Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2017

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2017 [1].

Battle of Goodenough Island[edit]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert and Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Australian amphibious operation during the Second World War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Readable, compact account of a battle that turned out to be harder than expected. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This reads smoothly, and I could find little to quibble about. I made a few minor edits here. Please revert any that seem misguided. Here are a few suggestions or questions:
Background
  • " Important features were often missing from maps, and some features had different spellings." – Logic? Feature A's spelling would naturally differ from Feature B's. Maybe this would be better: "Important features were often missing from maps, and the spellings of feature names sometimes varied from map to map."
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aircraft and ships headed from Milne Bay to Buna and vice versa had to pass near Goodenough Island, so an Allied presence on the island could provide warning of Japanese operations while denying the Japanese the opportunity to observe Allied ships and aircraft. – Tighten prose by changing ", so an Allied presence" to "; thus Allies" and "could provide warning" to "warn"? "So" is the wrong connector here because it implies that the ship movement brought about the Allied presence.
    "Thus" doesn't work for me; maybe the copyeditors can explain why. Split sentence in two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus" is a bit stuffy in this context. The split is fine. Finetooth (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prelude
  • "After makeshift airstrips were cut through the grass, four of them were able to fly out again." – What happened to the fifth?
    It crashed on landing and was written off. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Battle
  • "It was planned to trap the Japanese..." – Delete "was"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 6 miles (9.7 km) away" – Round to 10 km since "about"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It had some wounded men on board, resulting in further casualties." – Logic? Does this mean that those wounded men were wounded again by the aircraft? Or does this mean that the aircraft attack wounded other men? Or both?
    Deleted "It had some wounded men on board". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Base development
  • "before the base was wound up " – "was closed" rather than "was wound up"? Finetooth (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good. Switching to support on prose as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Auntieruth

  • A few minor issues:
same as Finetooth (above), and:
  • does gruelling really have 2 ls? (is that Aussie-speak?)
    Standard English (but also the Australian variant). The l is duplicated when the -ing suffix is added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • do these ships normally have whaleboats? Or is a whaleboat something other than what I'm thinking it is?
    Only on a whaler, but as the whaleboat points out, they have long been used in amphibious operations. There was a search of Australia for suitable small craft to use in New Guinea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gatewood could not get through on the radio because the petrol generator that supplied power to the radios at Mud Bay had broken down, thereby cutting Arnold's link with Mud Bay, Milne Force and Taleba Bay. The failure of the petrol generator that powered the radios cut Arnold's link with Mud Bay, Milne Force and Taleba Bay. (or something. if he was at Mud Bay and using their radios, then his link wasn't cut with Mud Bay. Or was it?)
    It's the way a radio network works. The set at Mud Bay was more powerful. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead, Japanese aircraft strafed the Australian positions, as well as the ketch McLaren King in Mud Bay. It had some wounded men on board, resulting in further casualties. In the absence of air cover, Japanese aircraft strafed the Australian positions and the ketch McLaren King waiting in Mud Bay with wounded men aboard, resulting in further casualties. ?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • so the pace of construction work was lifted. what does this mean? quickened? or stopped?
    More Army talk. To lift the pace means to accelerate it. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also did a couple of minor edits here. Feel free to revert. I'll be ready to support..... auntieruth (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an edit conflict, but I have made sure the changes are still there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, Nikki, thanks for taking a look. Adjusted with this edit: [2]. Is that better? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks better, but should be done using |upright= rather than px per WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I have set them to |upright=1.5, which makes them the same size to me, as my default image size is 300px (very small). Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz

Hello, a few minor questions/suggestions, I haven't made any edits

Sorry, have added a couple of clarifications to my clumsy original comments...

Sorry Hawkeye, 'my bad', what I was getting at is that dissect refers to what a scalpel does, whereas intersect can be "to divide into parts", (which I expect original author meant)
  • rain forest - one word?
    Two is the normal Australian form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • McLaren / Maclaren
    Maclaren. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "destroyed its radios" - sounds ambiguous ie whose radios, the stranded Japanese or own?
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "offshore with a some degree of shelter" - remove 'a' or 'some'?
    Deleted"a" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bombing and strafing of native villages by the Allied Air Forces" - sounds like intentionally trying to kill nationals
    Not sure how to handle this one. Later in the war they would buzz native villages to let everyone know they needed to clear out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it must have been collateral / unintended consequences - (unless of course the villages were 'occupied' by enemy so strafing them was intentional). Maybe at "The bombing and strafing of native villages by the Allied Air Forces" simply delete "of native villages" to remove the horrid implication?
  • "The rest of No. 5 Airfield Construction Squadron arrived..." - 'rest of' confused me as previously worded as "No. 5 Mobile Works Squadron RAAF"
    That's them. The name changed in July 1944. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Australians were crossing a creek that was in front of a steep hill. The Japanese commander waited until the Australians were almost at his position before opening fire with machine guns and mortars. The troops who had crossed the creek found hand grenades were being rolled down the hill at them; those behind it were pinned down by heavy and accurate fire. Arnold decided to pull back.[23] That night, he formed a defensive position, and beat off a small Japanese counterattack.[24]" - a) no casualties? b) 'counterattack' - had Allies attacked since creek incident or 'another attack'?
    Changed "counterattack" to "attack". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
casualties? it says "accurate fire". I was trying to work out where the rest of the 13 were killed
  • "Two died from malaria in November 1942, and another, Shigeki Yokota, was taken prisoner in July 1943.[32]" - who had lived with locals for 9 months?
    No, just evaded capture, living in the jungle and scrounging food from native gardens. The Papuans were strongly anti-Japanese. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
but Yokota was nabbed and kept by locals from Oct 42 til they handed him over (per content blurb at bottom of the ajrp interrogation ref)
  • "but caused no damage and only wounded two men" the placement of 'only' sounds dismissive of those 2 blokes - maybe '... and wounded only two men'?
    Fair enough. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meanwhile, a four-man survey party from No. 5 Mobile Works Squadron RAAF arrived on Goodenough Island on 3 January 1943." - previous section speaks of March 43 so 'meanwhile' sounds odd, maybe '... RAAF had arrived on Goodenenough...'
    Deleted "meanwhile". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about military history but found this very readable. Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. We often have trouble with military jargon. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support:
    • All tool checks ok (no dabs, external links ok, no duplicate links, no citation errors, Earwig tool reports no issues [3]) (no action req'd).
    • The Battle of Milne Bay is specifically mentioned and linked in the lead but not directly in the article (although mentioned in the prelude as an "attack on the Allied forces at Milne Bay"). I wonder if it should be mentioned by name or at least with a link in the body of the article as well? Also the outcome of that action is not mentioned unless I missed it, but it might seem relevant given that its conclusion presumably allowed the release of the 2/12th Bn to move to Goodenough and elements of 2/10th Bn to Normanby Island in the first place (my assumption only I haven't looked for a ref to back that up).
    • "Boarding the destroyers HMAS Stuart and Arunta on 22 October, the Australian troops were transported to Goodenough Island..." From where? I'm assuming they were still deployed around Milne Bay at this time. Is that right?
    • "Drake Force had two AWA 3B Wireless Sets for maintaining communication with Milne Force." Readers might be unaware what "Milne Force" was so I wikilinked it (no action req'd).
    • "the Taleba Bay force on Stuart came ashore in Tieryo, a ship's launch and a ship's whaleboat,[21] and was ashore" - repetitive use of "ashore" twice in one sentence. Perhaps reword one?
    • The use of native police guides by Arnold's force might be mentioned (for ref see McCarthy p. 347 and Powell p. 117).
    • Spot-checks: completed for Collie & Marutani 2009, McCarthy 1959, Gill 1968, Powell 2003, Dexter 1961, Drea 1992, and Odgers 1957 (as I have copies of these in my possession). All seem to support information as presented with no issues of close paraphrase that I could see (no action req'd).
    • Overall this looks in very good shape to me, just a couple of points above to address / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that all your points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • G'day, AC, thanks for taking a look. Hawkeye: sorry, I appear to have edited the article at the same time as yourself. Please feel free to adjust my edits as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review: the article consistently uses {{sfn}} formatting for short citations throughout, and the reference list also uses a consistent format so I couldn't see any issues there. All sources used look to me to pass WP:RS with the majority being dead tree sources published by reputable publishers, and a couple of web resources published by the Australian War Memorial. The books used including the key Australian and US histories of this period, and whilst some are a little dated (1950s and 1960s) they are still the main sources on this topic in my experience. A couple of Japanese sources (i.e. Tanaka and Collie & Marutani) have also been used which help to build on these. Again no issues that I could see. Anotherclown (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we just need a source review for formatting and reliability, unless I missed one. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done above now, thanks for the prompt. Anotherclown (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2017 [4].

Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve[edit]

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an unusual marble cave and its surrounds, which lie in a remote sector of the Siskiyou Mountains near the Oregon–California border in the United States. The cave, promoted by hucksters in the pre-monument days and boosters dressed in animal skins in the 1920s, has been a popular tourist attraction since the late 19th century. In addition to its "show cave", the monument includes the only subterranean stream in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, a chateau listed as a National Historic Landmark, and a Douglas-fir tree with a circumference of 41 feet (13 m). Finetooth (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. The writing is more accessible than the caves! - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Thanks @Nikkimaria: I bumped it to 300px. That creates a bit of a text sandwich but still looks OK to me. I'm open to further suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think it's still too small, I could remove the Belly of the Whale image and make the map even bigger. Finetooth (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I've replaced the fixed width with upright 1.4. Finetooth (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Syek88[edit]

This article is clearly in very good shape. I have some comments about the history of the legal status of the monument and preserve.

  • The lead says "A separate visitor center in Cave Junction accounts for 4 acres (1.6 ha) of the total." But the National Defence Authorization Act 2015, at Section 3041(b)(3), provided: "Boundary adjustment.--The boundary of the National Monument and Preserve is modified to exclude approximately 4 acres of land--(A) located in the City of Cave Junction; and (B) identified on the map as the 'Cave Junction Unit'." It seems that the Cave Junction site is no longer part of the Monument and Preserve?
  • This is a good catch. I've altered the acreage (with a citation) to reflect the total listed in December 2016 by the Land Resources Division of the NPS, and it is 4554 rather than 4558. That is 4 acres smaller than my earlier claim, and it appears that the visitor center in Cave Junction accounts for that. I need to poke about some more to make sure the lower visitor center is still open and then re-add mention of it. Finetooth (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's run by a community development group under contract to the NPS. I added this to the article, with a citation. Done with this one, I think. Finetooth (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2014, the monument was expanded by about 4,000 acres (1,600 ha)" - While this is what the newspaper said I don't think it is correct. The monument was not expanded. A national preserve was tacked onto the existing monument. The 2014 changes did not invoke the Antiquities Act. Later parts of the article draw a clear (and correct) distinction between monument and preserve.
  • You are right. I changed "monument" to "protected area" in the lede. Finetooth (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An additional visitor center occupies 4 acres (1.6 ha) in the city of Cave Junction." - The reference for this sentence is pre-2014. It might be good to get an updated reference for the status of the visitor center after the 2015 changes that seemed to have excised it from the park.
  • Might it be worthwhile pointing out that the 2014 "expansion" came at the expense of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest, in which the 4,000 acres previously sat? (2015 Act, Section 3041(b)(2)(B)). This would explain to the reader the passing reference to the new land having been "managed formerly by the U.S. Forest Service".
  • Is there anything interesting about the politics of the 2014 expansion?
  • Not that I'm aware of. Did you have anything in particular in mind? Finetooth (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just seemed peculiar to me that this measure would be included in an omnibus defence spending bill. I wondered if a powerful local congressman had slipped it in, or whether perhaps the group of seven or so new or expanded parks was an environmental measure of the Obama administration and a defence spending bill was a convenient vehicle to slip it into. But none of this is necessary for the article, especially if we don't know the answers. Syek88 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought maybe you were thinking of formal opposition to park expansion on economic or ideological grounds, but I haven't seen evidence of that. For the local people, the park seems to be a generally welcome money-maker. In this article you can see two senators and one representative who were happy with the expansion as well. The preserve would seem to have nothing to do with national defense, but there it is. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all. Syek88 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now marking this as a support as I have nothing of significance outstanding. One minor thing: the section entitled "Climate" twice uses the term "main unit", which might now be redundant. Syek88 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you @Syek88: for your support and for your really helpful suggestions, including mention of those two anachronistic "main unit"s, which I have now replaced.

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

There is apparently no link to this FAC page on the article's talkpage. Were the nomination procedures fully carried out?

  • I don't understand what has gone wrong, but you are right; the FAC info is missing from the article's talk page. When I try to re-add it, the template appears poised to create archive 2, which I think would compound the difficulties. Can someone here help me with this? I'm flummoxed. Finetooth (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now posted a "help" note about this issue to the FAC talk page. Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've assembled these comments over the past few days, and some may have been raised and resolved through other reviews – my apologies if this is the case. Mainly they refer to points of style and requests for minor clarification. I am delighted with Finetooth's overdue return to the FAC page, and look forward to seeing this article grace the main page in due course.

Lead:

  • "The climate is generally mild even at the cave's elevation of about 4,000 feet (1,200 m) above sea level, but icicles can form at the cave entrance, and winter snow sometimes blocks the park highway." Detail barely leadworthy, and not first para material. Maybe a brief climatological mention further down the lead.
  • "After passage of the Antiquities Act by the United States Congress, President William Howard Taft established Oregon Caves National Monument, to be managed by the United States Forest Service, in 1909". I'd slightly reorder this sentence, e.g.: "After passage of the Antiquities Act by the United States Congress in 1909, President William Howard Taft established Oregon Caves National Monument, to be managed by the United States Forest Service".
  • Agreed and done except that I moved the comma after 1909 two words to the left since the Antiquities Act became law in 1906. Finetooth (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Finetooth (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest "The popularity of the automobile..." → " The growing popularity of the automobile..."
  • "The Park Service, which assumed control..." – I assume this is the National Park Service previously referred.
  • Yes. I've now added (NPS) after the first use in the lede and used NPS in the many instances thereafter in the main text. I did the same with United States Forest Service (USFS). Finetooth (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, the River Styx, which flows through the cave and emerges as Cave Creek, was named to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System." I'm slightly mystified by the phraseology of this sentence. What does "named to" actually mean? And how does the name "River Styx", with its classical allusion, fit the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System?
  • I changed "named" to "added" and added info about the name origin and its relation to the Greek Styx. I added a sentence briefly explaining the protection afforded by the listing. I hope this clarifies sufficiently. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that formed in marble"; Suggest delete "that"
  • "In addition to cave touring..." The "In addition" formulation is a bit tired, and has been used previously in this lead. Suggest begin the last paragraph "Activities at the park include..."
  • Clarify that the 13 feet refers to the tree's width – "thickest" is a little imprecise".

Geography

  • "...Oregon–California border in Josephine County, Oregon.[7] Oregon Caves has..." Can some rewording be done to avoid this close repetition of the state name?
  • On further reflection, the following two sentences are unrelated to the site's "geography", and I wonder if this basic information is worth including?
  • I removed them but re-added brief mention of the off-site visitor center to the "Activities" section.
  • Mount Elijah: consider a redlink or creating a stub.
  • "In December 2014, the U.S. Congress enlarged the protected area that includes the cave and changed its name to Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve." It's not clear from the text what the name was, before it was changed in 2014.
  • "This means that two distinct contiguous units of the national park system share the Oregon Caves name". An "enlargement" does not automatically suggest "two distinct contiguous units". some further clarification required, perhaps?
  • Clarified by rewriting the paragraph. Please check to see if it now makes better sense. Finetooth (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • Insert the word "had" before "emigrated" in third paragraph.
  • "Isolated and difficult to reach, the monument attracted only 1,800 visitors in 1920". As you've jumped 10 years, I'd expand this sentence slightly: "Isolated and difficult to reach, the monument initially attracted few visitors – by 1920 only 1800 for the year" – or similar?
  • "a cave-formation washing system"? Further clarification please.
  • Yes, it sounds a bit strange. It was a system of pipes and hoses that allowed the staff to wash mud out of the cave with water. I altered the main text to clarify and and added a note of further clarification. Finetooth (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2001, the Park Service began running the cave tours formerly offered by private contractors" I had not realised that despite the caves being owned and managed by public bodies since the early 20thC, the tours were still operated by private companies until 2001. Perhaps make this point clear a little earlier.
  • Not done yet. I need to look at my sources again and see if I can sort this out. Finetooth (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I added a sentence to the eighth paragraph of the "History" section that explains that the public-private contract of 1923 was the first of many similar contracts extending into the 21st century. Finetooth (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a non-profit based in Cave Junction..." Word missing? A non-profit (....) based in...etc
  • Suggest (final paragraph): "...transferred from the Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest to create the National Monument and Preserve".

Geology and paleontology

  • "Of the more than 3,900 caves managed by the National Park Service, only those in Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve, Kings Canyon National Park, and Great Basin National Park have marble caves." I'm slightly unhappy with this wording as it stands. Perhaps begin: "Of the more than 3,900 cave systems managed..." etc? Otherwise we have caves containing caves.
  • "cut through the marble in places" → "has cut through the marble in places"? Also watch close repetitiion of "in places" in next line, and also the return of "in addition" (I know, I know...)
  • Changed to "have cut". Rewrote the paragraph to eliminate the repetition. Finetooth (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My punctuation sense would delete the comma after "mountain beaver", but this may be a transatlantic preference. I'll defer on this one.
  • It's a mistake rather than a preference. I removed it. Finetooth (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

  • Returning to a point I raised re. the lead: the second paragraph here gives great detail about temperatures etc at Cave junction, which is 20 miles away from the caves and at a much lower altitude, so I wonder about the necessity for this detail in an article about the caves.

Flora and fauna

  • "Five at-risk species are found in the cave" – suggest "Five at-risk bat species are found in the cave" for clarity.

