Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2015

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2015 [1].

---

Dopamine

Nominator(s): Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a substance that plays a very important role in biology; it receives several thousand page views per day. It is currently rated B class, but I've been through the FA process before and I think it's ready for nomination. Let me say a bit about the referencing scheme. The basic concept is that each sentence should cite a reference, with the exception of introductory material that serves only to introduce and summarize material appearing underneath. Thus the lead and several brief introductory paragraphs and introductory sentences don't have refs; they are supported by refs that appear in the following text. There are also a couple of "sky is blue" statements that don't cite sources, but with those exceptions, everything else ought to. I have tried to follow the principles of WP:MEDRS throughout, even though the article is only partly medical. Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment seems like the diagram for the dopamine pathways is missing the tuberoinfundibular pathway... Mattximus (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It omits a number of minor pathways -- it only shows the largest ones. The caption says "major dopamine pathways", but I suppose that could be further clarified if you think it would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well from the literature there are four major pathways and many minor pathways, and this picture has 3 of the major ones. No biggie, just a comment in passing. Mattximus (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Chiswick Chap

It's a nicely-organised article and it certainly looks well-cited.

The sections are each on meaty topics and it struck me that many of them ("Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder", "Drug Addiction", "Psychosis", to name but three) deserve a "main" or "further" link. In fact I'd suggest you might go through all the section headings to see if they need such a link, and to add links where needed.

There are inevitably plenty of acronyms. These should be spelt out the first time they occur in the body of the article; ADHD for instance occurs first (not counting the lead) as an acronym. Similarly in the diagrams and captions, for example DAT appears in the "Cocaine increases dopamine levels..." diagram without explanation, whether in the diagram, caption, or even the nearby text; a link would also be helpful.

It might be helpful to wikilink the first occurrences of terms in the image captions. For example, synapse, ventral tegmental area, substantia nigra, striatum, methamphetamine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't like to use a "main" when the term appears in the first sentence of a section, but in the cases where it doesn't and seems appropriate I've added one. I have also, as suggested, spelled out acronyms and wikilinked terms in image captions where it wasn't already done. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions from John

• In the lead, what does "organic" mean?
• The phrase "a number of" is used seven times in the article. I always find this a very woolly phrase to use, especially on a science article. I am left wondering in each case "What is the number?" Zero is a number, and so is pi, and so is the Avogadro constant. It would usually be better to state the number, or else just say "several" or that the true number is unknown.
• In the lead, the second and fourth paragraphs repeat the information that antipsychotic drugs act by suppressing the effects of dopamine. Saying it once would be fine.

This level of error and infelicity speaks of a lack of copy-editing. If this is how the whole article is written I could not support it on prose. Sorry. --John (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Good copy-editing is hard to come by, and more is always welcome. I have wikilinked "organic chemical" -- my initial thought was that it would be overlinking, but I accept your guidance. Regarding "a number of", another editor has kindly reworded all the occurrences of it, but you might consider the possibility that your dislike of it is a personal idiosyncrasy. It is widely used by professional copy editors and even in style guides themselves. I haven't seen any style guide that discourages it. Wikipedia's citation guideline includes the sentence, "A number of organizations have created styles to fit their needs; consequently, a number of different guides exist." Etc. Regarding the repetition, the second paragraph is about diseases, the fourth is about drugs. This fact is crucial in both contexts, and really shouldn't be left out of either paragraph. One possible solution would be to add "As already mentioned above..." or something similar for the second occurrence. I generally dislike that sort of thing, but perhaps it is needed here. Looie496 (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Re "organic chemical"; you missed the point of my question. I will rephrase this. Why is it vital to highlight that the subject is an organic chemical, which substantially just means it is a carbon compound? It is like starting the Adolf Hitler article by stating that the subject was an Austrian vegetarian. Isn't there a more targeted description we could use in the crucial first sentence? --John (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Neurotransmitter is the obvious one, I think. --John (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• In the meantime I oppose the promotion of this article on prose. --John (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• I note with pleasure the input of Cas Liber below. I would be happy to support this after it is reorganised and copyedited a bit as I think all the material is there; it just needs some nips and tucks. --John (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from RexxS

I've done an accessibility check. The table is readable with a screen reader and covers the points in WP:DTT apart from row headers, but the table is small enough for that to not be a concern. The use of colours outside of the images complies with WP:COLOR. The images all have acceptable alt text (now the infobox has been upgraded to take the parameter), although the multiple images in the Chemistry section have captions that repeat the alt text - that could possibly be improved. Three of the images (Synapse dopaminergique.png, Dopamine pathways.svg, Basal ganglia circuits.svg) try to cram too much information into the space they have been allocated and I am unable to read the text. This can be overcome by clicking through to the image page where the text can be read (except for the last one where further zooming is needed to read the black text "Substantia nigra" against a brown background). It's not ideal to force a reader onto another page to read information, but it's not inaccessible. These are relatively minor concerns and should not adversely affect the article's FA candidature. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding image sizes, my experience from previous FACs has been that it's usually best to stick with the defaults, but I have no problem with enlarging images if that's the recommendation. Regarding the images in the Chemistry section, I really don't know what else to say there. Looie496 (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Image size is always a judgement call, and sticking with defaults is usually the safest course. It's not your fault that the amount of information in those three images is too much for the default size. In this case, you have to balance the inconvenience of sending the reader off to another page with the potential problems caused by having over-large images taking up a lot of space in the article. You won't please all of the people all of the time. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if one of our illustration specialists like Evolution and evolvability might be willing to redo File:Synapse_dopaminergique.png? Not only is it hard to read at thumbnail size, it's not very professional-looking. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Redrawing could certainly improve readability. Most of the text labels are very short, and could be increased in size and weight (bolded) without making the diagram larger. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Seppi333 might also be of help, given his experience in similar synapse diagrams. I can't commit to any diagram-making this month, but if it's still in need in November, I can have a go. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 03:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I could draw the standard dopamine neurotransmission model if a different image is desired. Main question I'd have though is whether or not it should use {{AI4}} for the labels or just normal text in the image file. If the former is used, the diagram should ideally be large enough so that it can be seen clearly in the article; I'd probably just end up drawing the image so that it's a centered page-spanning (i.e., relatively large width compared to height) diagram anyway though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• From "Functions", subsection "Storage, release and reuptake", paragraph 3: "Tonic dopamine transmission occurs when small amounts of dopamine are released independently of neuronal activity, and is regulated by the activity of other neurons and neurotransmitter reuptake." If it is regulated by neurons, how is it independent of neuronal activity? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's one of the few things in the article that I didn't write. I'll look into it. Looie496 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The intended meaning was that it is independent of neuronal activity in the dopamine-releasing cell, but can be affected by activity in other cells. Even that doesn't quite reflect the source accurately, though -- I've rewritten the whole paragraph in an effort to make it correct and also easier to understand. Looie496 (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If several consecutive sentences all use the same reference, there is no need to include the citation at the end of every sentence. You can just include the citation at the end. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• From "Functions", subsection "Nervous system", paragraph 2: "These dopaminergic cell groups were first mapped in 1964 by Annica Dahlström and Kjell Fuxe, who assigned them labels starting with the letter "A" (for "aminergic")." Perhaps move this statement to the "History" section? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems useful to me to explain at that point why the dopamine areas are labeled A8-A14. Looie496 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• From "Functions", subsection "Nervous system": "These neurons are especially vulnerable to damage, and when a large fraction of them die, the result is a Parkinsonian syndrome." More specifically, the result is Parkinson's disease. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No, our Parkinson's disease article explains this. Parkinson's disease is defined as a parkinsonian syndrome that is idiopathic. Looie496 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I refer you to the second sentence of that very article: "The motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease result from the death of dopamine-generating cells in the substantia nigra." Later, in the "Pathopysiology" subsection: "The primary symptoms of Parkinson's disease result from greatly reduced activity of dopamine-secreting cells caused by cell death in the pars compacta region of the substantia nigra." In this context, "idiopathic" means that the cause of neurone death in the substantia nigra is unknown. Contrast this with, for example, MPTP-induced parkinsonism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, actually on re-reading the statement, an idiopathic cause is not specified. We can leave statement as it is. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease#Classification explains the distinction pretty clearly -- or, at least, as clearly as such an obscure thing can be explained. I personally find these distinctions to be annoying pedantry, but people complain if you don't get them right. Looie496 (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• From "Functions", subsection "Basal ganglia", paragraph 1: "The largest and most important sources of dopamine in the vertebrate brain are a pair of structures called the substantia nigra and ventral tegmental area. These two structures are closely related to each other and functionally similar in many respects." There are two areas called the substantia nigra: one on the left and one on the right. The VTA is so close to the midline that it might be reasonable to call the whole thing a single area. It may be better to remove the statement about two/a pair of structures: "The largest and most important sources of dopamine in the vertebrate brain are structures called the substantia nigra and ventral tegmental area. These structures are closely related to each other and functionally similar in many respects." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've reworded it so that it no longer talks about "two" structures. Looie496 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• From "Functions", subsection "Basal ganglia", paragraph 2: "The neural circuitry of the basal ganglia is exceptionally complex." I don't think that "exceptionally" is required. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That might be because you haven't been forced to learn the neural circuitry of the basal ganglia :-). Anyway, I've removed that word. Looie496 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

lol, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• I wonder if the evidence in "Functions", subsection "Reward", paragraph 1 may be better displayed as a bullet point list? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid bullet lists, but it does make sense in this case. I've converted it as you suggest. Looie496 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

as well as elsewhere in biology. - woolly phrase....will think on an alternative

I agree with John about some vague statements that need fine-tuning. Also about duplication. I would try a fix as follows - switch paras 2 and 3 of lead (which gets all physiology in first two paras). Then we have diseases in para 3 and drugs in para 4. As they are now next to each other we can hopefully massage them together.

I'd make a structure section (incorporating the chemistry) section above the Functions section.

The Oxidation section is really about metabolism...in fact, the article needs a metabolism section just below structure and above (or first part of) Functions section. It would also incorporate the biosynthesis and degradation material.

The Polydopamine segment would go in a History and uses section I think.

sorry about the gross scope of suggestions but I think the article needs a major reorganisation of content (as detailed above). Good luck and let me know if you want me to do that. Once done will keep reading. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. An important point here is that this article is viewed by several thousand people each day, and I'm sure the great majority of them are looking for information about one of three things: the role of dopamine in reward; the role of dopamine in addiction; the role of dopamine in schizophrenia. I'm concerned that the reorganization you advocate would bury that material so deeply that readers would never get to it. Many other encyclopedic treatments of dopamine focus almost exclusively on the three aspects I listed, and simply leave out the other stuff. Looie496 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Errr, the first bit I am talking about is the lead, which is not of a length that anything gets buried in it. The other is a way of coherently organising the information about the subject so it is discussed in a structured way. The structure and then the metabolism should come before the functions as the first two are building blocks for the third. Hence we do not have a logical topic flow as is. Both sections I want to put above are short, so I would disagree that the "functions" bit is going to get buried. Don't forget it's also touched on in the lead. By all means wait for some other science-medicine types to comment and we can see where consensus lies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to argue about what you said about the lead. Anyway, I'm willing for you to reorganize the article as you see fit, if you'd like to give that a try. My general sense is that articles should be front-loaded with the parts that are most interesting to readers, and functional aspects are always more interesting than structural aspects, but I'm open to being persuaded by the result. Looie496 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I am happy for anyone to express an opinion different to me (and would rather they do that than suffer in silence or fell like they are being held to ransom here). I will have a go at a rejig in the next few hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Update - have done this, which I think is the logical flow. Need to loook at sections to check for duplication and flow (and missing stuff). Will do so and have a think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Update - have threaded info on conditions and their treatment thus to reduce repetition and consolidate as the cause and treatment rationales are tightly linked and make more sense (to me that is) to be placed next to each other WRT each condition.

*Update - am okay with prose and structure now...just need to review content, comprehensiveness and weighting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd remove the second sentence in Antipsychotic drugs section - somewhat outdated and not necessary for context here. did it myself

Once that sentence is removed, this one (The most prominent effect of these drugs is to reduce the activity of dopamine systems, mainly by antagonizing D2 receptors) can be split in half with the repetitive bit removed and the mention of D2 tacked onto the first sentence did it myself

Antipsychotic drugs have a broadly suppressive effect on most types of active behavior, and particularly reduce the delusional and agitated behavior characteristic of overt psychosis - is not strictly true. Many are non sedating and aripiprazole is decidedly activating.....

I think the antipsychotic section needs to focus more on the receptors rather than the benefit - more specifically about which ones they work on. aripiprazole is a partial dopamine agonist, and hence its action belongs squarely in this article. Amisulpride is a D2 and D3 antagonist, and hence deserves mention as acting on different receptors. Am tempted to put something about "atypicals" (the division between typicals and atypicals is horseshit anyway for the most part) and serotonin as a footnote. e.g. risperidone's activity is more anti serotonergic. I will have a tinker with this section later today.

The more I look at it the more I think we could dispense with the whole second para - or at the very least swap the third with second para.

In the following decades other types of antipsychotic drugs with fewer serious side-effects were developed - I'd want a better source than someone's opinion (even Healy's!), drug companies have consistently pushed this line which has been disputed.

