a statement that you are not confident that the NYT's opinion of the worth of a "photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job" can be trusted over your own inability to distinguish which ones are notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, Regarding writing, I do not consider myself to be a great writer. I research and add content in as objective a manner as I can. Sometimes others get interested in subjects that I have authored for WP and have turned my research into high caliber prose. In terms of my WP:FACs, I have had my best success when other editors have gotten involved in the copyediting. The article has had 3 WP:GOCE copyedits. Honestly, I do not believe that even a great copyedit would meet with your approval because I believe your objection is a veiled objection to the fact that a model-turned-actress who rose to notability in an arguably anti-feminist manner should have an FA. However, (off the top of my head) there are two editors who have helped me get multiple FAs promoted with their substantial copyediting assistance. I don't think this subject matter interests either of them. I will ping them both (Ruhrfisch and Figureskatingfan) here and leave them messages on their talk pages. Note that in FAC3, the latter supported at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emily_Ratajkowski/archive3#Comments_from_Figureskatingfan. I have trimmed the article quite a bit and it is vastly improved since she last saw it. Maybe one of the two of them will be interested in lending a hand with a copy edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A third editor (Ceoil) who I also doubt will find this subject of interest has helped me promote some FAs but only those in the WP:WPVA area. I will also approach him.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Curly Turkey has been a WPVA only FA copyeditor for me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read through the above—are you requesting a copyedit, or something more involved? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Curly Turkey, I am hoping that you might get involved at least with a copyedit and hopefully with an independent assessment of whether the resulting article stands up to WP:WIAFA after a copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, based on my interactions with you and my experience in getting articles through FAC with as many as 3 (Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song), BP Pedestrian Bridge, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Millennium Park), 4 (First inauguration of Barack Obama, Crown Fountain, Cloud Gate) or 5 (Juwan Howard) FAC attempts, I do not feel you are discussing this topic in fairly. The purpose of an oppose at FAC is to present policy-based actionable items to a nominator in an effort to help him improve the article and WP by responding to actionable concerns until they are satisfactorily resolved. The purpose of your oppose seems to be block the possibility that good faith revisions could achieve FA. Additionally, I find it bad faith for you to present objections based on personal beliefs rather than policy. E.g., as I have noted at User_talk:Curly Turkey#Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.2FEmily Ratajkowski.2Farchive5, neither WP:NFCC nor WP:FUR has anything to do with naked images. If you want to discuss NFCC, you need to clarify the impropriety of the FUR, which is largely based on three things about the photo: 1.) It is one of the two things that has propelled her to fame, 2.) A journalist from The New York Times stated that it was "artfully composed", and 3.) The director of her breakout music video stated that she selected her because "She looked smart and stunningly beautiful" in the photo. If you are not willing to cogently discuss this FUR's relevance to NFCC, your NFCC oppose is not policy based. If you want to object based on the article being unbalanced or promotional, you need to be willing to discuss the relevant policies. This is a give and take and in my experience at FAC, it is done on an actionable item by actionable item basis. You have been a very uncooperative discussant to date. Currently, the article has three supports and an uncooperative oppose. At FAC, I am suppose to be able to attempt to address actionable concerns, attempt to better understand actionable concerns, and attempt to question the actionability of concerns, but I can not improve the article by doing this if you are unwilling to discuss each of your actionable concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, As I have documented, some of my greatest successes are articles where I persevered through several FAC nominations. I am very willing to work to improve the article to address reasonable concerns. You posted an extensive list of concerns on June 10. I responded on June 13 and June 14. A fair discussant would be willing to engage in discourse to come to further resolution on the issues that he/she has raised. Instead, you suddenly decided to declare a nominations with 3 supports and no opposes other than your own as a nomination for a subject that should be completely overhauled with no further discussion really necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, you continue to oppose based on old versions of articles with dated objections that have been largely addressed. If we encouraged discussants to base objections based on old versions of articles, it would be impossible to improve an article to achieve FA. Just yesterday you pointed out your FAC3 March 23 objections to an old version of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - Tony, I'm not prepared to allow accusations of bad faith leveled at reviewers without substantive evidence. Please strike these immediately and keep your comments focused on the content, not the editor. This isn't the venue. Additionally, there are many occasions when nominators and reviewers come to an impasse about content. I'd prefer you let Ian and I weigh the matter rather than posting repeated pings and harangues when the reviewer has disengaged. --Laser brain (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain, isn't the fact that SlimVirgin won't address my responses to her concerns prima facie evidence of bad faith. She continues to ignore my May 25 responses to the May 24 image review and my Jun 13 and Jun 14 responses to the Jun 10 content review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Victoriaearle[edit]

Oppose per WP:WIAFA:

1 (a). The prose has been mentioned on FAC1, FAC2, FAC3, FAC4 and FAC5. It's improving but it's not good enough for FA standards. I won't give specific examples, because a., there have been lots already, and 2., at this point the nominator should step back and really work the prose from top to bottom. Giving examples seems to result in small fixes, the problems are throughout and it's not the reviewers' job to fix.