Activities

  • "...must not take any clothing or equipment into Oregon Caves that entered any other cave or mine." Inset "had previously" before "entered".
  • Added "have previously" since the problem is ongoing. Finetooth (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to repeat the "six-story" description?
  • Generally: this section describes "facilities" rather than "activities", and this may be a more suitable title.
  • Changed to "Recreation and lodging". I have an aversion to the word "facilities", which is too much of a catch-all. I'm open to other suggestions if my new title doesn't seem right. Finetooth (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support when these points have been considered. Brianboulton (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I have addressed everything in one way or another. Glad to be back and glad for this review. Finetooth (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Happy with all your responses, and pleased to add my support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your thorough review, which was very helpful, and thank you for your support. Finetooth (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review unless I've missed it. If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source review - looks good overall, only a few queries. I've reviewed this version of the article.
    • What's "Los Angeles Times Service"? (ref 12)
  • Good catch. I don't know what it refers to. Furthermore, the claim it supports is minor and unnecessary. I removed both, and this leaves the sense of the claim intact, supported by ref 3. Finetooth (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't saying you needed to remove it—that was mainly my curiosity. It's a perfectly good citation if you'd like to keep it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't. I removed it and the minor claim that it supported. The sense of the claim is left intact, supported by ref 2. Finetooth (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A National System" does not make it clear that it's a government website. (ref 14)
  • The government agency, the publisher in this case, is the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Created by the U.S. Congress in 1968, it is managed by an interagency council with members from the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. The URL is a dot-gov and the agencies' logos appear on the cited web page. I added the interagency info to the publisher's name in the citation, but that may be overkill. I'm open to suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cave Photographs" and "Off-Trail Caving Tours" need publishers. (refs 49 and 61)
  • Added the publisher, the National Park Service in both cases. Finetooth (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sourcing! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 [5].

Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851[edit]

Nominator(s): Lourdes (talk) and Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first first-class cricket match to take place in Australia, although that is more of a quirk of history as the concept of such games is rather anachronistic. However, it was a grand occasion and the first cricket game between two colonies/states in Australia. Most of the heavy lifting in this article was done by Lourdes, over quite a long period. I sauntered in and added a few more sources and a bit of context. I think this article now meets the criteria. It is a GA (review here under a different name), was nominated at FAC twice before (here and here under a slightly different name) and had two PRs, but the article has changed considerably since then. Wehwalt kindly gave some thoughts on the talk page. It is sourced as well as it can be. Any further thoughts or comments are welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, yada yada. See the history for my edits. (I don't have my macros on this computer). - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you edits and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments both at the earlier peer review and informally on talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and earlier comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Although I have never played cricket, I enjoy reading about it. Fortunately, this article has links to most of the delicious terms I find mysterious. I have a few minor questions and suggestions, as follows:
Lede
  • "The next morning, the home team scored the required runs for the loss of one more wicket, recording a three-wicket victory." – A baseball player might wonder why this isn't expressed as a 141 to 139 victory.
Background
  • "the New South Wales governor ordered that equipment should be made in government workshops" - For this game only?
  • "The distances between the colonies..." – Would it be helpful for outsiders to know how far this was? Would it be helpful to name the colonies as they existed then?
  • Not sure about these. It seems a touch overdetailed to me, and I'm not too sure where to find out. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only three years after the foundation of Melbourne" – Should that be "founding" rather than "foundation"?
  • "there were few clubs, and none in Hobart until 1832 or in Launceston until 1841" – Outsiders probably won't know that Hobart is in the south and Launceston the north. It's implied later in the paragraph, but maybe just saying it straight out would be more clear.
Van Dieman's Land innings
  • What is the meaning of the 7 in "34/7" in the total runs box?
Aftermath
  • "During and after the game, social events continued to take place..." – Tighten to "Social events continued during and after the game..."?
  • "reinforced by four cricketers from southern Tasmania (which was later recognised as a Tasmanian team)..." – Would this be more instantly clear as "from southern Tasmania, which later had its own team"?
  • Not quite what it means. It's quite ambiguously phrased so I've tried to clear that up a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  • None of the three images has alt text. I've been largely absent from FAC for a while, so perhaps alt text is no longer required for FA. Not sure. Finetooth (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks for your comments, always good to see you at FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. An enjoyable read, and I now understand the scoring conventions a little better. I have noted my support above. Finetooth (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support -- Old-time sports articles generally pique my interest. I'll comment as I read:

  • " and was reasonably popular by the mid-1810s,[7] the first recorded matches took place only in 1825." -- Am I misreading this? It was reasonably popular ten years before the first recorded matches took place. What's a recorded match if it's different from previous matches?
  • In cricket, historically, a "recorded match" refers to a match that has an available scorecard documented in a reliable source. This piece by ESPN on the history of cricket would give you a fair idea of the usage of the term "recorded match". "Reasonably popular" refers to the public indulging in the sports at a recreational level. I'll defer to Sarastro1 to decide whether to use a note here to clarify, or leave it as it is. Lourdes 11:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A recorded match is one for which at least the names of the teams and a date survive, sometimes a scorecard. This simply means that cricket was played, but no records of organised games survive. It might just have been a knock about in a field. I'm inclined to think we don't really need to expand on this too much. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't desire expansion at all, just wanted to clarify what was meant by this. -- Shudde talk 07:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "born in England but emigrating to Australia in 1844 and establishing himself as a leading figure at the MCC" -- the tense used here reads strange to me. Could I suggest "who was born in England and emigrated to Australia in 1844 before establishing himself as a leading figure at the MCC"
  • "An invitation was sent to Launceston Cricket Club" --> "An invitation was sent to the Launceston Cricket Club" ?
  • " bowlers in Tasmania continued to use underarm bowling at a time when round-arm bowling was permitted in the rest of the world." -- was roundarm bowling forbidden in Tasmania or was it just not practiced?
You're right. Tasmania did not allow round arm bowling. I've placed a note for clarifying the same. Lourdes 12:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the Tasmanian team was selected from throughout the colony, is there any information on how they were selected?
I've searched all the relevant sources, but have not been able to find out information on how they were selected. Maybe Sarastro1 might have more inputs here. Lourdes 12:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are very vague on selection for most 19th century cricket. I could hazard a guess or two, but nothing with a reference and mainly OR; it was probably a case of who was a decent cricketer and who was available to play. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Up to "First innings" and so far so good. Will finish the review promptly. -- Shudde talk 10:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • The first innings section reads very well to me, but I am familiar enough with cricket that most of the jargon doesn't phase me. A novice's opinion would probably be valuable.
  • "Hall was leg before wicket from the bowling of McDowall shortly afterwards for six" --> "Hall was dismissed leg before wicket from the bowling of McDowall shortly afterwards for six" ?
  • "William Phillpot was run out by Tabart for three and Cooper was bowled by Henty for a duck, the fifth man out with the score on 28." -- is this a run-on sentence?
  • I think it is reasonable enough as it is, containing just two clauses. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can an innings "take" 17 overs?
  • "won matches at the college and may have played further games in Tasmania." -- it isn't explicitly clear that this is referring to Bishopthorpe College (and I assume this is who "college" is). I suggest "played and won further matches at the college and may have played additional games in Tasmania."
  • Went for the simplest option and named the college again. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In one, they defeated a team from Launceston, reinforced by four cricketers from southern Tasmania (which, although it contained only southern players was later officially designated a team representing the whole of Tasmania); they then beat a team from Hobart composed only of southern Tasmanians." -- is the bracketed comment properly placed here?
  • I think it is, unless you have a better suggestion. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're going to have to clarify this for me. The team from Lauceston (northern Tasmania as I understand it) was reinforced with some southern players, yet the whole team also contained only southern players and was later officially designated a team representing the whole of Tasmania? -- Shudde talk 07:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shudde, I've shifted the note a few words later so that it makes sense. I guess the "all southern players" reference is to the Hobart team, and not the Launceston team. I've corrected that - however, would prefer Sarastro1 checks off this addition before you strike this off your checklist. Lourdes
Looks fine to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Converted the statement in brackets to a note. Lourdes 07:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great thanks. That clarifies that. -- Shudde talk 14:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the heavy defeats" -- that they were heavy was not mentioned earlier (and neither was the score of those two matches). Maybe: "Both defeats were heavy for Tasmania, but despite this the popularity of the matches led directly to the formation of a new club ..." or something
  • "Tasmanian cricket remained less developed than that in the rest of Australia and failed to keep pace with changes in the game." -- it's implied but not explicitly stated, but did the lack of inter-colonial cricket contribute to this, or was it the other way around (or a mixture of the two).
  • The sources are not really clear on this at this point in the tale; earlier it was self-inflicted to some extent. At this point, it would be guesswork on my part. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their match against New South Wales in Melbourne in 1856 was the first between two colonies on the Australian mainland." -- this could read as though this was the first inter-colonial match to take place on the mainland (which is false) rather than the first between two mainland colonies. Needs to be rewritten.
  • "By 1864" --> "In 1864"? -- I think by is the wrong preposition here, as it's occurred in 1864 not before 1864.
  • "In 1871, Norwood Cricket Club in Adelaide arranged matches against Melbourne." -- were these club fixtures or defacto inter-colonial matches?
  • "the first team played 12 games, winning six and losing two with the remainder drawn, and the second team played 16 games, winning 10 and drawing 6." -- per WP:NUMNOTES should probably be "the first team played 12 games, winning 6 and losing 2 with the remainder drawn, and the second team played 16 games, winning 10 and drawing 6."
  • "One of the umpires from the game, C. J. Weedon, retained a ball used in the match. His family later donated it to the Launceston museum.[17]" -- this sentence seems oddly placed, I'd consider it moving it to somewhere earlier in that section.
  • "In recent years, the match has been recognised as the initial first-class match to be played in Australia." I know some explanation is given later in the paragraph, but why "In recent years"? Was it in 1981 or not?
  • This is a good question. The available sources are woefully vague on individual matches. I'm not really comfortable going further than this as I don't know at what point someone sat down and said "You know, this should have been first-class!" Hence the slightly ambiguous wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could always say it is "now" rather than "recently" recognised. This avoids the problem to some extent. -- Shudde talk 07:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fitted in the term "now". Seems doable. Lourdes 07:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead (which I normally read last):

  • "The match was planned to celebrate the separation of the Port Phillip District from New South Wales in 1851 as the colony of Victoria." -- is this quite true? Reading the article it seemed to indicate that this was more of a coincidence and so the match was incorporated into these celebrations.
  • "Van Diemen's Land replied with 104, assisted by a large number of extras, coping better than expected with the overarm bowling, although Thomas Antill took three wickets in four balls in returning figures of seven wickets for 33 runs." -- I think this sentence reads a little awkwardly and you should consider splitting it up.