• I tend to think that disease processes should come before treatments...and wonder whether combining disease processes and treatments somehow to prevent reduplication....

Comments from Mike Christie

I'll add comments here as I go through the article. It might take me a day or two to complete the review. I'm not knowledgeable about the topic area, so this will be a review from a lay perspective. I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if I mess anything up.

• Why is "paracrine" in quotes in the lead? If it requires glossing, wouldn't it be better to avoid using the word in the lead, and just give the meaning?
  • Done as suggested. Looie496 (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• "Several important diseases of the nervous system are associated with dysfunctions of the dopamine system, some of the key medications used to treat them involve altering metabolism of the hormone." This is a run-on sentence, so I've changed it to a colon instead of a comma in the middle. However, I also noticed that "the hormone" is used, but you haven't said up to this point that dopamine is a hormone. Although it's a little repetitive, I think this would be better as "altering dopamine metabolism".
  • That sentence was a result of Casliber's merger of what were previously two sentences from different paragraphs. I have reworded it to hopefully reduce the awkwardness. Looie496 (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    Tweaked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Its metabolic precursor L-DOPA is the most widely used treatment for the condition": "It" refers to dopamine, but the preceding sentence doesn't have "dopamine" in a way that makes it a referent for "it" here. I'd suggest something like "L-DOPA, the metabolic precursor of dopamine, is the most widely used treatment for the condition".
  • I actually wrote it the way you suggest, and Casliber copy-edited it to its current form. I wouldn't like to change it back without agreement from him. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    Cas, can you comment? I think it's not ideal as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

    • @Mike Christie: you guys are right in that it needs to be reworded, the suggestion above is a good one. (sorry, missed this) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think you need the bullet at the start of the metabolic pathway in the "Synthesis" section.
  • I have removed it. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Not an issue for this article, but I'm curious: is there a reason why File:L-DOPA-to-dopamine.svg shows the ethylamine chain moving from one carbon atom to the next in the L-DOPA -> dopamine reaction? Because of symmetry, there's no actual difference between those two locations (or so I would assume), so perhaps it's just the conventional way each molecule is drawn.
  • I don't actually know anything about this. I took that picture from Commons. Chemistry is my weakest point, and for anything subtle I have to rely on what other people tell me. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    Struck, since it's not relevant here; I might ask at the chemistry WikiProject. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• "this mechanism may contribute to cell loss that occurs in Parkinson's disease or other conditions": suggest "this mechanism may contribute to the cell loss that occurs in Parkinson's disease and other conditions". Using "or" seems incorrect to me, since the cell loss doesn't occur in one disease *or* the other; it occurs in both.
  • I have changed the wording as you suggest. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Why the upper-case initial letter in "Vanillylmandelic acid"?
  • Actually this was an error on my part -- VMA is very slightly different from HVA, so I have simply removed the mention of it. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• What's the difference between the "metabolism" and "degradation" sections? They seem to be saying the same thing in different ways.
  • This was a result of Casliber's reorganization. I have merged the two, with a bit of rewording to make them fit together. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

-- More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Continuing the review:

• "basic lower-level functions": what's the difference in meaning between "basic" and "lower-level"?
  • I have removed "basic", which I agree was redundant here. Looie496 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• "they send projections to many other brain areas": I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that these neurons have axons (if I have the terminology right) that extend to the other brain areas? If so, can we be more direct? I see from later in the article that the word "projection" may have this specific meaning in neurology, in which case perhaps a link or a gloss in a footnote would be enough.
  • I changed it to "but their axons project to many other brain areas, and they exert powerful effects on their targets". That's a bit awkward, but I doubt there is a perfect solution here. Looie496 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

    I think using "projection" with an explanatory footnote would have been OK too, since you use "projection" later in the article, but this is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The neural circuitry of the basal ganglia is complex, and progress in understanding their functions has been slow": surely "its functions", since "circuitry" is singular here?
  • My intent was for the pronoun to refer to "basal ganglia", which is plural. To avoid confusion I simplified the whole sentence, so now it reads, "Progress in understanding the functions of the basal ganglia has been slow.". Looie496 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• "neurochemists have also developed a variety of research drugs that bind with high affinity to specific types of dopamine receptors and agonize or antagonize their effects, plus a variety that affect other aspects of dopamine physiology": to avoid two uses of "variety", how about making this "neurochemists have also developed a variety of research drugs, some of which bind with high affinity to specific types of dopamine receptors and agonize or antagonize their effects, and others that affect other aspects of dopamine physiology"? Or "some of which affect other aspects"?
  • Reworded as "developed a variety of research drugs, some of which bind with high affinity to specific types of dopamine receptors and agonize or antagonize their effects, and many that affect other aspects of dopamine physiology". Looie496 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• "A separate dopamine-producing population of cells appears to increase aversion learning of olfactory cues, much like in mammals": the "Animals" section doesn't mention this, or indeed any other, fact about mammals, or any vertebrate. Any reason for the exclusion?
  • Sorry, I didn't write that and didn't pay enough attention to it. I have simply deleted that sentence, which doesn't say anything essential. Looie496 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• In the first paragraph of "History and development", I'd suggest using underlining or bolding rather than italics to pick out the letters; the italic "o" in particular is very hard to see.
  • I changed them to bold. It looks a little weird but is definitely easier to see. Looie496 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

-- I'm done with a first pass. The article is in excellent shape; I found it very readable. I expect to support once the minor points above are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. There's one comment unstruck; if Cas doesn't respond to the question I asked I will raise it on the article talk page after the FAC is over, but it's a minor point. I saw John's comments above about prose -- I think the prose is now in good shape. I like the article structure. I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but I don't see any obvious omissions in coverage. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

support per:[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• article is (well written,researched, stable, neutral, comprehensive)-major pathways are ok
• style (lead, structure, citations)
• media -images should be default,though a couple have significant text/caption
• length

Comment the stoichiometry of the reaction in the version that was displayed is incorrect - there is no need for the proton (H⁺) as input, because L-DOPA and dopamine both have 11 hydrogen atoms. I'll edit the image on Commons to remove the proton addition. — soupvector (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've also flipped dopamine vertically to make the synthesis clearer. — soupvector (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by delldot

Generally pretty great! This is mostly just a pile of minor prose tweaks:

• Any way to incorporate "neuromodulation" into the text and eliminate the See also section with one link?
  • I dislike that term because I feel it's a buzzword that doesn't actually promote understanding -- I left it there because it was added by another editor, but I'm reluctant to use it. If it was used in the text it would need to be explained, and that would be a distraction. Looie496 (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Ooh, I just hate teeny see also sections is all. Oh well, it's such a minor thing anyway. delldot ∇. 17:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• compensating for peripheral dopamine metabolism -> would it be clearer to say compensating for dopamine metabolism elsewhere in the body or something?
  • Changed to "compensating for dopamine metabolism that occurs outside the nervous system". Looie496 (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• This 'it' is a little unclear: The ability of dopamine autoxidation to produce quinones and free radicals makes it a potent cell toxin. Could you say, these breakdown products make dopamine a potent cell toxin? Or Since its autoxidation produces quinones and free radicals, dopamine is a potent cell toxin?
  • The wording here has been changed by another editor. Is it okay now? Looie496 (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Great. delldot ∇. 17:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would rearrange this sentence: Dopamine is stored in these vesicles until it is ejected into the synaptic cleft, typically after an action potential causes the vesicles to release their contents directly into the synaptic cleft through a process called exocytosis, but also sometimes as a result of mechanisms that do not require action potentials Dopamine is stored in these vesicles until it is ejected into the synaptic cleft, when vesicles release their contents through a process called exocytosis. This is typically caused by an action potential, but also sometimes as a result of mechanisms that do not require action potentials. Or you could drop the action potential part since that's discussed in the phasic/tonic para below.
  • I have reworded it: "Dopamine is stored in these vesicles until it is ejected into the synaptic cleft through a process called exocytosis. In most cases exocytosis is caused by action potentials, but it can also be caused by mechanisms that do not require neural activity". Looie496 (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• They are then absorbed back into the presynaptic cell, via reuptake mediated either by the high-affinity dopamine transporter or by the low-affinity plasma membrane monoamine transporter. Should the reader be expected to know what affinity is, or should that be explained?
  • I have removed "high-affinity" and "low-affinity". Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• This sentence could be broken up into a few smaller ones: Dopaminergic neurons (i.e., neurons whose primary neurotransmitter is dopamine) are comparatively few in number—a total of around 400,000 in the human brain[19]—and their cell bodies are confined to a few relatively small brain areas, but their axons project to many other brain areas, and they exert powerful effects on their targets.
  • I can't see how to improve it that way, but if you would like to, please feel free to edit it. Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I just made it ... their cell bodies are confined to a few relatively small brain areas.[20] However their axons project to many other brain areas...[20] delldot ∇. 23:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• This sentence seems like a non-sequitur, and it's not clear why it's important: The name substantia nigra is Latin for "black substance", and refers to the fact that the dopaminergic neurons there are darkly pigmented. Also if it were removed the previous and following sentences about motor function would flow better.
  • I thought it would be interesting to readers, but per your recommendation I have removed it. You are certainly right about the flow. Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It's mentioned again below, so could add info there. delldot ∇. 22:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Repitition of 'greatly reduced': Parkinson's disease, in which dopamine levels in the substantia nigra circuit are greatly reduced, is characterized by stiffness and greatly reduced movement.
  • I changed "greatly reduced movement" to "difficulty initiating movement". Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

My main concern throughout the article is it's unclear whether a section is talking just about humans or about all mammals or other animals. e.g. in the reward section bulleted list, some items are just about people and some about animals. I think a lot of these instances could be clarified with footnotes, or just by beginning a sentence or para with 'In humans,' or 'In mammals', or whatever.

The challenge is to to that without awkwardness. In the bullet list, I believe the facts stated there are valid for humans and other mammals, but the techniques used to obtain evidence may only be usable in one or the other. For example microelectrode brain recordings can generally only be obtained from animals (for ethical reasons), but if they were done on humans they would almost certainly give the same results. In any case I'm open to clarifying this if you point to specific instance that seem problematic. Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I thought I'd give you a chance to respond to those, then I'll come back with more comments later. delldot ∇. 19:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the review. Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts about the rest of the article:

• Like cocaine, substituted amphetamines increase the concentration of dopamine in the synaptic cleft, but by a different mechanism, involving complex intracellular effects.[17] MDMA also increases dopamine levels by a complex combination of mechanisms. Could these sentences be combined? e.g. Like cocaine, substituted amphetamines[17] and MDMA increase the concentration of dopamine in the synaptic cleft, but by different mechanisms, involving complex intracellular effects.[62]:147–150
  • I have combined the two as you suggest, but left out the last clause, which I don't think is really needed. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• This rapid and brief action gives it high addiction potential. Could there be a brief explanation for why this is?

  Response to this could cite a recent review (PMID 26116543) which notes in the abstract, Rapid drug onset and intermittent drug exposure both appear to push the addiction process forward most effectively. — soupvector (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I reworded the sentence to say, "This rapid and brief action makes its effects easy to perceive and consequently gives it high addiction potential." A longer explanation would be a distraction here. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's perfect. delldot ∇. 18:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Seems like the pain subseccction could use some fleshing out. It says, Dopamine plays a role in pain processing in [all these areas], is it possiblle to be more specific about what the role is? Or what areas are involved in the phenomena in the next two sentences?
  • It might be that the best response is to delete that section. I don't have access to the source article used to justify it (the abstract supports the statements in the Wikipedia article). I expect I can get it, but I'm not sure this topic has enough weight to justify it. All of the detail I know of comes from primary sources. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I was able to get the article, so email me if you want it. I don't know whether this role is well established enough to merit its own section, I'll have to leave that to others to decide. If you delete it maybe you could just put a sentence in the first para of the Disease, disorders, and pharmacology section (or somewhere) to the effect of "research also suggests that it plays a role in pain processing." delldot ∇. 18:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• The lead doesn't really mention its roles in other life forms. Do you think something like this deserves a mention? Dopamine is used as an intercellular messenger in virtually all multicellular animals.

• The para beginning Dopamine consumed in food cannot act on the brain, because it cannot cross the blood–brain barrier talks about foods with L-DOPA that can cross it, but doesn't say what the effect is when people eat it. Are there any more details? If the L-DOPA-containing foods also have no effect, is it accurate to say the dopamine foods cannot act on the brain because it cannot cross the blood–brain barrier?
  • This is tricky. When L-DOPA is administered as a drug, over 90% is converted to dopamine outside the nervous system unless adjunct drugs (carboxylase inhibitors) are co-administered to prevent that. One would expect the same thing to happen with L-DOPA that is eaten. Even so, some dopamine would be expected to be generated in the nervous system -- but enough to make a difference? I'm not aware of any research that has directly examined the question. There is a widespread belief that eating fava beans increases brain dopamine, but as far as I know there is no direct evidence to support it. This whole topic has a pretty minimal literature. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I wonder if you could find a source that backs up something like "little is known about what if any effect eating foods that contain L-DOPA has". You see what I mean about how this para the way it is kind of leaves you hanging, right? "Dopamine-containing foods have no effect because dopamine can't cross the BBB. But these foods have L-DOPA, which can cross it." It's like dot dot dot... delldot ∇. 18:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Would it make sense to move the green algae para to before the foods para? Then it would flow like, list of different roles in plants, role in algae for defense because of dopamine's effect on animals, (lack of) effects on the human brain. Also, is there any info on what the algae dopamine does to the snails to keep them from eating it?
  • The algae business seems too interesting to leave out, but I don't want to give it too much emphasis because (a) all of the information comes from primary sources, and (b) as far as the literature shows the use of dopamine in this way is unique to this one particular species of algae. The mechanism by which dopamine deters eating has not been determined. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me know what you think! delldot ∇. 00:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment - This FAC nomination has been open a long time but a clear consensus to promote the article to FA has not been reached. I have decided to archive this lengthy FAC and encourage the nominator to address any remaining issues (on the article's Talk Page if necessary) and re-nominate the article after the standard two-weeks from closing. Graham Beards (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2015 [3].