Per 1 (c), sourcing seems to be an issue. I started to make a list of people who complained, i.e, Drmies just above, but realized it's endemic and appears in all the FACs. If it's being complained about here, it's still an issue.

Per 1 (d). It's too promotional or biased. This has been mentioned in FACs 3, 4 and 5 but the material is still there, despite the many examples given.

Per 2 (b): the structure is confusing. The "Career" section tells that she began acting as a child - this is perhaps best put in the "Early life" section. It's not unusual for children to attend acting camps. Some get the bug, others not. It goes on to tell that she went to the North Coast Repertory Theatre School (which is not a performing arts school but simply offers classes and camps), then about her high school. At some point here it should probably begin the career section, since she began modeling at age 14. How did she become a model? Did she show up at an open call? Do we know? Para 3 in the "Career" section tells us that the nude for Treats! lands her a music video and the next sentence talks about Carls Jr. This is very confusing to follow, and the structure is like this throughout.

Per 3. Do we really want an image of a young woman, nude (however tastefully positioned and photographed), with the title Treats! above? What kind of a message does this send? In the least, I'd suggest cropping the image and losing the magazine's title.

Per 4. The article is overly detailed (her icloud account was hacked is maybe not notable; that she was at Coachella not noteworthy, that she made an instagram post today not noteworthy. These problems plague the article throughout and have been mentioned in FAC4 and FAC3.

I hesitated about posting here; in fact I've been thinking about it since I saw it mentioned on a talk page. In the end I decided to, but I don't like to see the badgering. That's an understatement. I won't be replying or responding. If an article fails on so many of the criteria, particularly over the course of a full year, reviewers can and should be opposing. The problem with opposing is ... well, there are lots of problems. I decided to follow my conscience. I hope I don't find myself regretting it. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle, I understand you have committed to being disengaged on this review, but assume you will notice the pinging mechanism and read this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding prose, I have never been able to get an FAC over the hump myself. I always hope for editorial assistance because I am a numbers guy and just don't see the issues. I am basically colorblind to quality prose. The fact that this is an FAC1, FAC2, FAC3, FAC4 and FAC5 issue is probably not much different than the other articles that I have nominated 3 (Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song), BP Pedestrian Bridge, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Millennium Park), 4 (First inauguration of Barack Obama, Crown Fountain, Cloud Gate, Saxbe fix) or 5 (Juwan Howard) times at FAC before getting them promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources, I have responded to every issue in the last source review (at FAC3). I would welcome a source review here so that I could improve the article in that regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional? I would love further guidance than WP:ADVERT. Biased? I am willing to work with anyone who is willing to engage in discourse.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The structure advice per the career beginning was quite astute. Thanks. In terms of the order of cover, commercials, etc., this is my best attempt to be chronological. The March 2012 cover led to 2013 videos, but there was other 2012 work that is encyclopedic, which is throwing you off. I am guessing, but I think the difference between a head shot getting you a job and an artistic photo getting you a job is sort of like things we are familiar with on WP. E.g., I have tried to get people to tell me about whether User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Emily Ratajkowski's blue Koma dress has a chance at article space as an element of Category:Individual dresses, but have been told me that it is a matter of whether it has enduring relevance (Are people still talking about it a long time afterward, attempting to house it in meaningful collections or museums, attempting to wear replicas, describing it as an important creation by the designer, etc.). Speculating solely based on my own opinion of this oddity in chronology that you point out, it is my opinion that a great head shot would lead to a job within a short period of time, but a photo that is considered to exhibit artistic excellence may get you a job based on the fact that as a work of art people are still talking about it 9 months later. This is the difference between saying "Did you see a particular good cover that on the newstand now?" and "Do you remember a particular incredibly artistic cover from 9 months ago?" It is precisely, this gap in chronology that points to the NFCC merits of the image in question that I will get to momentarily.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the image at issue, I have stated that the current WP:FUR has three important elements: 1.) It is one of the two things that has propelled her to fame, 2.) A journalist from The New York Times stated that it was "artfully composed", and 3.) The director of her breakout music video stated that she selected her because "She looked smart and stunningly beautiful" in the photo. SlimVirgin has noted that he discussed the FUR on May 24, but he has only alluded to points 1 and 3. In all honesty, 2 is the primary reason why the FUR has teeth. An image that propels someone to fame is common. The majority of actors and models have a headshot that has gotten them a critical job or two. Thus, an image credited with getting her a breakthrough role or two is not encyclopedic on that basis alone. SlimVirgin, makes this point and I get it (even though his point is somewhat conflated with an argument against presenting nudity to our readers). Point 3 relates to the encyclopedic nature of the Director's perception of the image. Yet, almost every image that got someone ahead impressed someone who had decision-making authority. However, in this case, for some reason The New York Times seemed to find the fact fit to print. Thus, we have a perception of the mertis of the image noted in the NYT. Of all the images that have gotten someone ahead, only a select few have a direct quote about the decision-maker's thinking in the NYT. I am not an image reviewer. The majority of image reviewers in the past FACs have felt the article should be kept in the article. I do not know if the mere fact that the NYT included the decision makers thinking would have been sufficient to get the image kept based on FUR and WP:NFCC. However, in this case we have a journalist for the Fashion and Style section of the NYT who adds her own description of the image, noting it was "artfully composed". Since she has been writing for the NYT Fashion and Style section since 2011, I am going to assume she has been looking at magazine covers, fashion photo spreads, various pictures of models and assorted print or online photographic campaigns for a few decades. I imagine a writer who writes for the NYT Fashion and Style section has seen more magazine covers than I could shake a stick at. I.e., when someone who writes for the Fashion and Style section of the NYT notes that a photograph of a model was exceptional, she has probably chosen her words carefully and they have significance that needs to be considered. I am also going to assume that the NYT has a somewhat rigorous editorial process and somewhere some people consider what is WP:UNDUE weight for NYT commentary. In fact, it would not surprise me if there was someone who thought about whether it was UNDUE to allow the NYT to both present a direct quote of the directors perception and further praise of the image in the words of its own journalist. Although things likely happen much faster at the NYT than at WP:FAC, I imagine that their content considerations are more serious than ours at FAC. Thus, I presume that when a NYT article quotes a Director that had exceptional opinions of an image and that its own journalist has a perception of an image as exceptional, it has meaning. In this case, although it might be the case that a photo getting someone ahead is common and that a decision-making authority might have a particular opinion about the merits of such an image is common, it is not common for the NYT to present documentation of the fact that the image got someone ahead, a quote regarding the thinking of a decision-maker and further discourse on the merits of an image from a journalist who is an expert on the subject matter. Thus, I think one has to come up with a convincing argument against point 2 above before making an NFCC-based decision against the photo. N.B.: nudity is not an NFCC issue, per se.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overly detailed? I have been paring down the detail. I don't know when the article will hit the mark. Thanks for your commentary. It has helped me to improve the article. I only wish you would remain engaged in the discussion so that I can further improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Victoriaearle, above you asked: "How did she become a model? Did she show up at an open call? Do we know?". I have been digging for days to find this. I have added the story.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: After almost two months open, there is still substantial ongoing opposition and definitely no consensus for promotion developing. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2016 [39].