Overall a well written and interesting article. I have few complaints and most of my comments are very pretty trivial. I have not checked the sources, captions or images, but am happy with it's coverage and prose. I look forward to supporting. -- Shudde talk 15:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to you and Lourdes for addressing my concerns. I'm happy to support. -- Shudde talk 14:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria. Lourdes 13:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bruce1ee[edit]

I'm familiar with and enjoy modern-day cricket, so it was interesting to read how cricket was in those days. I've made several minor edits here, and I have a few comments:

Build-up

  • Why does "round-arm bowling" have a hyphen, but "underarm bowling" doesn't?

First innings

  • "They batted for an hour ... at which point a lunch break was taken": do we have the lunch time score?

Scorecard

  • This section has no sources.
  • Maybe I'm being stupid, but what are the numbers in brackets in the Method of dismissal column in the 2nd innings? Why are they absent from the 1st innings?
  • I've left a note at the end of the scorecard; they refer to batting position in the second innings and are standard cricket usage. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "Tasmanian cricket remained less developed than that in the rest of Australia and failed to keep pace with changes in the game.": For how long, or is this still true today?
  • Tasmanian cricket developed post World War II. In recent years, they've won the Sheffield Cup too. So no, it is not true today. Lourdes 14:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands that sentence suggests that Tasmanian cricket still is less developed than the rest of Australia. I think it should be changed to something like "Until World War II, Tasmanian cricket remained less developed ..." —Bruce1eetalk 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified this to reflect the source as we'd need to get other sources if we wanted to go down the WW2 route. Our source really only covers the 1800s. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The CricketArchive sources need a "(subscription required)" tag
  • Added a registration required tag. Lourdes 14:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref [7] (Finlay, Ric): I can't reach www.crickettas.com.au – is this a dead link, or is it just me? —Bruce1eetalk 12:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just you. Could be an issue with the browser. Try Firefox. Lourdes 14:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am using Firefox (52.0.2). I've tried again and I'm still getting "Server not found". —Bruce1eetalk 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working for me too. Not sure what the issue is here. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to worry, it could be my service provider. —Bruce1eetalk 07:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • The Kaufman, Jason; Patterson, Orlando is a JSTOR source and needs a "(subscription required)" tag
  • Added a registration required tag. Lourdes 14:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—Bruce1eetalk 19:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Bruce1ee for the time taken to review this article. Lourdes 14:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias talk[edit]

  • I'm mostly just looking at the scorecard; from the comments above, I'm happy to blindly support the prose.
    • What is the justification for the smaller font size? Per MOS:FONTSIZE, it should be used sparingly, and in this case I don't think it should be necessary; 1889–90 Currie Cup seems to display fine even on some quite small monitor resolutions using full-size font.
      • Shifted to normal font size. Lourdes 01:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per MOS:DTT you should use row and column scopes in the table. The Currie Cup table doesn't actually do this (oops) but 1978 Gillette Cup Final gives an example.
    • It probably isn't necessary to link Van Diemen's Land and Port Phillip quite so many times in the Scorecard section. In fact, it probably isn't necessary to link them at all, given they have been linked earlier in the article.
      • Done. I've reduced the linking to once in the whole article. Lourdes 01:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Key needs to include "st" for a stumping, and "lbw" given they happened in the match.
    • If you've got the width (I'm not sure) I'd write out byes, leg-byes and no-balls in full in the "Extras" row, rather than the abbreviations.
    • The table shows that Antill didn't have any bowling figures in the second innings, and yet he seems to have taken six wickets. Assume something has gone wrong with the table.
    • In Port Phillip's second innings, it should say "b 1" (or "byes 1"), not "b; 1".
  • No ISBN for The Complete History of Cricket Tours at Home and Abroad? Harrias talk 20:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias for the review. Lourdes 01:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Great piece of work, well done both. Harrias talk 09:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review and support, and thanks to Lourdes for getting these. I'm afraid I'm a little snowed under at the moment! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note / source review[edit]

Re. the source review request at WT:FAC, it looks like some work has already been done above; I think I can add a few points without having to recuse myself from coord duties...

  • I don't see any reliability issues.
  • Formatting-wise, unless I missed something it looks like FNs 23 and 27 are identical; also I'd expect title case for the paper, hence "and" not "And".
  • Lastly, is there a particular reason Barclay's World of Cricket appears as short cite plus book ref for Kilburn and Coward, and long citation for the two instances of Dunstan and Coward?
  • No real reason, put them together as short cites with book ref. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Ian for the note and review. Lourdes 08:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2017 [6].

St Vincent-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These three British battleships were ordered at a time when the government in power was interested in cutting expeditures on the Royal Navy and showed only minor improvements over their predecessors. They spent their entire careers based in home waters and did not have eventful careers during World War I, only seeing combat during the Battle of Jutland. One of them was destroyed by magazine explosions while at anchor in 1917 and the two remaining ships were effectively obsolete by the end of the war and were sold for scrap in the early 1920s. As always, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unexplained jargon. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few days ago, although I've tweaked it bit since then and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Compare: "Although Vanguard's wreck in Scapa Flow is a war grave, it was extensively salvaged afterwards." with: "Much of Vanguard's wreck was salvaged before it was declared a war grave in 1984." If it was declared a war grave only in 1984, then readers might take the "afterwards" in the first sentence to mean after 1984.
    • Good catch; see how it reads now. And thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I found one bit of unexplained jargon: 4th BS. I figured BS meant battle squadron?
    • You'll see it defined in the first para of the Careers section.
  • Also, maybe I'm old fashioned, but I always like a comma before "but"....auntieruth (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, me too. Thanks for alerting me to that little issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article at GAN and Milhist A-Class, and believe it now meets the Featured Article criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few things

  • "Vanguard's wreck was extensively salvaged before it was declared a war grave. Since 2002, however, it has been designated as a controlled site under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 and diving on the wreck is generally forbidden." I might cut the "however", which reads oddly because the last phrase, it being declared a war grave, is consistent with no diving.
  • What is a homogeneous battleship?
  • I might move the first image down a paragraph if possible because it clashes with the infobox in the desktop view I'm using.
  • A link to Asquith might be more useful than the link to Liberal, given where the reader is likely to find discussion of the naval arms race.
  • Ref 16: Is there a dot after "St"? (I'm doing this offline)
  • "Data from a 9-foot (2.7 m) Barr and Stroud coincidence rangefinder located at each control position, together with the target's speed and course information, was input into a Dumaresq mechanical computer " should input be inputted?
  • "As a backup, two turrets in each ship ('A' and 'Y' in St Vincent) could take over if necessary" I might put "fire control" (or whatever the appropriate term is) before "if necessary".
  • "Collingwood served as a boys' training ship on 22 September 1921" I might say "from" rather than "on"
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited. I note that the ISBNs seem a mix of 10 digit and 13 digit. Suggest going one way or the other.--Wehwalt (talk)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2017 [7].

Banded stilt[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a cool Australian bird that's had some really interesting new knowledge about it become known in the past few years. I've scoured material and reckon its pretty complete. It got a grilling at GAN by Funkmonk. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from 1989 17:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from 1989

Could you add alt text to the images? 1989 16:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the taking off, Port Fairy image, there needs to be an {{flickrreview}} template at the bottom of the license template, and the license needs to be changed to 2.0 for accuracy. -- 1989 19:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Riley[edit]

As always some quick comments (Note: If I stop reviewing at any time and if all of my comments were addressed or commented on, please disregard this or regard this as a weak support).