---

Kids Can Say No!

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a 1985 British short educational film about child sexual abuse that stars Rolf Harris, who was convicted last year of having committed acts of such abuse before, during, and after the production of the film. The article has received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors and has subsequently been promoted to good status. I believe that the article is now ready to be featured. Neelix (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – The article looks to be well-written and comprehensive. I additionally did a spot-check of the accessibility of the sources; all of them work. There are a few minor issues I have raised to improve the article.

• I personally feel the alt text for images could describe the image with a little more detail.
• For consistency, the second author in reference 4 should use the |last2= and |first2= instead of |author=.
• Second author in reference 1 – same as above but use author link as Jacquelin Magnay by using |authorlink2=. Z105space (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: The nominator has recently stated that they are on a "long wikibreak" [4], so it may be appropriate to close this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2015 [5].

---

The Migration of Serbs

See Migration of the Serbs (painting)

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A painting that most Balkan folk would instantly recognize, this work isn't nearly as famous in the West. Composed by Paja Jovanović for an exhibition marking 1,000 years since the Hungarians settled Hungary, it wasn't completed in time for the exhibit due to politically motivated meddling by a Serbian church leader. Four versions were completed in all, three of which survive. I believe this article is quite comprehensive and FA seemed like the next logical step. 23 editor (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments Interesting topic,but:
• The title here isn't idiomatic, perhaps not grammatical, and isn't used by RS. There seems to be no standard translation, but (The) Migration of the Serbs and Migration of Serbs are common, with variants such as The Great Serbian Migration. But not The Migration of Serbs.
• Most paras are too long, & should be split.
• There's no point in links to the google books page for the works used. Where they have a preview, as Filipovitch-Robinson, Lilien (2014) does, that is worth linking to.
• The reference works are in no order that I can see. Alphabetic by author is usual and best.
• The current "Background" section's two (over-long) paras deal respectively with the historical background around 1700 and the commissioning of the painting in the 1890s. Two sections might be better.
• The full details of the versions might be better moved from the lead, which otherwise is short on summary of the other sections.
• For an article on a painting, there's not much art history in terms of style etc.

Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Have addressed some comments; will continue with the rest tomorrow. Expanding on stylistic context shouldn't be a problem. I'll add a paragraph or so from Antić on Jovanović's history of painting historical scenes and this painting's stylistic implications tomorrow or the day after. Thanks for the review so far! 23 editor (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I've expanded on the painting's artistic context and addressed your other points. Let me know if I understood everything correctly. 23 editor (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:PajaJovanovic.jpg: source link is dead, and the licensing is problematic - you've got a life+100 tag but claim that the author died in 1944. What is the work's status in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I couldn't find any info that would suggest the picture was PD before 1996, which would make it PD-US. Thus, I've removed it altogether and added a photo of the Pančevo Museum instead. 23 editor (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• If three versions of the painting exist, why is only one shown? FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This FAC has stalled and I will archive it shortly.

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2015 [6].

---

Darknet market

Nominator(s): Deku-shrub (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the little know yet vibrant ecosystem of marketplaces that have evolved on the Dark Web first pioneered by Silk Road. Opening with a stunning info graphic from Ryan Compton illustrating products available, it provides unrivaled coverage of such market's history, statistics, structures and reactions. In what is effectively a criminal ecosystem filled with fraudsters, drugs dealers and fierce market rivalries, the pages provides a reliably cited set of information for anyone who wants to ask the question - is this for real?

I went through a brief peer review and after the months of contributions I've put into this, I would be delighted if the article were to receive featured article status.

Deku-shrub (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

On a very brief glance, a lot of the refs don't name their publications. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Lenin and McCarthy: could you direct me to a bot to fix this? Deku-shrub (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There isn't one. This has to be done manually. Graham Beards (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: This certainly is an interesting and unusual topic area, and thanks are due for the work done to date. Unfortunately the article at present is some way off featured article standard, and I think needs considerably more work. Here are a few points:

• The lead is too short and does not comply with the requirements of WP:LEAD. It is not an adequate summary of the article for a reader ignorant of this topic.
• What is the purpose of the first (barely visible) image and its accompanying caption?
• There are uncited statements throughout the article
• There are examples of poor English. In the first "History" subsection alone I found:

• "By the end of the 1980s, newsgroups like alt.drugs become centres of drug discussion and information, however any deals were arranged entirely off-site directly between individuals." – tense and punctuation errors
• "One of the better-known web-based drug forums, The Hive, launched in 1997 to serve as an information sharing forum for practical drug synthesis and legal discussion." Not a complete sentence
• "Since the year 2000 until the present day..." – tautologous (last four words not needed).

The article needs a thorough copyedit, and attention to the other points I've listed. Brianboulton (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to read into lede best practices before I can improve this.

The opening image may be used contrary to Wikipedia best practices, I think it's a fantastic infographic which invites further analysis and serves to peak the curiosity of the reader.

That may be so, but the object of images and statements in a WP article is to inform and explain, not "peak the curiosity of readers". Unless the purpose of the image is clear to the general reader there is no justification for it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see uncited statements, I can't see it at all any more I've reworked it so many times. :(

Uncited statements: Second paragraph of "Silk Road" section; third (single line) paragraph of "Post-Silk Road" section; first paragraph of "Search and discussion" section; almost all the "Market operations" section. Brianboulton (talk)

It's a fair cop. Each of those are original research from myself to tie a narrative together The market operation section has the citations at the top, I didn't think it'd add value repeating this. Deku-shrub (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the poor english issues you referenced

The entire article needs copyediting by a third party. Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay Deku-shrub (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

More specific feedback appreciated! Deku-shrub (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment - Sadly, this article is clearly not ready for promotion to FA. There are problems with the prose, citations, single-sentence paragraphs, proseline and others. Graham Beards (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2015 [7].

---

India House

rueben lys(s): rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an Indian nationalist organisation that existed in London in the first decade of the 20th century. It is a slightly overlooked but important topic, in being the first prominent arena of nationalist works of a number of Indians who later became famous for various different reasons. Most famous amongst these people is V.D. Savarkar, but there is also leaders like Har Dayal, M.P.T. Acharya, V.N. Chatterjee and others who are associated with different political thoughts in India. The article failed FAC twice in the past almost seven years ago because of prose. It has remained stable since. I copy edited it recently to improve prose on the back of two other copy edits in the past by other editors. Would like to see this article meet FA criteria. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FAC coordinator's comments

FAC Coordinator's Comment - there are too many unsourced statements throughout the article; there should be no none. There are problems with the formatting (click on refs 2,7,11,26,31,33,36,44,52,73,and 85 for examples) and there are unused sources in the references. Graham Beards (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have addressed the references now (as many as I could identify). If you highlight which sentences maybe require citations, I will try to find these ASAP.

One dead link, which I have tagged, remains along with the unused sources. Graham Beards (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Graham. The dead link has now been replaced with literature ref. Unused sources have been removed.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

A few initial observations:

• You say in the text: "India House was a large Victorian Mansion..." etc. As the house is very much still there, the present tense should be used. The word "mansion" should not be capitalised; I don't thinbk the pipe-link to Victorian architecture is particularly helpful to readers.
• There is too much use of the phrase "such as", throughout the article, sometimes in very close proximity – see "Indian nationalism in Britain" section. Try and use some variant phrasing.
• In the second paragraph of the lead, you include a list of "prominent Indian revolutionaries and nationalists associated with India House". Of these, " V. V. S. Aiyar" is not mentioned in the body of the article at all, while "V.N. Chatterjee" and "P.M. Bapat" are only mentioned once, in passing, from which I must assume that their association with India House was fleeting. AS the lead is supposed to highlight the most significant aspects of the text, maybe you should reconsider the inclusion of these marginal names.
• Incidentally, you need to be consistent in formatting the initials in names: V. V. S. Aiyar has spacing while other names do not. Choose one format (the spaceless one is much preferred)
• In the final paragraph of the lead, the first sentence needs re-punctuating: "In 1909 a member of India House, Madan Lal Dhingra, assassinated..." etc. You should also wikilink Secretary of State for India.
• "Countermeasures" is one word, not two.

These are minor issues in what appears to be a well constructed and comprehensive article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Brian,

• India house "was" is now corrected to "is".
• "Such as" is now appropriately reworded.
• Name formatting has been consisten(~ified, for want of a better suffix)
• The members mentioned in the lead are mentioned in the body as well, either in the transformation section or in the world war I section. V.N. Chatterjee is perhaps a bit undementioned but his role in wwi is more notable.
• Secretary of state is already wikilinked (or an elf has done this interim).
• Countermeasures oneworded.

rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am happy with these responses. I have begun to read the text and will post further comments in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Prose etc: I have begun a more detailed review of the article. These are my comments on the first few sections:

Lead

• "The most famous of these..." is too prescriptive for a neutral encyclopaedia article. "Famous" is a rather vague term, anyway. I would reword along the lines: "...were associated with India House, notably..." followed by the list of names, undifferentiated.

Nationalism in India

• "business-owners, merchants and professional-class" – suggest slight rephrase: "business owners, merchants and professionals"

Indian nationalism in Britain

• "was also established" – delete "also"
• Give year in which the parliamentary "Indian Committee" was established

Indian Home Rule Society

• You say: "When inaugurated as a student-hostel in 1905...", but you have given no details of how or when the house was acquired, of by whom. This is important information that needs to be researched and included.
• We need a clearer explanation of the "British Committee"
• "the Raj" rather than "The Raj", and only link on first mention.
• I'd stick to "Bhikaji Cama" as per the lead, rather than "Madam Cama"
• Overlinking: Henry Hyndman

The Indian Sociologist

• "it has been argued" should not be used without specifying by whom. Someone must have made this specific suggestion.
• "TIS itself..." – latter word redundant
• "calling these to be the last resort" – "this", surely, as it refers only to political violence.
• "stinging" is editorial opinion, and should be neutralised, e.g. "strong"
• Chirol was not the editor of The Times (the paper should be wikilinked, by the way). Chirol was foreign editor, an important but subordinate position, from 1899 to 1912. His WP article has got it wrong - see his ODNB article for details. Incidentally, his birth name was "Mary Valentine Ignatius Chirol"; his parents were either sadists or had a weird sense of humour.
• "As a liberal politician, Morley refused to take action at the time..." It is not a given that "liberal" politicians will not act illiberally (think e.g. Nick Clegg). I would delete the first four words.

More will follow. The article is, I must say, generally well written and informative, and in my view can easily be brought to FA standard. Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: the above comments.

• "famous" now changed to "notable.
• I have not changed hyphenation etc merely because the very kind copy-editor did not alter these, and my gut feeling is these are adequate at the moment. Happy to revisit this in the near future once a full prose review is offered.

• I don't understand this point – I don't recall raising any question of hyphenation in this review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:"...business-owners..."rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Year of the Parliamentary committee establishment is probably difficult to pinpoint since it was an informal but cohesive pressure group. but see next point.
• The British Committee of the Indian National Congress is now a seperate and detailed article that should offer the interested reader more info incuding background and dates.

• Raj now uncapitalised at "t"he

• Stinging will be changed in the next ten mins.

• Chirol now corrected to his appropriate position.

• I agree his parents must have not been his most favourite people.
• Morley's political views and its influence on his actions and lack thereof now restructured to make this clearers.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't add to these comments at present, as I shall be away for the next week, but I'll look in when I get back, to see if the nom is still open. Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Image

Image review

• File:India_House_collage2.jpg: if I'm reading this correctly, several parts of this collage are non-free, yes? Can you explain why you chose to use this? I think it would make more sense to use a simpler image, ideally a free one
• File:Champakraman_Pillai.jpg: what is the original source of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. This actually touches upon the very substance of the article itself. Although India House itself was a residence, ie a building, the term "India House" came to collectively describe the organisations that worked under its roof, the radical nationalists who lived and worked there, and the nationalist ideologies that emerged from this group of organisations and people. So when you say "India House", the term is associated with the latter group rather than the house itself. The article has an image of the house itself, but the introductory collage is a mash of the people who used the building for their works, or in the case of Anant Lakshman Kanhere, people whose actions in India were directly influenced by the organisations living in India House in London. The image of Maud Gonne ties in the links to Irish nationalist groups that had ties to the house. The central image of TIS ties everything together in that it was Kirshna Verma's mouthpiece and expressed the ideologies emerging from the house in words, and therefore represented all of this. The collage therefore exemplifies to the reader what India House was and what it influenced. This is important, since you will see from the "Influence" section that the house had a huge influence on many different aspects of Indian politics, from the independence movement before and during the great war, through Gandhian independence movement, to Hindu-nationalism and Indian communism which have had effects even upto present day Indian politics.