HIV/AIDS in New York City[edit]

Nominator(s): BrillLyle (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about HIV/AIDS in New York City, was long-overdue, and was produced in connection with the La Guardia and Wagner Archives GLAM initiative by two graduate students who had spent 6 months using the unique resources of the archive to research and write this article. The page went live at a recent Wikimedia New York City Wiki Loves Pride 2016 editathon held at the Museum of Modern Art. I went through and cleaned up the citations to convert bare URLs and add ISBN and OCLC links but this amazing work was all done by the students under the direction of two active New York Wikipedians who use Wikipedia in their classes. Hope you will nominate this great work. Erika, aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. This is clearly an important article and I appreciate the amount of work that has been done thus far, but it's far from FA standard. There are whole paragraphs that are not cited, the timeline, which consists of bullet points, needs to be recast into professionally written prose. There are inaccuracies; the turning point was not "In the early 21st century," it was in 1996, when the efficacy of combination therapy became known. The references are riddled with primary sources, some of which are around thirty years old and fail WP:MEDRS. The Lead is too short and the prose needs much work and suffers from proseline throughout. The use of the word "patients" is questionable. I suggest a peer review and and Good Article assessment is more applicable than a nomination at FAC at this time. Graham Beards (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More - I have just deleted a dangerously inaccurate paragraph in which a drug for pneumocystis was confused with anti-retrovirals, and I have removed other inaccurate or out of date statements.[40] I don't usually edit candidate articles, but I could not let some of this go uncorrected. Graham Beards (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Graham Beards's concerns, the article only covers events of the late-70s and 80s, and yet the article's title implies that its scope is HIV/AIDS in NYC in general, not just during the 80s. HIV/AIDS in the United States (for all its other flaws) covers all the way up to 2015. As it is, I'm not sure that the article comes close to hitting criterion 1b. There are also two inline references which need to be fixed before this has any chance of being featured: one (currently #17) reads "citation needed from Tara"; the other (currently #42) reads "Ashton?". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and helpful edits, the group behind the archives/student project accepts the withdrawal.--Pharos (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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