  • Maybe add a picture or two to the behaviour section? If you can't find any showing the banded stilt relevant to the section, then maybe include a picture of its prey or something like that.
got a pic of a brine shrimp from the Coorong that it eats Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about putting the scientific name in parentheses after the common name. For example, you didn't do it in the lead.
Ah, see I did have them but FunkMonk thought they were better left out of lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, makes sense. Anyways, error code. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The intro is just a summary, so doesn't need all the detail of the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "As well as banded stilt, the species has also been called locally Rottnest snipe, or bishop snipe," is confusing. Specifically, the ordering of the names is confusing. Say the it is called the "Rottnest snipe, or bishop snipe" kind of feels like you are saying that Rottnest is synonymous with bishop. Also, there should be a definite article before "banded stilt" and likely "bishop snipe" if you change the wording.
I have rejigged that whole bit actually. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "scrape" in sentence three of the second lead paragraph.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "French ornithologist Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot described the banded stilt in 1816, classifying it in the avocet genus Recurvirostra and giving it the name Recurvirostra leucocephala, "L'avocette a tete blanche" ("white-headed avocet"), though the type locality has been listed as either Victoria or Rottnest Island in Western Australia," I don't exactly see the connection between "though the type locality has been listed as either Victoria or Rottnest Island in Western Australia". Also, if you meant that he listed the type locality, then you should additionally convert present tense verbs (like "has") to their past tense versions.
I expanded - a location should accompany a species description, however Viellot did not give enough detail as to where it might be Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will (hopefully) do more soon. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soon to be long, daunting list that has nitpicks that, together, will take hours to complete:

  • Maybe reword "Other common names include Rottnest snipe, and bishop snipe," to "Other common names include the bishop snipe and Rottnest snipe." This is because 1) The comma in the original sentence is unneeded. 2) Having "the" before bishop snipe sounds better. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See this sounds really peculiar to me - I'd never put a "the" here. "The" is not part of the name and we're using the name as word-as-word. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Well then why don't you reverse the order, remove the "the" I suggested, and then put the two names in quotes per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly add a comma before "but" in the sentence "In flight, the wings are mostly black when seen from above but have a white trailing edge from the tips of the inner primaries." Might be ok though, your call really. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely add a comma before "but" in this sentence: "Non-breeding plumage is similar but the chest band is less distinct and often diluted to an ashy brown or mottled with white." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Adults in breeding plumage are predominantly white with black wings and a broad well-demarcated u-shaped chestnut band across the breast," the phrase "well-demarcated" is a little over the top. Maybe use a more "common" word? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that's the problem...I can't think of one... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe say something like "a broad, defined u-shaped..."? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See to me, "defined" used in that way is more obscure than "well-demarcated".....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. In that case, it would probably be best to make an interwiki link to wiktionary here. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what you were doing here: "The slender bill is black,[21], relatively straight,[22] and twice as long as the head." (I left the commas in) RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ensuring the pertinent references come after commas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, right after ref 21... RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
aaaah I see now. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that the sentence "Juvenile birds resemble adults but lack the breast band and have greyish lores and forehead," is grammatically correct, but it may be better to reword the last part, as it sounds odd nonetheless. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two choppy sentences next to eachother: "The black on their wings is often duller. Adult plumage is attained in the second year." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
rejigged (see above) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably link "saltworks" in the sentence " In Western Australia, it is found predominantly in the southwestern corner, though can be as far north as the saltworks in Port Hedland." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Breeding took place at Lake Ballard in the Goldfields-Esperance after heavy rainfall from Cyclone Bobby in 1995, and flooding in 2014," reads a bit oddly, suggests that that was the only place where breeding took place during those years, and suggests two Cyclone Bobby's. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried this, does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better. It may be better to rejig it so you can say something like "Breeding also...", just to make it clear that breeding didn't take place only there during those years. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing - as far as we know they only bred there twice in 20 years...and went elsewhere at other times Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty weird. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can only link to plumage as there are no destinations for the other terms Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about using that bird glossary? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct instances where a lower numbered references occurs directly after a higher numbered references. E.g., fix "...[5][2]" to "...[2][5]". RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "The Ngarrindjeri people of the Lower Murray region in South Australia knew it as nilkani," link "Lower Murray". RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of saying "upper tail" in the sentence "The central part of the upper tail is tinted a pale grey-brown," maybe say "base of the upper tail"? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably remove the hyphen in the sentence "The legs are a paler or orange-pink," to make it clear that the "paler" and the "orange" are referring to the pink. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added hyphen to paler Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Juvenile birds resemble adults but have greyish lores and forehead, duller black wings, and lack the characteristic breast band," the first part sounds a bit odd, maybe try and reword it? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
like that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... maybe add "both" before "a"? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please specific where on the nest in the sentence "Birds also chatter softly and tunefully while on the nest." Like is it on top, perching, etc. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "while nesting" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "gregarious" in the sentence "The banded stilt is gregarious; birds are almost always encountered in groups, from small troops of tens of birds, to huge flocks numbering in the tens of thousands." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "nomadic" in the sentence "The banded stilt is nomadic and generally found in southern Australia." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately nomad is purely about humans...and I can't find a good target. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then define it. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 11:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, linked to Bird_migration#Short-distance_and_altitudinal_migration then. I added a bit to the destination. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems unneeded to have both paragraphs one and three in the distribution section start out by mentioning that the bird is nomadic. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
removed one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "fawn" in the sentence "Egg clutches number three to four (or rarely five) oval eggs, which vary from fawn to white marked with brown to black splotches." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be better to say "and" instead of "by" in the sentence "They can be 49–58 mm (1.9–2.3 in) long by 35–48 mm (1.4–1.9 in) wide" because "by" is usually used when length/width aren't written. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
not sold on this but not overly fussed either way. done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, I thought that only eggs were incubated: " Incubation takes 19 to 21 days,[20] with both sexes sharing duties, although the male takes over as sole incubator as the eggs hatch and immediately afterwards." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
well, he keeps on nest duty afterwards with the babies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "They also eat molluscs, including both gastropods such as the land snail Salinator fragilis and members of the genus Coxiella, and bivalves of the genus Sphaericum, insects (such as bugs, beetles, flies and flying ants, which they glean from the water surface), and plants such as Ruppia," could you please link gastropods, molluscs, bivalves, maybe insects, but definitely the ones in the "such as", and glean. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I linked the shell types, but felt insects and molluscs were too broad to be of use. And trying to avoid a sea of blue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 11:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done and linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JennyOz[edit]

  • Cool bird, as you say. The 'tracking devices to 21 birds' bit is repeated. JennyOz (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
wow, not sure how that happened...or that I missed it ("a bit like "Paris in the the spring"...). fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - fine bird, fine article. JennyOz (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Another one I've seen! The usual nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • tiny shrimp—just checking that this is correct in OzE. It's certainly OK in AE, but BE would have "shrimps"
really?? ...whoa that sounds so weird Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • His countryman Georges Cuvier—last person mentioned was Amateur ornithologist Gregory Mathews. Although you don't mention his nationality the the text, he definitely wasn't Cuvier's compatriot…
oh arse...I changed the order and stuffed my neat descriptor...fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Gould had described it as—subject of "it" is a bit remote
depronouned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The banded stilt forages… The bulk of their—number disagreement
singularised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • is listed as Vulnerable under the South Australian—make it clear it's LC in the other relevant states if that is indeed the case
this is tricky, as I think LC is just not listed as anything in other states Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had to read the Paris bit above twice before it clicked... All OK, changed to support above, I'll go and buy shrimps for my lunch now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - all images are appropriately licensed and sourced. I'd recommend right aligning the shrimp image so it doesn't interfere with the "Breeding" header (and so the shrimp "face" the text), and add the "upright" parameter. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of your locations are a bit inconsistent - for example, why include country for London but not Stuttgart?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • GBooks links should be trimmed
trimmed (I think) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN10, 17: page?
cannot figure it out for former, added for latter Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn33 should use pp, as should FN37
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emu or The Emu?
definite article subtracted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting of FN39 doesn't match the rest
reformatted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2017 [8].

Capella[edit]

Nominator(s): Lithopsian (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sixth brightest star in the sky. It's been a collaborative effort with a few folks involved, Spacepotato brought it to GA-hood and I have tried to buff it with Lithopsian. We think it is within striking distance of FA-hood. have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

looks fine so far Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "observers north of 44°N. its name meaning": ?
whoops/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it and Capella were situated rather close to each other": How many light-years apart? Or were they only close as viewed from Earth?
the latter. Does this help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It helps. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Capella was seen as a portent of rain in classical times.": In what way?
source doesn't clarify. presumably though the star appeared just before a regular rainy season and ancient observers (falsely) suspected causation... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are readers likely to infer that meaning, or any particular meaning, from your text? I leave the question with you. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "apparently detected and confirmed an X-ray source": Why apparently?
good point/removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 723": Typo? Just checking.
Not a typo. 723 arc-seconds. Does it need clarifying? Linking? This unit occurs quite a few times and units tend to be abbreviated except possibly for the first occurrence. Lithopsian (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just checking if it was a typo. You don't usually see 723 arcseconds, for the same reason that you generally don't see a time interval measured as "723 seconds". - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2016 measurement gives the magnitude different between the two stars at 700nm as 0.00 ± 0.1.": I don't follow. "magnitude difference", maybe?
Yes, a typo. Corrected. Lithopsian (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