A simpler image, say for example of the house itself, or of Savarkar (who is the most famous association of the house) will be insufficient to the extent it will skew the reader's focus to either one individual (Savarkar or Dhingra) which would be leading to an inappropriate inference, or to the building itself, ie the architecture etc, which is absolutely not the focus of the article nor notable in any shape or form.

I hope this clarifies.

With regards to the source of Champakaraman Pillai image, it was obtained from commons, and the source is given as a website called Indianetzone. The website is listed as holding Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 permissions per here. The photo itslef is of Pillai in his young middle age, and Pillai himself died in 1934 in Germany. The image is therefore taken sometime between 1910s and/or early 1920s. I cant say anything more about this image.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Indianetzone website hosts the image, but the image was created long before that website existed - the image is not covered by their CC license. As you'll see from the tag on the image description page, it is unclear whether this image is in the public domain or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

New comment Could editors please review the replies to their comments. It will help me clarify if concerns have been adressed.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:Nikkimaria's comments regarding images Thanks Nikki for your comments. I have looked through the previous two nominations, where the issue of images were discussed as well. The Champak image I have figured out is actually a retouch obtained from this page which belongs to Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. I have communication from Bhavan confirming permission on the basis of free license to use the base image (I can forward this to wherever may be necessary). I presume netzone has obtained this through similar understandings.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that free license for the original image or only for the retouch? If the former, you can forward that permission to OTRS; if the latter we still need to determine the status of the original. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The original image. I will have this forwarded.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 22:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Communication now forwarded to OTRS.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Update. I have now heard back from OTRS. Summary is the wording is unclear as to wether orignial copyright holder releases the image. I am changing this image to one of Ghadar di Gunj which should convey a similar message. More input welcome.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I enjoyed this one a lot. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment - Sadly, this nomination has stagnated and as there is no clear consensus for promotion, I am archiving it. I hope the nominator continues to improve the article and I look forward to seeing it back at FAC sometime after the required two-week wait. Graham Beards (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FrB.TG (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2015‎ [8].

---

Sonam Kapoor

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the "Masakali girl", a not-so-good actress, yet a fashion icon. It was reviewed and promoted straight away by the user Jaguar on October 2015 for GA. Anyway, the article is pretty comprehensive as it covers important aspects of her life and career. This is my first attempt for FAC (not for featured as I have already a bunch of FLs under my belt). The article is well-researched. Comments, in any form and from anyone, will be very much appreciated. Happy reading! -- Frankie _talk 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

I have some comments to make, but I'll examine the article first. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to point out errors, but I have cleaned the prose up a bit. Please tell me if you like it. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that! :) -- Frankie _talk 15:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick question: where is the source that she is Punjabi? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Added. -- Frankie _talk 06:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

Lead

• "Kapoor has been nominated for three Filmfare Awards and won two Stardust Awards." Only filmfare and National awards should be mentioned.

• Because she has only been nominated for Filmfare, and she has only won Stardust Awards.

• Delhi-6 (2009) is not a political drama, it's more like a comedy drama.

• This says otherwise.

• "She also featured briefly in the highly successful biographical sports film Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013)"...The word "highly" should be removed.

Early life and background

• "Her sister is producer Rhea, and actor Harshvardhan is her brother." Harshavardhan hasn't acted in a single film yet. Is it wise to call him an actor.!?
• Mention her relation with actress Sridevi.

• I don't think she is the relative of Sridevi; she is only her uncle's wife.

Which means she is her aunt.

Yeah, added. -- Frankie _talk 14:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• "As a child, she was interested in reading books, and was a bibliophile." Looks trivial to me.

• Being a bibliophile seems quite notable to me.

• "For health concerns, she visited Jindal Health Camp in Banglore." Again.

• The media does not have info on whether she was treated after her diabetes or not, and I believe this is the only info available on her treatment regarding diabetes.

Debut and career fluctuations

• Is it important to include Stardust Award for Superstar of Tomorrow – Female? coz in india, every channel has there own awards and they'r not important.

• Yeah, as this is the only award, which she won.

• There is a repeat use of the sentence "The film underperformed at the box-office." You can replace one of them with "the film failed at the box-office", or "it was a box-office disappointment."

Personal life and other work

• "The actress currently lives in Juhu, Mumbai." Why not include this in the early life and background section?

• That section already says that she moved to Juhu while a month old.

• Mentioning her relationship with Ranbir Kapoor, Sahil Berry sounds like a gossip column stuff. They didn't lasted long enough unlike Shahid-Kareena.

• Nope, they have been widely reported in the media. Although they (she and her boyfriends) haven't acknowledged, it's important to know what the media has reported.

In the media

• Her opinion on her approach to acting doesn't looks relevant to "In the media" section". It should only include opinion of other's about her.

• I think it's important to know on what basis she chooses roles.

Then "In the media" section is not a good place for this quote, place it somewhere else.

Well, I don't know if it is relevant for in the media section, but it definitely suits the paragraph it is in as it talks about info related to her acting. -- Frankie _talk 14:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• IMO this section has too much quotes, please remove one of them atleast.

• I can't remove or paraphrase them as the media section is always about this; what they think of her. @Yashthepunisher: I have paraphrased a quote from the section. I can not think of paraphrasing (or removing) other quotes as they are pretty important ones and some things are best when original. -- Frankie _talk 15:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Yashthepunisher. I have resolved the rest. -- Frankie _talk 14:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from all these, I don't see any problem with the article. There are still two unresolved issues, resolve them and it has my Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :) -- Frankie _talk 14:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian

• FrB.TG, thank you for submitting this article for FAC. I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I do, however, have a few comments and suggestions that must first be addressed. Thank you for your hard work on this article! I have completed an image review and found no issues. The details of the image review are included in my comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you West Virginian for your excellent and comprehensive review. I have replied them in your capped comments. Also, I will try to return the favor by reviewing your FAC. -- Frankie _talk 14:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support FrB.TG, thank you for your timely responses to my review. Upon my re-review of your article, I find that it is ready for Featured Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by West Virginian (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede and overall Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines Sonam Kapoor, establishes the Kapoor's necessary context, and explains why she is otherwise notable. The info box for Sonam Kapoor is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein. The image of Kapoor is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore good for inclusion in this article; an alt caption per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images has also been incorporated. I would suggest mentioning one or two of her more notable or popular products that she endorses in the third paragraph of the lede. The rupee symbol only needs to be wiki-linked once in the prose; I de-linked the second mention of Waheeda Rehman. I made some other minor edits throughout, so just let me know if you have any issues or concerns with these. The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section. Early life and background The image of Kapoor with her father Anil in 2011 is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for inclusion here. An alt caption has also been included. I added a comma after her mother's name in the first paragraph. Thanks! :) You are quite welcome! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I would suggest specifying that her sister Rhea is a film producer specifically. I would also do the same for her uncle, Boney Kapoor. This may be an Indian English vs. American English issue, and if so please ignore, but I feel that "educated" may sound more encyclopedic than "schooled." This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section. Acting career In the next to last sentence of the first paragraph, "box-office" can probably lose the hyphen for consistency's sake. Subsequent instances of "box-office" can also lose the hyphen. The image of Kapoor in 2010 is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore fine for use here. An alt caption has also been included. The image of Kapoor promoting Raanjhnaa on Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa in 2013 is also licensed CC BY 3.0 and is suitable for inclusion here. An alt caption has also been included. The first mention of biopic can be wiki-linked to Biographical film. This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section. Personal life and other work I would wiki-link Gujarat as some readers may not be familiar with the state, and it doesn't share international recognition like Bangalore and Mumbai. In the first paragraph, it is mentioned that she says she is religious. What religion is she? Hindu, Muslim? Do we not know? It's already stated in the Early life section: "Kapoor, a practicing Hindu.." I apologize for the oversight on my part! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) "denied" may work better than "refused" I would re-render the the last sentence of the second paragraph: "stating that she is "completely against talking about [her] relationships to the press"" This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section. In the media The image of Kapoor at the Femina Women Awards in 2014 has been licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here. An alt caption has also been included. This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section. Filmography The table is beautifully formatted, but is there any way that inline citations could be added for each row in the "Notes" column? I am not as accustomed with standards for articles on actors, so please let me know if this is not standard. Don't think that is needed as they are already sourced in the career section. Alright, that works then! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Awards and nominations The table is beautifully formatted and sourced, and I have no comments or suggestions for it. "Other honours" is also sourced and well formatted, so I have no comments or suggestions here either. FrB.TG, thank you for your timely responses to and incorporation of my comments and suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

1. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Image review: I as well have reviewed all the images. All check out except File:Sonam Kapoor Dheere Dheere Unveiling.jpg = tagged with: This image, which was originally posted to Bollywood Hungama, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid.
3. Alongside her career, Kapoor supports charities and causes, such as creating awareness on breast cancer. = this sentence is oddly phrased for several reasons. "awareness on breast cancer" and "alongside her career" are awkwardly phrased.
4. Early life and background - could be just titled more simply, Early life.
5. Acting career - similarly the two subsection titles within this sect would be better if simpler titles used.
6. "has become" ... "has been"... can be changed throughout the article to simpler "became" "was"
7. They lived in an apartment with one room furnished. After her father became a popular Bollywood actor, he built the entire house. - you mean "furnished" the entire house? Was it not built before? Or not furnished?
8. Kapoor was educated at the Arya Vidya Mandir school in Juhu,[13] following which she enrolled at the United World College of South East Asia in Singapore for her pre-university education, where she studied theatre and arts - sentence is a bit long, consider splitting.
9. "However" = used eight (8) times in the article, consider removing these outright.
10. "Also" = used twelve (12) times in the article, consider removing these and phrasing differently.
11. According to Kapoor, she started working at the age of 15, and her first job was that of a waitress, which lasted for one week. = too much use of commas in this sentence, consider splitting.
12. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Impression overall: Quite meticulously sourced, high-quality article for its present stage of WP:GA, which is good and I'm glad it reached that level -- so thank you to all for the Quality improvement efforts that went into improving this page for our Wikipedia readers. However, the writing quality could stand with some improvement from a few Native-English speakers and/or Professional-Level-English speakers. Specifically with regards to awkward phraseology, too much use of commas, "However", "Also", etc. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Thanks for your comments. The source (regarding furnishing the house) itself is quite unclear and we can not necessarily assume either. I have removed that. I have copy-edited the article. I am not going to request copy-edits from a "few" English speakers as I think the prose is now good enough. And most of the Indian articles are written this way (I have modeled it based on them). Please revisit and share your thoughts with me. Thanks. -- Frankie _talk 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that was not a sufficient response. Many of the above issues are unaddressed. Just because some of the Indian articles are written this way and you modeled it based on them, does not mean this one should have sub-standard prose. I do wish you the best of luck -- but the article needs significant copy-editing from Native-English speakers or Professional-level-English speakers. — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Source review from Johanna

Sorry it's been such a long time. I figured I would do a source review. Most of it's looking pretty good. I just have a few questions on the reliability of a couple sources—what are "Mid Day", "Rediff.com", and "Skjbollywoodnews.com"? Why are they reliable? Shockingly for an article with this many refs, there are no deadlinks, and everything seems to be formatted quite well. Looks like you've done a lot to get the picky stuff up to snuff. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the source review Johanna. Mid Day is a well reputed source, Rediff.com is used in many Indian FAs and Skjbollywoodnews.com is a website of a renowned critic. -- Frankie _talk 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - This article is well-written, well-researched and nice images! Iggy488 (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The user is a sock-puppet, who has been indef. blocked. —Vensatry _(ping) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

• Parts of the first two paras (of the lead) are jumbled - the first one gives an intro, talks about the awards, and then suddenly goes to her family. While the second para looks good as a standalone one, it continues exactly from where the first para ends.
• "The actress is known in the media for her outspoken personality" - Definitely borders WP:PUFF. Also, the bit which talks about her "charity" is WP:UNDUE.

How is it puffery? I have even included her outspoken statements in the media image section and how they are widely reported and sometimes criticized.

This is quite a claim – nowadays, every Bollywood actress is being projected as 'bold', 'outspoken', no? In that case, the article needs to cover examples which justify the claim. —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the "outspoken" thing from the lead, but there is "known in the Indian media for her outspoken nature" in the media image section, followed by her statements. -- Frankie _talk 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Her off-screen life is the subject of fervent tabloid reporting in India." - who cares? this is an encyclopedia.

I have found the very same thing in many of the high-quality articles.

We shouldn't base our arguments on WP:OSE at the FAC level. But then, you should quote good examples to justify the inclusion. That said, it's surely not encyclopedic. —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That was already removed from the article so discussing it is just waste of time. -- Frankie _talk 22:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine. It was merely a reply. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Her connection with Sridevi needs to be properly established.
• "Her paternal grandfather—filmmaker Surinder Kapoor—died in 2011 after suffering a cardiac arrest" - I'm not sure how relevant is the cause of her grandfather's death here.

Maybe you're right but I think just "he died in 2011" will make readers curious to know the cause.

Given his age, it's not quite notable to be mentioned in his grand-daughter's article. —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, removed. -- Frankie _talk 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• "As a child, she was a bibliophile" - Again, this should only be mentioned unless this has had a significant impact in her life later on.
• "She described herself as a "naughty" and "carefree" child, and she would "bully boys. I would push them, [and] beat them." - I think there is a misplacement of quotes in the last part.
• "As part of an annual tradition, Kapoor—a practicing Hindu—and her family celebrate the festival of Ganesha Chaturthi each year" - This one is trivial.

I have found the very same thing in Rani Mukerji's biography.

Doesn't matter. —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

When you celebrate something since childhood and it attracts the media attention, it definitely becomes notable. -- Frankie _talk 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

From an encyclopaedic point of view, it adds very little value. What about Diwali, Christmas, etc.,? Mumbaikars celebrating Ganesh Chaturthi isn't a news; it's quite common in the city. BTW, Tendulkar celebrating GC and Ganguly celebrating Durga Puja are also widely reported in the media every year. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• "For health concerns, she visited Jindal Health Camp in Bangalore." - This one needs clarification.

The source does not clarify so I have removed it.

I never asked you to remove this. Given the health issues she had, this could very well go into the article. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes it could if the source elaborated but it's not very clear so it should be left out. -- Frankie _talk 17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• What exactly was the role of Rani Mukherji in Kapoor's entry to films?
• "While working on Black, Bhansali expressed interest in casting Kapoor as the lead in Bhansali's [his] next film, Saawariya"
• "Inspired by Bhansali's confidence in her, she lost 35 kilograms (77 lb) in two years" - Not sure if "inspire" is the correct word in the given context.
• "Kapoor took acting classes from the theatre personalities Roshan Taneja, Jayati Bhatia and Feroz Abbas Khan.[7]" - Precision needed.
• Can you replace the Yahoo news ref. (which talks about the Best Female Debut nom) with a better source; the article was authored by someone who works for a horoscope site.
• "Kapoor has cited actresses ... admiring "their quality of doing different things." The one in quotes is too much vague – in what sense?
• "In 2015, Kapoor purchased a 7,000-square-foot (650 m2) ₹300 million (US$4.5 million) duplex apartment in Bandra Kurla Complex." - You think this is encyclopedic?

Buying a house worth 4.5 million dollars is surely encyclopedic.

'Kapoor purchased a 7,000-square-foot (650 m2) ₹300 million (US$4.5 million) duplex apartment in Bandra Kurla Complex' – Way too much detail. Consider somebody like Sachin Tendulkar, in whose case we might end up with articles like List of assets owned by Sachin Tendulkar. —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright then removed. I have also removed where she currently lives as it's an encyclopedia, not a place to tell the name of the "current" city where someone lives. -- Frankie _talk 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like you've mistaken me. Place of residence is certainly informative, but not flat name, door no, etc., —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's already mentioned that she moved to Juhu in the Early life section so mentioning that she currently lives in Juhu would be repetitive. -- Frankie _talk 17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Juhu being a suburb of Mumbai was clarified twice previously.
• The second para of the personal life section reads like a gossip column; there is no point in including her "alleged" relationship with Punit Malhotra. Besides, you clearly say that it was a speculation by the media. Secondly, the bit is confusing – given they both denied the relationship, where's the point of breaking up? Also, neither of the sources tell the "denial" part.

I am not a huge fan of this bullshit either but I think it's quite an important one. Many of the recently promoted articles have also covered some alleged relationships which have been widely covered by the media.

• "She is the brand ambassador for Elle Breast Cancer Campaign which promotes breast cancer awareness." - needless clarification
• The last para of the section reads a bit listy.
• The 'Media image and artistry' section is bombarded with quotes.
• The Vogue India quote adds very little value to the article.
• Who is Sonal Ved?
• "Kapoor, however, has often been criticised for her traditional Indian dresses which Hindustan Times has opined that she "isn’t able to do much justice to Indian clothes." - Given this statement at the start of the section: "actress is particularly praised for her dress sense and fashion. She attracts wide media attention for her dressing style at public events and film promotions." this one is contradictory. further, the third para says she was "widely regarded as a fashionista" - repetitive stuff.

Does sound contradictory that's why I have added "however".

No, this just looks like being

• "Kapoor is known in the Indian media for her outspoken nature and for honestly expressing her forthright opinions in public" - Again, borders WP:PUFF; she is no Arundhati Roy.

Replied above.

Per my response above, telling you again, she is no Arundhati Roy! —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• You say she is described as a style icon by the Indian media, but the claim is supported by a single ref.
• "The following year, she jumped to the thirty first position" - Not sure if "jump" is an acceptable word.
• All three sentences of the last para start with "Kapoor".
• "Kapoor is the celebrity endorser for brands, such as Colgate, Electrolux, Lux, Mont Blanc, Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. and Signature" - You mean she is the only endorser for all these products? Plus, the ref. is dead.
• "In 2014, she became the endorser for Oppo Mobile,[142] for which she was paid approximately ₹30 million (US$450,000), making her one of the highest paid celebrities for endorsements in India" - the source which talks about the 30 million deal doesn't tell that she was paid by Oppo.

Yeah, I don't know how does it say Oppo Mobile. Anyway, corrected.

All these are from the lead, early life, personal life and media image sections. I haven't really read much of the 'Acting career' section. To summarize, I see a problem of WP:UNDUE with the personal life and media image sections. They are bombarded with quotes and unencyclopedic stuff. The prose too needs a bit of work; it would be largely benefited by a top-to-bottom copyedit, preferably by a native/professional-level editor. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have removed some of the quotes from the media image section. I will soon have someone copy-edit the article though I doubt I am that lucky. :D -- Frankie _talk 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Will look at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

2013: "The film tells the story of a young Muslim student from Varanasi who is drawn into Indian politics after the murder of her Sikh lover. The actress was cast as Zoya who is—in her words—"extremely feminine, but she knows her mind."[60" Not clear actually which character she plays. Is Zoya the Muslim student? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what value " "They had a budget and they told me they can’t give money and that’s why I said give Rs11"" gives.

Personal life

• "Kapoor has cited actresses Waheeda Rehman and Nutan as her source of inspiration.[85] The actress currently lives in Juhu.[86] In 2015, Kapoor purchased a 7,000-square-foot (650 m2) ₹300 million (US$4.5 million) duplex apartment in Bandra Kurla Complex.[87] She is trained in Kathak, classical music and Latin dance.[88] Regarding her religious affiliations, the actress said, "I am quite religious. It's a great way of reminding myself that I need to be thankful for so much."[16] In a 2009 interview, Kapoor spoke about her suffering from insulin resistance; she has since launched an initiative to create awareness on diabetes.[89] While filming Prem Ratan Dhan Payo in Gondal, Gujarat, she was diagnosed with swine influenza in February 2015 and was flown to Mumbai in an air-ambulance. She recovered from the infection the following month.[90][91"

-I'm not sure how you can justify putting that range of content all in one paragraph, a little haphazard,

Media image and artistry -Artistry?? Just media image will suffice

Yeah, for an actress like Kapoor, artistry reads pretty odd. @Dr. Blofeld: Thanks very much for the comments, pretty good ones. -- Frankie _talk 11:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Vensatry that it could use a copyedit. If I had more passion towards the project right now I'd help. I'd make some quite extensive changes though which you might not agree with.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be delighted if you make those changes as I know that will be for the betterment of the article. I think I know what to expect. Anyway, I am looking forward to it. -- Frankie _talk 21:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt, Vensatry, and Dr. Blofeld: Thanks very much for your excellent suggestions. Following your suggestions, I had Casliber and Corinne copy-edit the article. I would like to thank @Corinne: also for raising some concerns at the talk page of the article. -- Frankie _talk 11:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator's Note - Some problems with the prose remain and further copyediting is needed. Graham Beards (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

In the light of Graham Beards' comment, I made these edits, although I couldn't see much wrong with it anyway (perhaps a comment on my own writing skills). I was a bit concerned about Cirt's phrasing of the request for input from "a few Native-English speakers or Professional-level-English speakers" [sic]. Although there may be infelicities in the writing, I think it is dubious to assume it's because the editor isn't from a country where English is the main language. Millions of Indians speak and write English, and many do so to first-language standards, and I've seen worse text from Brits and Americans. There have now been three copyedits, and if it's still not good enough, I think Graham needs to be more specific Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My comments included "and/or Professional-Level-English speakers", which you left out from quoting me, selectively, above. Please, I politely and kindly ask you not to cherry-pick from my quotes, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making those edits Jimfbleak, along with some of the changes you have already made, I noticed the following:

:::I've completed 'Cirt' quote above as intended, including the uncontroversial bit. Despite what he/she thinks, I was not deliberately cherry-picking, acting in bad faith or making any accusation against this conscientious editor other than that I thought it was not a good choice of words. If I had know he/she was this prickly, I wouldn't have bothered. I've also apologised on his/her talk page if I'd caused unintended grief, but that was immediately archived Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• "She featured, at no charge, alongside Hrithik Roshan in the music video for "Dheere Dheere", with all profits being donated to a charity." A fused participle
• "Upon release, film critics were disappointed with the film, with BBC's Jaspreet Pandohar calling it a "misfire on a massive scale". Another fused participle, a possible missing "it's" and a close repetition of "with"
• "Despite critical acclaim, the film released to poor box office returns". Seems odd.
• "She has confirmed her presence in a film adaptation of Anuja Chauhan's novel Battle For Bittora". Also seems odd
• "Born into a family of popular actors, Kapoor appeared in the media from an early age, due to which her entry into films was covered extensively by the Indian media." This doesn't sound right
• "That same year, she donated some of her clothes and accessories to a website which raised funds for In Defense of Animals". Nick-picky I know, but the "which should be "that", and the first "that" could be "The" to avoid repetition. Graham Beards (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jim and Graham for your copy-edit and comments, respectively. I have followed the above suggestions (though I doubt it still satisfies Cirt, never mind). BTW Jim, it's true that I don't belong to a country where English isn't the main language (hell, people barely speak it here), but I am definitely not from India. Just that its film industry interests me. -- Frankie _talk 21:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I still need to see one or two more declarations of support to establish a consensus. Graham Beards (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Jim, a few comments on the texts you comment on:

"Critics were disappointed with the film, which the BBC's Jaspreet Pandohar called a "misfire on a massive scale". Can't find where "it's" would go. Agree with your points, but maybe the writer doesn't know about "fused participles" (I don't) – so the better version I've written here might help them to avoid this.

"She featured at no charge alongside Hrithik Roshan in the music video for "Dheere Dheere", from which all profits were donated to a charity." – is that a good solution?

entry into films – entry is the problem.

This does suggest the article needs attention. I found nothing untoward with Cirt's comment about the need for professional/native-speaker input. The English used in en.WP needs to be reasonably "standard", given that the site serves the whole world. Someone from Singapore doesn't want to bump up against non-standard usage that might be fine in Nigerian or Indian acrolects. Tony (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I edited this article on a topic I have no particular interest in because I was asked to do so. A minor comment I made attracted disproportion accusations of bad faith from Cirt continuing even after I apologised for any unintended offence. I've struck most of my comments above, and have no further interest in this article. If Cirt wants to remove the struck comments, I don't mind Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My objections were specifically to the cherry-picking, and the third (3rd) sentence, in particular, from the comments by Jimfbleak, above. I thank Jimfbleak, very much, for striking them. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unfortunately, I have to agree here with concerns about the writing quality of this article as made by Graham Beards and Tony1, above. Examples of some remaining issues: "One of the highest paid actresses and major celebrity in India" -- is this supposed to be "celebrities" ? We have an imbalance problem in the lede, a tiny paragraph, a larger paragraph, and then closing out with a two-sentence-long paragraph that starts with vague wording "various" and ends with sensationalist style "inspires fervid tabloid reporting" -- not clear how that is encyclopedic, at all, or will be important in 100 years time to the history of this person? We still have may instances of poor wording such as "also", "though", "however", "but", etc, are these words needed in the article at all or are they used to inject POV? I agree with the concerns already raised, above, about WP:PUFF. And the concerns about WP:UNDUE regarding promotional aspects in the article body text. I'm seeing a great deal of quotations that could be removed, trimmed, or paraphrased, bordering on WP:QUOTEFARM, not quite there yet, but certainly a lot of room to avoid that much quoting. Checklinks checker shows over thirty (30) links that could be archived to improve the article's posterity over the long term -- but more importantly, at least three (3) with problem link issues as identified by the tool. The entire section Media image comes across as POV, promotional, puffery, and poorly constructed -- example: 4th paragraph in that sect has five (5) citations after the first sentence, to back up the assertion person is a "style icon". The entire Media image section could be removed, trimmed down significantly, and merged into other sections in the article and that would be a vast improvement right there. The Filmography section is inconsistent with citations -- some factual assertions have in-line citations to back them up -- but others do not. I'm sorry, but this article still has serious problems with writing, quality, style, presentation, and tone. I agree with Tony1 that the article needs more attention to address these significant concerns. — Cirt (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess so. I would like to thank you for your participation in this FAC. I wish I could have someone to take care of your comments. I don't have anyone else in mind to bother for ce. -- Frankie _talk 08:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

So, can you reach out to possible collaborators on en.WP who might help with copyediting? (Now and in the future ...). It's very much a social process, being an editor. Tony (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think @Dr. Blofeld: said of making some changes above. I'll see if he considers it! -- Frankie _talk 17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2015 [9].