  • References 10, 27 and 59 are showing stray square brackets and should be fixed.
all tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference 84 has missing }
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 86 has no English translation of title.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 84 & 86 use different way to indicate language to other entries.
both tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Line-of-sight links via optical double, but does not go to a useful point in the article.
that article is a mess. Need to rejig target article before finding somewhere to link to. frustrating... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've snuck "line-of-sight" into the lead of double star which seems like a quick way to satisfy readers that they've reached the right place. Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a teaser about differences in isotope abundances, but there is no detail. This would be a missing knowledge in the article.
added a footnote but need to sleep as should get another sentence to explain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote covers what I was referring to. The differences indicate the more advanced evolution of the primary. Lithopsian (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also there is nothing about elemental composition and how it compares to the sun etc. Are there any molecules in the spectrum?
not seen any molecules mentioned. Metallicity similar to our Sun. Will write after sleeping Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence about heavy element abundances. There isn't anything striking about them, other than the already-mentioned differences between the two giants. Lithopsian (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haedi is not a useful link, dropping you in at the top of the constellation.
Now linked to Auriga (constellation)#Eclipsing_binary_stars Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

linked to dynamical parallax Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • chandra Links to the Wrong subject.
linked to Chandra X-ray Observatory now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speckle imaging could do with a link.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In "In traditional Chinese astronomy" the name is given in four forms, traditional, simplified, pinyin and English translation. This ia a bit undue. We can do without the simplified characters, as they are an anachronism. People that can actually read Chinese can go to the Cinese language article if they cannot cope with traditional characters. After all the native scripts for Macedonian or Indian laguages are not included.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can still see "五车" in there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That one removed also. Lithopsian (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've used that destination. There seems to be little on the Boorong, even to make a stub. 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ancient Balts deserve a link to make it clear who/where they were.
linked to Balts as (a) there is no subarticle and (b) it isn't clear from the original article about the age Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 62 and 63 are dupicates.
unified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 82 is a translation, so it should probably say so in the template J F is the translator. Reference 83 is the same work untranslated, but author name is different to 82, and the language, Latin, is not indicated.
added all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent space between initials in references, eg 26 vs 28. I believe the MOS says to put a space.
I've always had no space - I can't se the bit where it says use a space. So have streamlined to unspaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:INITIALS. Lithopsian (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sigh...ok then...will do....all done I think.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added some Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
all linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at the diffs you have not been using the template parameters, it should be for example author-link1=Dorrit Hoffleit and author-link2 = Noah Brosch. etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've got them all fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the images need to have alt= text added for those using text readers
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now checked all the wiki links. We should convert the see also section to a one or two sentences summarising the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes - that has been tricky given the obscure nature of most of the fictional material. Still, I found two that are discussed in secondary sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am doing the spelling and symbol check.

  • In the infobox some of the magnitude parameters include the minus sign "−" ie "U−B", B−V, V−R, R−I. This seems wrong to me and could be ndash or hyphen instead.
Umm, they are all supposed to be minuses. that's the point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In info box the surface gravity uses mdash "—" in a range. This is wrong too.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 21 Monte Albán should have "á" not "a".
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BD+45°1076" has a degree symbol in it, which appears to the the incorrect format for these catalog names. It should be "BD+45 1076"
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also having trouble seeing that this has been called Capella component G but not a problem really unless reference disconfirms it.
The Washington Double Star Catalogue (main reference for this table), as well as other multiple star catalogues, list all these components including G. They pretty much include all relatively bright stars within about a quarter of a degree, related or not. Lithopsian (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "catalog" or "catalogue" ?
catalogue unless talking about a particular Catalog with US spelling... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HIPPARCOS" normally appears as "Hipparcos" - should be made consistent.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simbad" normally appears as "SIMBAD", should all be the same
Agree...except the two lowercase ones seem to arise from Template:Componentbox component..which I am not sure how to unpack and fix.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can fix the componentbox template to have SIMBAD if you think that's appropriate. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Lithopsian (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Praemonitus[edit]

Support: My concerns listed below were addressed. I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Good job! Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I took a quick pass through the text and found a few issues.
  • There no discussion of the tidal evolution of this system, and no mention of the detached state of the orbit throughout their respective evolution. I.e. was there a Roche lobe overflow? No, according to Torres et al (2011).
added note - wasn't sure whether to move stuff up to that section about more massive star's maximum radius as a red giant, which is currently further down the page... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Components section may be confusing since it is using the same notation for different units. At a minimum, I'd suggest using the HTML ′ (′) and ″ (″) for the angular notation.
I spelled out feet and inches to avoid confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some inconsistency about capitalizing 'Sun'.
capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should mention that the rotational velocities are projected, not the actual equatorial velocities. You can't directly compare them without know the respective inclinations of their polar axes.
I mentioned this where relevant. It is somewhat unimportant for this star given the known rotational periods. The inclinations and absolute rotational velocities are also known. Lithopsian (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How were the rotational periods derived? I'm assuming from measuring periodic variability of their surface activity.
Directly measured in the same way as the orbital motions. Lithopsian (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "700 nm": it should indicate this is a wavelength.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first use of 'metallicity' in the article body should be linked.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look later for more. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @Praemonitus:, ready for more comments... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Right then, just a few more remarks:

  • Bailer-Jones (2015) computed the mean perihelion distance as 28.86 ly (8.849 pc), which occurred around 237,000 years ago. Would this be worth including in the Distance section? See also Capella's entry on the Historical brightest stars listing.
I forgot about that and like this sorta stuff....added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "late F or early G": the reader may be unfamiliar with the use of early or late as astronomical conventions. Perhaps "late (cooler) F or early (warmer) G"?
good point/added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations for the four IAU bulletins (12-15) can be filled out a little more.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks good. Praemonitus (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and cooled and swollen away from the main sequence — I don't like the conflation of a physical move with a classification move
how about "off"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I re-worded again, in a way that I think avoids any implication of physical motion. Lithopsian (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25-inch telescope — conversion?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put this in a {{convert}} template, which gives quite a different cm value. Lithopsian (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • United Kingdom and Scandinavia, most of France, Canada and the northernmost United States— A bit selective to have only N America and western Europe. I would think that Finland, Germany, the Baltic states and Russia have at least as good a claim as France
Not sure how the non-anglophone countries got in there. Have just left the ones mentioned in the source. Folks can always click on the 44th Parallel too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All looks OK, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them, I think we still need image and source reviews. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • I tweaked your citation format to make the links work.
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links all seem to work fine.
  • You list Moore & Tirion in your works cited, but I don't think it's actually cited in the article.
removed - I had replaced the page refs with journals Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 76 is a short cite to Winterburn 2009, but the full cite is nowhere to be found.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Brosch long cite and in fn 8, you list the pages as "pp. 9–" with no end page.
oops, forgot to reformat after I fetched the ref. Fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same in fn 84, where it's "pp. 17–"
removed dash Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited texts are also inconsistent in whether they have the publication location or not. Either is correct, but they should be the same. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ah sod it, removed 'em all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, then, everything looks to be in order. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Has images
  • No other media included, so there are no movies or animated images. There could be an animation of stars in orbit, or moving across the sky, but not really needed. What we could do with is a sound file recording the pronunciation, even IPA symbols may be useful.
  • File:Auriga constellation map.svg is recommended instead of File:Auriga constellation map.png. Is there a reason this is not used?
no/changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should maybe remove this? It isn't a great image, especially with the foreign language labels. I just wanted to have something to help with the pole-star text. Lithopsian (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I removed it. It doesn't have the source for the data that the trajectories are based on either Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image has annotations marking the Pleiades, Auriga, and Capella. Only on Commons though. Lithopsian (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
removed pending proper licencing info Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Celestia.png has a poor description that does not include author or date, and it appears that the destination no longer includes that image. However the image is likely just two public domain pictures superimposed, so no need to take it down.
I don't see this image on the page? Lithopsian (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it's an icon in the top right of the page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. That's from the {{sky}} template. Lithopsian (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no fair use images.
  • Images all have suitable captions.
  • All images have suitably free licenses supplied.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2017 [9].

Roosevelt dime[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a small, commonplace coin (in the US anyway) that has been struck for seventy years with little drama or variation. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A good mix of history and numismatics. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Nothing catches my eye on the first read through.
Source review[edit]
  • Only quibble would be to expand state abbreviations for non-American readers, but that's not a requirement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim[edit]

Just two points you may want to consider

  • End of para 1 "death in 1945" seems more natural to me than "1945 death".
  • You don't translate "E PLURIBUS UNUM", but many of your readers will neither be American nor able to read Latin

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I've made those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

Almost ready to support. I made several copy-edits. A couple of comments:

  • "Walter Breen, in his comprehensive volume on U.S. coins, argued that 'the new design was ... no improvement at all Weinman's [Mercury dime] except for eliminating the fasces [on its reverse] and making the vegetation more recognizably an olive branch for peace.' " Is there a word missing before "Weinamn's" (possibly "on" or "over")?
  • "Although usually more coins were struck at Philadelphia than at the other mints during the years the coin was struck in silver, only 12,450,181 were struck there in 1955, fewer than at Denver or at San Francisco." The first part of this sentence is slightly hard to follow, although after several reads it becomes clearer. Then in the second half I see you have wiki-links to Denver Mint and San Francisco Mint, but it would be clearer and less jarring if it was mentioned in the text itself that these were mints. I guess earlier in the sentence there is reference to "at the other mints" but overall I find the sentence hard to follow. Moisejp (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've taken care of those.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RL0919. I added a few links, and I do agree with Sturmvogel 66's suggestion that the state names should be written out for source locations, but this is really just a style preference. Otherwise I found nothing to fuss over; it's an informative and well-written article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment[edit]

Looks like we're about there -- feel free to seek an image review, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support from auntieruth[edit]

I found one sentence that stumped me though: This commission was tasked by a 1921 executive order by President Warren G. Harding with rendering advisory opinions on public artworks, including coins.