---

True Detective (season 1)

Nominator(s): ðάπι (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first season of HBO's anthology crime drama True Detective, which was created by Nic Pizzolatto and starred Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their pursuit of a serial killer over a seventeen year period. The article went through and passed its GAN about two months ago and has been further polished since, thanks to a peer review and a copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. True Detective's first season is beautifully shot, acted, and in truth one of my favorite shows ever, and I hope its namesake article does it justice. Cheers! DAP388 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

Comments (having stumbled here from my FAC)

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=True+Detective+%28season+1%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - shows two (2) sources that could be trimmed down and or paraphrased for less quotations in article body text, these are www.lamag.com and www.motherjones.com. Please try to trim quotes or paraphrase quotes to get both of these down below 30 percent confidence value at this checklinks tool link.
4. Alt links tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py?page=True_Detective_%28season_1%29 - shows two (2) images that could use alt text.
5. Citation bot - https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&page=True+Detective+%28season+1%29 - shows no changes required, good job here.
6. Ref links tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/reflinks.py?page=True_Detective_%28season_1%29 - shows no changes required, good job here.
7. Dab links tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=True_Detective_%28season_1%29 - shows no dabs required, good job here.
8. Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=True_Detective_%28season_1%29 - shows nineteen (19) links with problems. Problem = defined as = anything other than a "200" or "0", or even a "200" value but with comments after it. All these should be archived with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate. That will fix those.
9. Also, ideally all hyperlinks in article should be archived in this way, this will greatly increase article posterity over the long term.
10. Image review: For fair use rationale image File:TrueDetectiveDVDCover.jpg, please strengthen fair use rationale by keeping the formatted template but adding more to argumentation in numbered list format, good model for that at File:Supergirl (title screen).jpg and File:BenoistSupergirl.jpg.
11. File:The King in Yellow.jpg - please move this image to Commons, see helpful info at Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons, and I would recommend User:This, that and the other/For the Common Good.
12. File:The King in Yellow.jpg - please format image page, with Template:Information.
13. I spot-checked cited sources: 2, 56, and 79, all check out okay.
14. WP:LEAD - good job on lede size, and flow, nice construction here.
15. Production - great job overall on structural organization for this sect, nicely done.
16. Music - not sure this needs a blockquote in this sect. Consider trimming, paraphrasing, and integrating into quote in article body text, rather than blockquote style.
17. Themes and influences - great sect, good use of secondary sources -- but you switch back between present-tense and past-tense here in this sect. Please pick one, and go with it? Then let me know, back here, when entire sect has been modified to have one tense, without tense switching?
18. Reviews - suggest, for more NPOV and neutral tone presentation, to expand last paragraph in this sect, which at this point comes across as an afterthought.
19. Accolades - please add "Ref(s)" column to end of this table, and place the in-line citations in that column.
20. Viewership - this should probably belong at top of Reception sect.
21. Home media release - this should be moved to last part of Production sect.
22. Summary: Overall, nicely done, just a few minor tweaks, as recommended, above, and then I think we're good to go here. :) Good luck !
23. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

— Cirt (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the slight delay, I believe all of the above issues have been addressed. I wasn't sure how to go about the King in Yellow image, considering it was a duplicate of its Wikicommons file, so I instead added a photo the author if that's okay. Thank you for your comments and taking the time to come up with an assessment. Cheers! :) DAP388 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing note - Sadly, there is no consensus for promotion on this occasion.

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 [10].

---

Ralph Townsend

Nominator(s): CurtisNaito (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive article about the American anti-interventionist advocate Ralph Townsend.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Where did you check for copyright renewal?
• File:Gerald_Nye.jpg is missing source, author, and date. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The pictures were located in publications long out of print by long deceased authors. However, I'll delete the photograph of Gerald Nye.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Understood, but if you're going to say that the copyright was not renewed it's best to check that that is actually the case - it's very possible for an out-of-print work to still be renewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Slight sourcing concern Don't have time to look at the article in detail at the moment, but why is Clark's Japan Times opinion piece being cited for the factual claim that Japan's far right have herofied Townsend, but not the corresponding claim Clark makes that Townsend has been rejected in his homeland? Our article (or at least that paragraph) would appear to give the opposite impression. Shouldn't a source be located that directly supports the full claim, or else Clark's (full) opinion be attributed to him inline? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The source notes that Townsend is regarded as a hero by right-wing Japanese. It doesn't say he is "rejected in his homeland".CurtisNaito (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The source's exact words are Townsend ended up in a U.S. wartime jail, accused of treason.But for the rightwing here, he is a hero. Clark was drawing an ironic contrast between U.S. and Japanese attitudes to Townsend. Cherry-picking one side of his comparison and implicitly contradicting everything else he says is not a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Clark believes that the Japanese right-wing regard Townsend as a hero. By contrast, saying that Townsend spent time in prison is a simple factual statement which is already discussed at length in the article. I don't think we need to repeat such a basic fact in a paragraph dealing with Townsend's impact in Japan.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The sourcing is in mixed style and over the place, which is at times hard to follow. Haven't done spot checks, or even sized them up as a result. Suggest a clean up here. The prose are fine, very clear and pull you in, but with some redundant phrasing though nothing than an hours work wouldn't fix - volunteering. It's a very interesting article which the nominator has distilled with skill and which I don't think it will pass in its current state, but figure the fixes needed are do-able, sourcing to be confirmed once made understandable. Ceoil (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested in changing the citations, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It looks to me like all the citations use the same style. Could you name a few which stand out so that I know which of the citations I need to change?CurtisNaito (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The main thing is that you are carrying the full reference detail in each inline, perhaps better would be to create a seperate "sources" section, and trim the inlines to eg "Gurko (1937), p. 548". Also, didn't check them all, but hope the self published refs are referring to Townsend's opinions only. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, there is no consensus for promotion on this occasion. Graham Beards (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2015 [11].

---

Jacob van Ruisdael

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Jacob van Ruisdael was a Dutch Golden Age landscape painter. I adopted the article a few months ago when it was lacking references. With the help of Jane023 I got it to GA status recently, following suggestions from the helpful Chiswick Chap. This is my first FAC. Comments will be very much appreciated. I hope you enjoy reading about this old master, whose works may or may not have deep meaning. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Brianboulton

Welcome to your first FAC, and I hope you don't find the experience too daunting. While the article generally looks in good shape, I am a little concerned by the extent of under-referencing. Specifically:

• The final paragraph of the "The later years" lacks citations
• The entire "Attributions" section is uncited
• At least half-a-dozen paragraphs in the text end with uncited statements
• Information contained in footnotes needs to be cited on the same basis as main text.

These comments arise from a very superficial survey of the article, but they should be attended to as soon as possible. I will try to find time to add more substantive comments as the review proceeds. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'm sorry for under-referencing. I have started adding citations already and will continue after work tonight. In quite a few cases it is a matter of moving the sfn to the end of the paragraph, so I'm not daunted by the task. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the final paragraph of "The Later years" altogether. Parts of it were covered in Legacy and Interpretation. I added references to "Attributions", end of paragraphs and footnotes. I had to rephrase one sentence in "Attributions" a bit as I couldn't find a reference for the sweeping statement of old masters sometimes not signing. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• Certainly way better than it used to be, but still needs some work.
• I agree with Brian re under-referencing. The version you started work on in May was old EB with a dash of tonic. Some of it survives little changed, eg the coverage of his etchings, & should either be improved or referenced there.
  • Rewrote the etchings bit, and added references. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• In particular the lead contains several points that don't recur below and should be referenced. Some of these have issues.
• "was the pre-eminent Dutch Golden Age painter of landscapes." no ref, and I'm not sure "pre-eminent" a good word - many if not most would consider Rembrandt's few landscapes a greater achievement, Cuyp has probably always been more expensive, and so on. Many would prefer other landscapists.
  • Pre-eminent came from Slive's intro to the 2006 exhibition, but I dropped it altogether. I could add 'influential', as I do think some indication of excellence is needed to distinguish him from say Cornelis Vroom or Nicolaas Berchem. What do you think? Edwininlondon (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree something is needed, and I see Slive also uses "pre-eminent" at the start of the Getty "Windmills" book. Since it can be referenced so well, maybe stick with it. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1650 he travelled to the German border and started painting monumental scenes." no ref, & reads oddly, as though he set up his easel at the frontier. "Monumental" needs explaining or changing - his paintings became no larger than before I think, but rather more dramatic and proto-Romantic, which I suppose was meant. Monumental is a tricky and overused word in art history, "The most overworked word in current art history and criticism" according to Peter and Linda Murray.
  • Monumental came from Slive 2006, but I have removed it and rewritten both the lead sentence and the Middle years section. :Edwininlondon (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• "Unlike the other great Dutch landscape painters, he did not aim at a pictorial record of particular scenes..." no ref, & very dubious, both because many Ruisdaels, especially the views of cities, do give "a pictorial record of particular scenes", and also because nearly all the major Dutch landscapists used invented scenes, the Italianate ones such as Cuyp, Berchem, Pynacker and Both far more obviously than Ruisdael. Even the townscape painters, painting cities their patrons lived in, were very ready to adjust street compositions for artistic effect.
  • Removed it altogether. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• ".. but he thought out and arranged his compositions carefully, introducing into them an infinite variety of subtle contrasts in the formation of the clouds, the plants and tree forms, and the play of light." - didn't they all? Paddling, or padding.
  • Removed it as well. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• The lead is 5 paras long, which someone will no doubt complain about; here there seems no need. The article in general has some too-short and perhaps some too-long paras (I have merged a few). The one-para "Interpretation" section certainly needs splitting.
  • Shortened lead to 4. Split up Interpretation. Any other ones that specifically bother you? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• There is a near-contradiction between the lead "one of several artists who painted figures in Ruisdael's landscapes, something he rarely did himself." and "Later years", "Figures are sparingly introduced into his compositions, and are by this period no longer of his own hand[F]" - the latter I suspect the better formulation. And elsewhere "Thirdly, it seemed that sometimes two artists would work together on one painting, not only by one adding small figures to the landscapes of the other, but more prominent figures as well,.." - here the uncertainty is not needed, as this was very common across Europe.
  • Good catch. Removed it from the lead and the Attribution section. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• "but which can be attributed to a specific style (twisted trees, windmills, waterfalls, dunescapes, seascapes, winter landscapes, and panoramas, all with and without figures painted in by others)." - hmm, use of "attributed" here, these are mostly "subjects" not a style, the list is so long it is hardly very "specific", and not really specific to Haarlem.
  • I removed it. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• In general the prose could do with a polish.
• I miss more on his individual style, and some placing of his work in the busy context of other Dutch Golden Age landscapists. Ruisdael is traditionally regarded as belonging to the "classical" style or phase of Dutch landscape painting, a concept that should be introduced. Also things like the generally low status, and prices, of landscape painting, versus the advantage of being able to paint for "stock" rather than wait for commissions, as most painters had to do.
  • Will get references for his individual style and placing him in context, eg juxtapose against the Italianate landscapists. Do you happen to have any references handy for the low status and paint for stock? Edwininlondon (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The status certainly, I'll look re the convenience. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added a bit more context about stock and commissioning. I have found some sources about prices, which will be next. Meanwhile, any more suggestions for improvement? Edwininlondon (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this edit is a step in the wrong direction frankly. Some things need to be said. This addition is good, although the lower status of landscape painting generally not covered (I can provide on this). The "classical phase" not mentioned yet. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've put pre-eminent back, as well as prolific and versatility. Made his uncle famous again to stand out from father and cousin. I agree some things need to be said. I am glad you liked the addition to Context, about the art market at the time, although I do want to get better references for it, so any help much appreciated. If you could provide something about low status of landscapes as well, that would be great, thanks. I did add something about classical and tonal, towards the end of Legacy. Or do you mean that should be mentioned in the lead? Edwininlondon (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

First of all, thanks for all your work in bringing this here. Not familiar with van Ruisdael, but it seems the major points are touched. I think the lead is fine now, wouldn't trim further, and the works are wonderfully illustrated. My concern is slightly overwrought prose, which at times seem dated, have reworded a few instances. Remaining examples include "tells of", "the city of Amsterdam" and "dominating mountain scenes appear", other phrases that might need tending - "magnificent view", "phenomenal production" and "cleverly concentrating". Have not looked at the sources yet. Ceoil (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed the specific points you list. But I have a feeling there is more prose you find overwrought. Let me know how else I can make it better. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Noting the ongoing improvements in the last week, will come back to this soonish....Its looking much better. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Welcome to FAC! I believe that creation of curated content is one of the most important and potentially enjoyable activities on the project. I often focus on evaluating reference use and reference formatting, which I realize isn't the fun part of article development for most editors.

• The page is throwing a LOT of harvard reference errors when viewed with an analysis script. Check to make sure everything in the bibliography has a reference defined (such as |ref=harv). That will clean up some, but not all, of the errors. Bredius is cited with a 1911 date in the note but a 1915 date in its bibliography entry. Watson appears unused in the text.
• You use a mix of cite family templates and citation templates in the bibliography. These format their entries somewhat differently, especially as regards punctuation. You should stick with one or the other (I prefer the cite templates, but that's entirely a matter of editorial discretion). You can probably most easily convert the Oud Holland references to cite journal if you take this approach.
• English-language book titles need to be in Title Case. See Bakker and Webb, for example. Foreign-language titles do not obey this rule.
• As you've opted to include publisher locations, you need to include a state or country, as appropriate, for anything but the short list of internationally-recognized cities (that list is ... somewhere in our Manual of Style, but I can never find it when I need it). London and New York, for example, do not need further specification, but places like Farnham and Leuven certainly do.
• Foreign-language sources always need their language specified. Bredius, for example, needs to indicate that it is in (I think) Dutch.
• If some of the pre-ISBN books have OCLC numbers available, their inclusion is recommended.
• Check what punctuation is used to separate subtitles for some cited works. Israel 1995, for example, seems to generally be styled with a colon rather than a dash of any sort. If a dash is definitely used, it needs to be a spaced endash or unspaced emdash, per WP:MOSDASH.
• Be careful with authors vs. editors, especially for large reference works. Muller is the editor of Dutch Art: An Encyclopedia, not its author. In this particular case, the individual entries have their own authorship, and so should be cited more specifically.
• ISBNs should ideally be presented as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. I thought that was the case here already, but it looks like Reenen and Wijnands needs converted.
• Slive 2006 is not properly formatted.
• Hofstede de Groot and Smith are formatted differently in a manner that makes me suspect Smith should have its formatting changed.
• Does Stechow have a publisher?
• Wijnman is incompletely cited; it needs page numbers (and, ideally, an issue number, if one was assigned). Compare to the other Oud Holland entries.
• Check compliance with WP:EL; I suspect there are more external links provided here than really necessary.
  • Thanks very much for such detailed comments. I certainly learned a lot while fixing the issues, which I hope I have now. I shall make sure I will do it right for the two sources you mention below, of which the botanical one seems very good to add, I will write something about Jacob's realism. Thanks again. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In general, the literature surveyed is fairly comprehensive, although I'll offer a couple of other sources as options. There's no burden to include them if they don't add anything further:

• Is there anything of value in Alois Riegl's 1902 monograph on Ruisdael, or, alternatively, in this scholarly article discussing Ruisdael and Riegl?
• This article (available in full here) suggests he was historically significant for his depiction of botanically-accurate trees, which may be worth noting.

Neutral on article promotion as I have not examined prose at this time. Few of the referencing problems will require significant effort to correct. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The tree paper is certainly worth including - Slive makes the same point more briefly in his Yale/Penguin Dutch Painting. Thanks for finding this. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have referred to it in the Early years section, as the tree paper shows that's when he painted the trees mostly in close-up, while later he painted them too far away to be identified. BTW, I found an interesting paper, in Dutch unfortunately, about one of those trees being accurately depicted in the dunes painting Duinen aan zee, but according to this author Ruisdael made them appear there, while they actually grow in other habitats. http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/567303 This gets too technical to mention in the article, but it aligns well with the Bentheim castle high on a hill top being evidence for composition over photographic. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I struggle to get Riegl's work in. It just feels too technical. Would require a whole paragraph, which feels too much. Any more suggestions I can work on to make you change your Neutral stance? Edwininlondon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by an IP

• "During his early phase, the Haarlem years, starting in 1646, Ruisdael predominantly painted Dutch countryside scenes, of, for a teenager, remarkable quality." This is a mouthful. Is there a way to minimize the commas?
• "Waterfalls feature often in his oeuvre." Almost a jargon and would benefit the readers by providing a link.
• "His work was in demand in his home country during his lifetime, and afterwards in England as well" To minimize the use of "his", "his home country" should be changed to the name of the country itself, which would now parallel the use of "England"
• "His work was in demand in his home country during his lifetime, and afterwards in England as well, and today it is spread across private and institutional collections globally, with the National Gallery in London, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, and the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg each holding more than a dozen of his creations." Another mouthful of a sentence. A period perhaps after "England as well"?
• There just a lot of images incorporated in the layout, affecting the placement of subheaders etc etc.

• • Thank you for spending time making suggestions. I have addressed each point I believe. I removed two images. Since they are referenced in the text I will ask Jane023 to add them to the list of images at the bottom, pulling out two images not referred to in text. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No problem. Good luck! --124.107.75.38 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Iridescent

These are mostly minor nitpicks, rather than reasons to oppose. Note that I intentionally haven't read the comments above to try to come at it without preconceptions, so there may be some repetition. I know nothing about him, so am taking it on faith that the print sources are accurately represented.

Thank you for your minor nitpicks. Very much appreciated. I like you method of avoiding bias. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• There seem to be a lot of broken citations (install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors and you'll see them highlighted);
  • Thanks so much for pointing me into the direction of this tool. If only I had found this earlier. I have updated all and see no errors anymore. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• There's some text sandwiching between images, even at fairly standard-width displays; I know it's unavoidable with left-right staggering on very wide screens, but I'm getting sandwiching even at quite narrow widths. This isn't something I'd oppose over, but some of the MOS purists may take exception to it;
  • I removed his father's painting and the Doughty one. This should reduce the effect quite a bit, hopefully sufficiently. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• What does "The canvasses of early work like this are remarkably large for an inexperienced painter" mean? There's no correlation, as far as I know, between the experience of the artist and the size of works (other than that canvas was expensive and a struggling artist might not be able to afford large pieces of it).
  • I haven't been able to find any other references about canvas size and starting painters in the 17th century, so I made it a quote for the time being. It seems to me there is something significant going on, and I shall try to find a source for whether it is financial or confidence or anything else. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• "Following his travels, which helped him gain a broader view of nature and widened the horizon of his art" appears to directly contradict "it seemed he travelled relatively little"; from the Life section, it appears there's no evidence he ever left the Netherlands;
  • I clarified that Bentheim is in Germany. I'm not sure there is a contradiction. He travelled to a few places. The border area is very different from the Haarlem area. He gained a broader view. Do you think I need to say that the border area is very different? Edwininlondon (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd say it needs to be clearer what the range of his travels were. Especially in the context of an artist, to me "his travels … helped him gain a broader view of nature and widened the horizon of his art" implies some kind of Grand Tour, but if I understand the article there's no evidence he ever travelled more than around 200km from Amsterdam. (Sure, the geography and architecture of the Dutch-German border is different to that of North Holland, but not that different compared to Venice, Paris or the Swiss Alps.) ‑ iridescent 08:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I see. Certainly no grand tour. So I rewrote it to avoid any inferences: "Following his trip into Germany .." Edwininlondon (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• "The castle is not actually on a hill" appears to be directly contradicted by the first line of Bentheim Castle, which describes it as a hill castle, as well as by their own website which describes it as "a hilltop castle";
  • Rephrased to avoid a debate of what constitutes a hill, and now focussed on it being shown at various heights. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• I know we're all supposed to love Wikidata and all who sail in her, but I think the auto-generated Notable paintings is a major problem; as far as I can tell, the criteria for "notable" is "has an entry on Wikidata", which is undesirable unless you're either going to ensure every work is included, or Wikidata has a specific set of criteria for determining notability in this context. As regards artists, "notable works" should be those which at least one significant critic have determined to be notable, and a list of this nature should probably also include a note as to why they're considered notable. Including this section also bloats the article to an unreasonable length for anyone trying to print it out;
  • I removed it. I see that other FA articles of painters do not have a notable paintings section, for instance El Greco. I will however try to get some more images in, without creating a sandwich problem again. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I think this makes sense; basically, all you need is to be sure you have at least one representative picture from each phase of his career and each style he worked in, as well as anything discussed in detail in the article. People who want the complete works can follow the external links. ‑ iridescent 08:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Between the first and second sections, we go from the non-committal "there is no record of any trip to Scandinavia" to the decisive "He never went to Scandinavia". One or the other should be stuck with; do we know for certain he never went, or do we just not have a record of his movements?;
  • Clarified. I added reference of when van Everdingen went to Scandinavia. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• There seem to be some subjective value judgements stated as fact ("is seen as his grandest", "an admirable interior", "Indisputable proof of Ruisdael's extraordinary creative power", etc. If these are claims by particular critics, we should say so; we shouldn't be saying in Wikipedia's voice that any given thing is good or bad (whatever the work, there's bound to be someone who dislikes it);
  • Grandest now attributed to Slive; admirable removed; remarkable removed; extraordinary rephrased. I think I've got them all now. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• What is the context for the claim "Constable also copied various Ruisdaels as acts of homage"; did he specifically say this? Copying artworks by other artists (either as an exercise in working in an unfamiliar technique, or as a memento of a visit to a collection) was an absolutely standard practice by English artists in this period, and doesn't necessarily imply any particular admiration;
  • I understand your concern, but in this case Slive 2001 in Appendix 2, dedicated to Constable's copying of Ruisdael, describes Constable's admiration, and actually uses the word homage. But Constable did not specifically write the word homage. It is Slive's interpretation. Anyway, I rephrased it, avoiding the word homage. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• There are a couple of inappropriate contractions (couldn't, isn't);
  • Fixed. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• "[Ruisdael] was an influence on the Hudson River School, for instance Thomas Doughty" isn't backed up by the source provided, which doesn't mention Doughty once and is doubtful for the claim that he influenced the Hudson River School (the only mention of the HRS is "The Hudson River School painters infused their frontier Edens with something of his theatrical grandeur", but doesn't specifically say they were consciously imitating him). Hudson River School doesn't mention his name once, and says they were inspired by Lorrain, Constable and Turner, which seems far more likely; why would an artist like Doughty, who was born and lived in Philadelphia, even be aware of Dutch landscape painting?;
  • I have removed the Hudson School altogether for the time being, while I'll try to get better sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• For someone whose style is supposedly so unique and gifted, if this article is to be believed there appear to be an awful lot of other artists from the period whose work is mistakenly attributed to him. I appreciate there may not be sources for this, but do we know why, if he had such a unique style, so many works by his relatives, pupils and copyists have been successfully passed off as his?;
  • Yes, that is puzzling. I guess the root cause is money. But I have no sources. Would be good to find some, even about similar problems with Rembrandt or Vermeer. If you come across any, let me know. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • • He was much imitated. The "uniqueness" did not last, as with Rembrandt and other major imitable artists. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• What makes www.artble.com a reliable source? I can't see any attribution anywhere, but it looks like a user-generated wiki;
  • Better reference supplied (Slive 2001) Edwininlondon (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• What makes www.essentialvermeer.com, which appears to be a hobbyist site, a reliable source? ‑ iridescent 12:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree it should be better. The site is written by Jonathan Janson (painter) and the opening line there says he is an art historian. But I shall attempt to find book sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, there is no consensus for promotion on this occasion. Graham Beards (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2015 [12].

---

M15 Halftrack

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a relatively obscure (well, at least more obscure then the M16) anti-aircraft half-track. It originated from the T28 project, soon evolving into the T28E1. In 1943, it was modified into the M15 and M15A1 models. There were also two 40 mm sporting variants, the M15 "Special" and the M34. Both were just a 40 mm gun mounted on the M15 and they saw service in Korea (the M15 "Special served in the Philippines as well). It was first used in North Africa and was also used in Europe and Korea. I believe this should be featured because it is the widest possible article on the subject using every source available and has been rewritten four times. It also has been past a DYK, a GA, and a MILHIST A-class review. Thank you for any comments you have, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions from John

• Why is this article titled as it is and not M15 halftrack?
  • Standard military designations. It is normal for articles similar to this to have capital letters in the second word.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Check this Google search. It shows more results with the second letter capitalized.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmm. I am not completely convinced by this. How does it fit in with MOS:MILTERMS? --John (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Could we have metric conversions for quaint units like the "cubic inch"?
  • Finished--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --John (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• I don't think we need to wikilink Japan. Per WP:OVERLINK, countries aren't linked unless there is a special reason. (Done--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)) Otherwise it looks ok. --John (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --John (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

I'm not generally a military history article reviewer, so forgive my ignorance if I trip over MILHIST established conventions.

• I'm also confused about the article titling / capitalization. The actual designation for this thing, as I understand it, is the M15 Combination Gun Motor Carriage, which absolutely should be (and is, in the article) capitalized for that reason. I also agree that isn't how the article should be titled because of WP:COMMONNAME. I'm dubious whether designations other than the official one warrant capitalization, or whether "halftrack" or "Halftrack" is more common in the best-quality reviewed sources. Has the Military History Wikiproject approached this question before? It has significant consequences for link styling in addition to article titles.
  • This has been discussed on the talk page. In a Google books search, "M15 Halftrack" was the most popular title in major sources. The capitalization part however, is somewhat divided. At last count there where just a bit more sources using "Halftrack" than "halftrack", but I'm not sure on that.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• The lead suggests the M15 has an M6 sighting system; the Development section suggests (I think) that that is true only for the M15A1. Is there any article to link to provide context for "sighting system"?
  • Clarified.
• While I'm on the topic of that Development section, the below sentence is rather difficult to parse. You may benefit from splitting it up. I presume that the M54 is a new chassis, and that it is the M3 that was replaced? Or was the M54 a replacement for the M42, since the changes are weapons and their mounting configuration?