I've tweaked the sentence. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I've swapped for 2017 images and will webarchive them when I get a chance.

None of the images appears to have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review. Regarding alt text, I've gotten complaints when I tried writing it, so I prefer to leave it for others to do. I've added the template you mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2017 [10].

X-10 Graphite Reactor[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The X-10 Project was the Manhattan Project effort to breed plutonium for atomic bombs using nuclear reactors. As part of this, an experimental reactor was built at the Clinton Engineer Works known as the X-10 Graphite Reactor. It operated for many years, and is now a tourist attraction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "but had sufficient confidence in his calculations that the water-cooled reactor would.": Would what?
    Well spotted., Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Your writing gets better all the time. It's really hard to make a subject like this concrete, the way you do it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article might have been nominated earlier, but the US National Parks Service website suddenly went down in January. It's back now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • What was the appeal of Oak Ridge? Cheap TVA power?
    Several things. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He reasoned that it would primarily be a research and educational facility, and that expertise was to be found at the Metallurgical Laboratory. Compton was shocked.[22] The Metallurgical Laboratory was part of the University of Chicago, so the university would be operating an industrial facility 500 miles (800 km) from its main campus. Can you fold the bit about Compton being shocked into one of the other sentences?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I see Arthur, that while I was gone Is there a missing comma after "see"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cast uranium billets came from Metal Hydrides, Mallinckrodt and other suppliers. These were extruded into cylindrical slugs, and canned by Alcoa, which started production on June 14, 1943.[37] The fuel slugs were canned primarily to protect the uranium metal from corrosion that would occur if it came into contact with water, but also to prevent the venting of gaseous radioactive fission products that might be formed when they were irradiated. The cladding had to transmit heat but not absorb too many neutrons. Aluminum was chosen. reword this
    What's the problem? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The order of these sentences isn't logical and reads awkwardly. Tell the reader much earlier that aluminum was chosen because of X & Y and then get into who and when. Except in dialog, three-word sentences are best avoided as they can usually be integrated into the sentences around them where things will flow better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay. The text now reads The fuel slugs were canned to protect the uranium metal from corrosion that would occur if it came into contact with water, and to prevent the venting of gaseous radioactive fission products that might be formed when they were irradiated. Aluminum was chosen as it transmitted heat but did not absorb too many neutrons. Alcoa started canning on June 14, 1943. General Electric and the Metallurgical Laboratory developed a new welding technique to seal the cans airtight, and the equipment for this was installed in the production line at Alcoa in October 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, operations did not detect the effect of the neutron poison Operations?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • During 2015 tours were part of a general three-hour tour of the Clinton Engineer Works facilities, and were conducted on Mondays through Fridays at noon, from June 4 to September 30, except on July 4 and 5. Not really relevant. Best if handled in an external link to the Museum.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several overlinks.
    Rempved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Financed through the Belgian uranium export tax with the help of British experts Financed or built with the help of British experts?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No DABs, external links OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and source review I reviewed this article closely at GAN and Milhist A-Class and have reviewed all subsequent edits, including those made during this review. I believe it meets the FA criteria. I have also checked the sources, and believe they are of a high standard and are consistently formatted. I have spotchecked several of the citations and they check out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- I'll comment as I read:

  • "At the time only such minute quantities of plutonium-239 had been produced, in cyclotrons, and it was not possible to produce a sufficiently large quantity that way." maybe "At the time plutonium-239 had only been produced using cyclotrons, and it was not possible to produce exploitable quantities that way." or something
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(available from the Tennesse Valley Authority]])" an error here
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Compton and the staff at the Metallurgical Laboratory then reopened the question of building the plutonium semiworks at Argonne. But the engineers and management of DuPont disagreed" -- did they disagree with reopening a question?
    In fact, yes, but re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " especially to the research staff from the Metallurgical Laboratory, whom they feared would attempt to interfere unduly." -- they felt the research staff would interfere, or they felt they would be interfered with?
    Yes agian; re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that heavy water and graphite are neutron moderators is mentioned too late. This should be introduced then discussed (briefly), at the moment it's split in a strange way over the first paragraph of "Design"
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming the helium coolant is the gas rather than liquid? It should probably be explcitly stated. If the liquid adding it's boiling point would make it clear to even lay people that a liquid-helium cooled system would pose a greater engineering challenge than a water cooled system.
    Gaseous helium. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This reactor only generated up to 200 W, but it demonstrated that k was higher than anticipated." -- mention that Chicago Pile-1 used graphite as a moderator.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to provide quantities of plutonium" maybe "by providing quantities of plutonium"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article Bismuth phosphate process does nothing to help me understand what at all is involved in the separation process. Is a one or two sentence note possible that discusses this?
  • This is only a suggestion, but a one sentence explanation of the function of a control rod would be valuable.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was the xenon-135 found? In the graphite?
    No, it's a fission product produced by irradiating the uranium fuel. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the X-10 chemical separation plant outside the scope of this article?
    It is within the scope of this article. I did not think the article would be comprehensible (or comprehended) without it. I also wanted the articles to cover the entire Manhattan Project; X-10 Project is covered by Metallurgical Laboratory, X-10 Graphite Reactor, Chicago Pile-1 and Hanford Site. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I thought. In that case I think the information on the actual separation process itself needs some expansion in the article. Not much (two sentences?) but at the moment it's a black box, and the Bismuth phosphate process article (as I mentioned above) doesn't provide much information. -- Shudde talk 08:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have my books with me, but I have had a good at expanding the Bismuth phosphate process article a little. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That's more detail than I needed but it's great that it's been expanded that much. -- Shudde talk 10:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the lead last and am happy with it. I have not checked the infoboxes or captions. Overall an impressive and interesting article. Most of my comments are relatively minor and hopefully shouldn't be hard to address. Thanks for the fascinating read. -- Shudde talk 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is addressed so I'm happy to add my support. -- Shudde talk 10:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Closing comment': There is one instance of refs not being in numerical order, which I tweaked, but if it was deliberate, feel free to revert. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2017 [11].

The Fade Out[edit]

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the comic book series The Fade Out by Ed Brubaker and Sean Phillips. It was promoted to GA status in Sept 2013 and has been stable since then. I recently updated it to include information on the hardcover edition. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Cover_to_Fade_Out_1.jpg: FUR needs work - for example, "n.a" parameters should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Per comment below, a second image has been added to the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The FUR of the first will need updating to reflect that, and as with the first the second will need its "na" parameters filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've read through a couple of times and made one minor tweak; can't find anything wrong with the prose. Short, concise, and clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Syek88[edit]

I think this is very well-written. Tight, focused, and easy to read.

My only comment is about comprehensiveness. I make the comment tentatively because I have never read a comic book in my life and don't want to barge in here and start tanking a candidacy with ill-informed criticisms.

After reading the article a few times I was left wondering "how was this series illustrated? What do the comics actually look like?" At the bottom of "Development" there is a sentence or two on digital illustration tools, and a couple of reviews talk about Phillips' illustrations. But what we don't have is a section of the article that puts these things into context. Nothing explains the style of illustration, which would extend from graphic portrayal of characters to font of texts. The Featured Article Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book has two paragraphs (under "Style and themes") dedicated to these questions.

Just a comment at this stage for the purpose of discussion. Syek88 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. There won't be a large amount of citable information about Phillips' style in The Fade Out in part because it looks like every other comic he's drawn for the last decade, but I may be able to find more on the topic. Alternatively, would including a panel or two adequately address your concern? Using the bottom left panel from this image would show the artwork, lettering, and the colorist's effects. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we would have both image and text, the latter being Wikipedia's primary method of communication and the former being a helpful option. But I take your point about there not being much referenceable information, at least specific to this comic. Maybe it would be possible to shoehorn into the article something general about Phillips' style? But it would probably be better for me to leave this to your judgement and support however you choose to do it. The image you have suggested is certainly very good and we might not need much if any text to supplement it. Syek88 (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the image to the reception section to accompany the reviewer's comments on the artwork. I considered putting in Development near the part about how Phillips drew it, but I thought it might be too close to the infobox to look nice. I will look for citable discussions about his style, but it may take a few days. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a line discussing his use of spotted blacks and negative space. I'm still looking for a good reference for his line work. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Syek88:, I've been unable to find a good source that describes Phillips' art style with better terms than "gritty" or "rough". Hopefully the line I was able to add along with the interior image addresses your concern? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems the article has all that it can now, and the image in particular conveys the drawing and text styles. I'm happy to support as I had no other comments or issues. Syek88 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

Unless I missed it above, feel free to seek a source review at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Cas Liber[edit]

  • References formatted consistently.
  • Earwig's copyvio tool clear
  • FN 1, used five times - material faithful to source x 5
  • FN 9, used 2 times - material faithful to source x 2
  • FN 12, used once - material faithful to source

Ok, I'm happy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2017 [12].