"A total of 680 M15s were produced in 1943 by White and Autocar before the considerable stress this mount placed on the M3 chassis resulted in its replacement with the M54; it reversed weapon placement, used simpler and lighter air-cooled M2 Brownings, and an M6 sighting system."

• • • Finished.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Likewise, the last bit about the M15 "Special". Is that the same thing as the "T19" or the "M34" (and are those quoted for a reason)? It seems they are, since the "Special" had a 40mm gun, and so did those, but ... perhaps not?
  • Personally, I'm not sure. Most of the sources (Hunnicutt and Zaloga are the first few I checked) stated nothing on how they were different. But they included them as Seperate variants, so I just previously assumed they were different.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Under Service history, there's the description "Browning M2 machine gun-equipped M16 MGMCs". Is this meant to be a contrast with the M15? Isn't the M15 also equippment with Browning M2s?
  • Better now?--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Is there anything interesting to say about the deployment of these guns in battles post-Kasserine? Some of the sources I glanced over suggested that there might be more to say here about their role at Normandy, and there's a report where one was used to destroy a train in France that may or may not have sufficient historical impact to be relevant here. It would be nice to be able to have something about what they did in the war, rather than just where they were present.
  • I've made an attempt to improve.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• I have no idea what "limited standard" means, but does that part of Service history mean that the "Special" really is something different from the M34?
  • Linked to the nearest article, and for the second query, see the response to your fourth comment.
• Any information available about whether any of these survive, perhaps as part of the collection at any of various military museums?
  • I would like to, but no RSs stating them.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm sure there's no formal survey of these things, because that would be too much to ask. Non-RS suggest that there's a half-dozen or so M15A1 at various military museums, mostly in the US. That's a good place to start, because it gives us locations to check in on. Plaques or guide brochures from these facilities are not conventional sources, but they may nevertheless be suitable for use as references. It's obvious that the museum at Fort Lewis has one, because it's sitting on the their lawn and the infobox has a picture of it! That said, I couldn't find anything online to confirm it was there; still, I feel its likely that its presence is verifiable with something. I had better luck with Fort Sill, which has an M15A1 destined for display in the yet-unfinished US Army Air Defense Artillery Museum. This is a suitable source confirming its presence, although I'm sad that a military museum thinks Flash is okay... Obviously, there's no expectation at FAC to hunt all these exhibits down, but if you can get something for 2 or 3 of them, that's sufficient to note that "several surviving M15A1 are in military museums, such as [foo, bar]", staple the references on the end, and call it a day. I'll see if I can find anything else. In addition to the those two, there should be M15A1s at Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, and the Anniston Army Depot. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, I can't find a source for the M15A1 at Fort Jackson that is reliable in and of itself. However, I found photographs of the exhibit of that M15A1, including the informative plaque: here, plaque closeup. That exhibit is a primary source, clearly, but it's hard to argue that a sign describing the exhibit of a vehicle at a US military museum, on a US military base, is not reliable for the purposes of documenting the existence of said vehicle. Indeed, while it doesn't get much use, {{cite plaque}} even exists for precisely this purpose. Especially if there's anything to add from the Fort Lewis Military Museum, that would get us up to three documented examples, and that's enough to make a "several" claim. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
        • If this works with you, that's enough.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Although arguably not a requirement, presenting ISBNs as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s is best practice. Conversion is easy.
• Journal sources do not typically require publishers or publication locations, and their inclusion is discouraged.
  • Removed.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• The United States Army Combat Forces Journal citation is incomplete due to the "Google Books trap". That journal provides volume and issue numbers; the scans available on Google Books' snippet view concatenate all the issues of a given volume. Additionally, the article needs its full page range provided (I don't believe this was exclusively on p. 28). Finally, I'm somewhat dubious of the authorship credit here; most articles in this journal have explicit bylines. Snippet view is, as normal, not very cooperative here. You may need to confirm bibliographical information elsewhere.
  • Ditched the source.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• The Popular Mechanics article needs its pagination included in the bibliography. You've got two options here, really. One is to indicate it as |at=front cover, p. 7, or to simply include |p=7 and the front cover mentioned much like it is now, in a parenthetical note. If you opt for the first approach, note that you can make "front cover" an external link in that field (although it's also possible that the metadata people will tell me that's bad...). Either way, you should also include the volume and issue numbers (volume 80, issue 6).
  • Finished.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• You have a ton of Further reading options. In general, I'm not a big fan of large Further reading sections at the FA level. Do these works contain relevant information about the article topic that is not convered by the article text? If so, why is that material not included? If not, how do they benefit the reader?
  • Only left one. That source contained the example with the train blowing up in France (if I am not mistaken).

Overall, I'm neutral here. I'm quite familiar with the difficulties of writing FA-level articles about narrow topics with limited available material. This article is also (unavoidably, really) heavy on dense tech-specs, and so the prose issues stand out to me more sharply than they would in a longer article. I don't think any of my objections are uncorrectable in the FAC timeframe, but I'd like to see things spruced up a bit here before I feel I can consider supporting promotion.

Comments by an IP

• Why is the lead not using the convert template?
  • You only used convert templates for first use of a measurement.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The use must be consistent. The infobox and the first section use those templates, while the lead isn't? --124.107.75.38 (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• United States, US, U.S., all found in the lead. Should be consistent which style to use.
  • Fixed US, but just to be sure people know, a direct link would be better.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't the change affects the linked ones, also? Sample: U.S. Army Coast Artillery Corps versus United States Army Coast Artillery Corps. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• "It was equipped with one M1 automatic 37 millimeter (1.5 in) gun and two water-cooled 0.5 inch (12.7 mm)". Not an aficionado. Is this how they are written, or should we switch everything for consistency?
  • Just how weapon stats are written.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Quite messy and unreadable. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, there is no consensus for promotion on this occasion. Graham Beards (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2015 [13].

---

Christ Church, Newton

Nominator(s): JackTheVicar (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a historic church and Anglican congregation in northern New Jersey that was chartered by George III. I have nurtured the article from creation, through DYK, and it was promoted to GA by Drmies. I think the article has been improved and that FAC, the natural next step, would polish off any last burrs. I hope you enjoy! JackTheVicar (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Hi, vicar, and thanks for this interesting article. I think, however, you should standardise your use of the ecclesiastical honorific. At present you have "the Rev.", "the Reverend" and "the Rev'd". All are OK, but you should choose one and stick to it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Brianboulton I've brought them all consistently in line with the Anglican form of "Rev'd" throughout. "Rev." kept slipping in, must be the Presbyterian influence :-). JackTheVicar (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Just a note--the Vicar and I chatted some about formatting the references, and I'm curious to see what y'all think about it and what your suggestions are. Jack, I won't weigh in yet since it's pretty much the same version I looked at, but I'll be glad to have a look after there've been some suggestions. Feel free to ping me at that time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian

• JackTheVicar, as I also have a historic church up for FAC, I've taken particular interest in your article for Christ Church. First and foremost, thank you for your hard work on this article, and for submitting it here for review and promotion to FA. I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review of your article, and I assess that it meets the attributes outlined at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable; its lede meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section; and it is written in an appropriate structure with consistent citations. An image review and other comments and suggestions are shared below. Thanks again for your hard work and dedication to this topic. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • JackTheVicar, upon my re-review of the article and a review of your responses, I hereby Support this article for promotion to Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by West Virginian (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede and overall Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines Christ Church, establishes the church's necessary context, and explains why Christ Church is otherwise notable. The info box for Christ Church is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein. The image of Christ Church in the info box is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and contains a GNU Free Documentation License, and is therefore good for inclusion in this article; an alt caption per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images has also been incorporated. The article is quite lengthy, so it would not hurt to add additional content representing the history section in the lede so that is a more comprehensive synopsis of the article's discussion. For example, when discussing the charter of the church, it is notable enough to mention that the colony's last royal governor, William Franklin, granted and signed a charter on behalf of Britain's King George III. Additional content from the architecture and brief mentions of some of the church's more prominent or noteworthy rectors would also work well here to enhance the lede. Also per WP:LEADCITE, because the lede contains information that is cited below in the prose, it is not necessary for its content to include inline citations. The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section. For the template at the top of the page, consider adding the NRHP data in a similar fashion, as it is incorporated in St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan). Reply: As the church is not on the NRHP in an individual basis, but instead as part of a historic district, I opted against including that in the infobox. I actually wish the infobox template used for churches were a little less gangly and less space-consuming in its design. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC) JackTheVicar, you can actually include the NRHP information as the church is a "contributing property" to a National Historical District, but this is optional, and you are absolutely correct about the gangly nature of the church template. I opted for the NRHP template for Hebron Church, but either is acceptable. Your info box looks great as is. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, Rev. is recommended over Rev'd and The Rt Rev. over The Rt Rev'd. Reply: This is an area where the MOS ought to be fixed. Coincidentally, someone mentioned this very issue on that MOS section's talk page. Using "Rev." is something Presbyterians do. While Americans being Americans do screw it up here and there, Anglicans worldwide are rather set on The "Rev'd" or "Revd". For instance, in an earlier draft I used the word "pastorate" once and caught hell for it (although it would have been appropriate and unnoticed in the 18th century). JackTheVicar (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC) JackTheVicar, I would see nothing wrong with using the term "pastorate" so that editor that gave you hell should learn to be more inclusive. I wonder if "Revd" would work better here; I think it is the apostrophe that makes it stand out. "Rev'd" works for me, but I wanted to make sure it was in keeping with a standard. Perhaps more pressure needs to be applied to the MOS folks to include it. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, alternative captions are suggested but are not required for the images in the articles. History Consider wiki-linking the first use of Sussex County in the Establishment subsection. Fixed JackTheVicar (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC) The image of the interior of the church is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here. Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, alternative captions are suggested but are not required. Elizabethtown can be de-linked in the second paragraph of the Establishment subsection as it is used above. Fixed JackTheVicar (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC) The image of the charter is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is suitable for use here. Again, an alt citation is suggested, but not required. The image of Christ Church, seen from across the street, during Winter 1910, is released to the Public Domain. An alt citation is suggested, but not required. In the Current church (1869–present) subsection, the final sentence of the third paragraph needs an inline citation. This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section. Architecture, furnishings and fittings The red link to Newton Town Plot Historic District can be de-linked in the first paragraph of this section as it is red linked above in the prose. Fixed :: I've intended to finish writing and researching an article on the NTPHD, but it's been "set on the back burner" for a few months now. Other articles stole me away. Maybe by mid 2016? JackTheVicar (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC) JackTheVicar, I most definitely understand. There are not enough days in the year for me to expand each of the National Register of Historic Places listings in Hampshire County, West Virginia, which has been a pet project of mine. Please ping me and let me know if/when you complete that article next year; I'd love to review it. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC) This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section. Rector Consider de-linking Knowlton Township, New Jersey in the first paragraph of this section. Fixed JackTheVicar (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC) An image of the Christ Church's first parsonage was licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is acceptable for use here. An image of the Thomas Anderson House is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore suitable for use here. This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Comments from Tomandjerry211 (alt)

First of all, I agree with all of West Virginian's comments, and I have a few others:

• Why do you need to put the page number outside the cite, when you just can put it in the cite?
  • Reply: That's the way the {{rp}} template (Template:Rp) works for some reason. Unfortunately, it's a compromise since the alternative—using cite templates—offer little flexibility to a user in writing a footnote and I'm not partial to how they format a citation, and the html <ref> citation method doesn't work well with repeated citations to a source that requires different page numbers for the relevant information being cited. the {{rp}} template seems to have been designed to remedy that shortcoming with the <ref> method. The {{sfn}} template is not one I use. As WP:WIAFA doesn't require a specific method, and my use or ref html tags with the rp template is consistent throughout the article and in keeping with the expected use of the rp template, is there an issue?JackTheVicar (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Inconsistency: "p. 13–14, pp. 23–24", pp. is preferred by many.
  • Fixed & Reply: As Template:Rp says "Do not add "Page", "pp.", etc.—just the numbers." in its instructions, I'm removing all references to p. or pp. in the article. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Citation for the first note?
  • Fixed & Reply: I condensed information found at Episcopal Diocese of Newark and diocesan websites. Citations added.
• Why do you have to pipe link to Christ Church (Disambiguation) (which is a redirect) instead of just directly linking to Christ Church.
  • Fixed & Reply: I removed the pipe link to the redirect. I don't know why other than that might have been the page I found when I wrote the article, but I don't remember after all these months. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI For specious reasoning, RussBot keeps changing pipelinks in hatnotes to "x (disambiguation)" even if that page is a redirect to x. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, I'm happy with this article. Thanks,Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Tomandjerry211 (alt) :: Thanks for looking through the article and offering your support. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Some of the details appearing in the infobox do not appear to be sourced anywhere in the article (eg. the Director of Music). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed: Source added to two names in infobox. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been deleted , but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: Can we hold off on closing this as the article has been restored? I'm happy to take on the task of the final polishing for FA if the Jack is banned. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think a fresh start would be better. The article can be renominated after the bot as run. Under the, unprecedented, circumstances, the customary 14 day waiting period is waived. Graham Beards (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: The only concern I have is the comments in support of it would be lost on the new one if that was done. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This is my decision, sorry. Usually reviewers watchlist articles and return to subsequent FACs. There would not be any problems in your leaving a neutrally-worded reminder on their page should this not be the case. Graham Beards (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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