Morihei Ueshiba[edit]

Nominator(s): Yunshui 雲水 13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Japanese martial artist who founded the art of aikido. I've been working on it on-and-off for a couple of years now, and reckon that it's as good as I'm going to get it without outside input. Yunshui 雲水 13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Morihei_Ueshiba_Ayabe_1921.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Morihei-ueshiba-c1918.jpg, File:Onisaburo_Deguchi_2.jpg, File:Morihei_Ueshiba_Ayabe_1922.jpg, File:Morihei_Ueshiba_1939.jpg, File:Ueshiba-mochizuki_c1951.jpg, File:Takeda_Sokaku.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Original publication dates for these images are basically impossible to come by - all have been reproduced in a wide range of sources over the years. The subject matter, however, clearly shows that they were originally taken prior to 1946 (thus meeting the requirements of Japan-PD), with the exception of File:Ueshiba-mochizuki_c1951.jpg, which (again, based on the subject matter) is also old enough to be PD in Japan - though in this case it's slightly less certain, and I'm happy to remove this image if it's a stumbling block. Yunshui 雲水 08:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The {{PD-1996}} tag requires that it was published before a certain date, as well as being PD in Japan before 1996. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I certainly can't be sure it was PD in Japan in 1996 (indeed, it very likely wasn't) so I've removed that image. Thanks for picking up on that. Yunshui 雲水 10:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Were the others published early enough to meet both requirements? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All taken prior to 1946, thus PD in Japan in 1969 (prior to 1996) and thus PD in the US; so yes, the others should all meet both requirements. Yunshui 雲水 12:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to clarify: they were all published (not just created) early enough? Can we add earlier publications to the image descriptions? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, the actual publication dates are impossible to ascertain - these images have been so widely circulated that their origins are lost in the mists of time. However, {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} requires that the image ... was published before December 31st 1956, or photographed before 1946. Since these pictures could not have been taken after 1946 (given that they show Ueshiba during the 1920s and 30s), they comply with the PD requirements. Yunshui 雲水 09:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Japan. For US, {{PD-URAA}} requires it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice. If we can't demonstrate a pre-1978 publication, and we don't know the first publication, we can't meet that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake; I was reading the PD-URAA as having or criteria rather than and. Well that's this FA fucked then. There's no way I can prove original publication date for these images, as I've said, and removing them instantly negates FA?#3. I guess you'd best mark this as a quick fail. All that work down the drain... Yunshui 雲水 08:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we show any publication before 1978, even if it wasn't the original? Failing that, could alternatives be found, or could one or more images have a fair-use claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to anything from Japane pre-1978 that contains these images (they largely existed in private collections), and there are no free alternatives that I can prove were published before this date. Fair use wouldn't apply, because free imagesdo exist, I just have no way of proving that they are free. Yunshui 雲水 13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't prove they're free, we assume they're non-free - and so fair use could potentially be applied, if we can't prove that any image is free. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's like picking a scab; despite dewatchlisting this page I still find myself checking in on it... I've uploaded a new portrait under FU guidelines, though I'm still not sure that FU applies. Anyway, it's in the article now, at least until the next review! Yunshui 雲水 09:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a location map to highlight the various places he lived (should be no problems with that, since it uses the standard Japanese location map) and a photo of Ueshiba with some students which is correctly licenced via OTRS (I've also checked the OTRS ticket; it uses the standard text). One could make an argument that the presence of Ueshiba in this image (which is indisputably free) negates the FU rationale for the main image; my personal opinion is that the group image isn't of sufficient resolution to provide an accurate "visual identification of the person in question". I've scaled a cropped version up to infobox size off-wiki, and it's just a messy blur of pixels, totally unsuitable for the top of a biography. Yunshui 雲水 11:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also added: File:Aiki Jinja.JPG (public domain image taken and released by uploader). @Nikkimaria:, would you mind offering your take on these images? Yunshui 雲水 10:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All current images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Syek88[edit]

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and comphrehensive article. I have done the biographical part of the article—which amounts to the bulk of it—and thought I should write down my comments now, before proceeding to the remainder. I made some minor edits myself. I hope they work.

You will see from these comments that I don't have much to say. Most are minor; perhaps the least so is my niggling concern about the academic credibility of the so-called "Aikido Journal", which is invoked as a reference on several occasions.

  • It would be useful to have a brief, even half-sentence, explanation of the "Shrine Consolidation Policy". The name doesn’t tell us much, and if Ueshiba was involved in opposing it, an explanation is relevant to the article.
Good point - I've gone one better and created a stub article for the topic, which is now linked from this article.
  • "Leaving most of his possessions to Sokaku..." – use “Takeda” for consistency given the previous paragraph mentions him frequently?
fixed
  • The Aikido Journal is labelled a journal, but it is clearly not in the academic sense, and I'm not immediately convinced of its academic credibility for Featured Article purposes.
see below
  • The Wikipedia article for Shūmei Ōkawa does not support the statement that he was a war criminal; the article says that his trial was aborted on the ground of mental illness.
removed
  • "Ōmoto-kyō priests still oversee the Aiki-jinja Taisai ceremony..." This is the first mention of this ceremony, and goes over the head of the reader unfamiliar with the term "Aiki-jinja Taisai".
On reflection, that bit (which has never set well either there or in the Iwama section) is really rather trivial. I'm going to excise it altogether.
  • Is there any reason for Ueshida’s permanent move to Tokyo in 1927? The article gives no explanation, which is peculiar given his reluctance to go there just months earlier and his desire to return to Akabe so quickly.
This I haven't fixed yet, but I'll get my books out later and try and expand on the reasons for the move.
  • "In his later years, he was regarded as very kind and gentle as a rule, but there are also stories of terrifying scoldings delivered to his students." – This general statement of character does not seem to be attributed to a reference. The reference cited for the subsequent sentence supports only the individual example of one form of scolding (which does not seem particularly terrifying).
I'm taking this bit out as well; it was in the article long before I got my hands on it and has never to my knowledge been sourced.
  • Many occasions of the word "however" are unnecessary, especially the two occasions in which it appears in consecutive sentences (grating on the reader).
I hadn't realised how much I overuse that word. I have now expunged about half of the instances of it's use in the article, however...
  • "Takeda Sokaku" – the use of diacritics in his surname is inconsistent.
fixed

I also note some dispute at Talk:Morihei_Ueshiba#Kisshomaru_vs_Stevens about the use of John Stevens as a reference. Some comment on that would be appreciated. I did not have the impression that the reference was being used to support anything outlandish. It seems that the outlandish claims in the article have been deleted since 2014, but I would appreciate reassurance that Stevens is not so off-base that he should be ignored entirely. Syek88 (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this thorough review. I've addressed most of the points you've raised above (and will do some more work once I have some books to hand). With regards to the sources, Aikido Journal is, as you say, not an academic journal, despite the name. Originally Aiki News, it was a periodical and later website published by Stanley Pranin, who is widely regarded in aikido circles as the most prominent historian of the martial art. Most of his work is ostensibly self-published, it's true, but if you were to ask any aikidoka for the foremost source on aikido's history, Pranin would be the first name to spring to mind.
John Stevens is the most well-known translator of Ueshiba's work into English, and has been published by at least two mainstream publishing houses that I know of, so he is easier to pass off as a reliable source. His biographical work is generally no more more outlandish than Kisshomaru Ueshiba's (who also repeats the claims of bullet-dodging, accidental-person-carrying, tree-uprooting and so on). I've left these out since almost without exception they are reported in the sources as either hearsay or Ueshiba's own recollections (which, given how patently barking he was, may not have been entirely reliable). Yunshui 雲水 09:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these replies. The new article on Jinja seirei is a great idea (my only minor question now being whether "Shrine Consolidation Policy" is better as a common noun). I'm tending to think that the Aikido Journal and Stevens fall into similar categories: sources from within the world of Aikido. In an ideal world we would have two or three detailed biographies written about Ueshida by credible academics from outside the Aikido world. But we don't. The next best thing to do is to be as judicious as possible in the manner in which high-quality sources from within the Aikido world are used. I'm satisfied that has been done here. The best I can probably do, given that I have not been reviewing Featured Articles for long, is to flag the issue for whoever does the source review. Syek88 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My second tranche of comments now. I don't think the "Development of aikido" section is quite up to the same (very high) standard as the biography. Looking at the history of the article I can perhaps see why: it has been there for a lot longer, and improvement efforts since 2014 have focused on the biography:

I had previously recommended not to expand this section overly since Aikido itself is a Featured Article and covers this.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly concur with not expanding the section; I don't think expansion would be appropriate at all. If anything, I'd be open either to reducing its size or the more radical step of amalgamating the relevant parts of it with the biography. Syek88 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is unusual among the martial arts for its heavy emphasis on protecting the opponent and on spiritual and social development." - I can't see the book referenced, but the suggestion that either of these characteristics is "unusual" appears quite stark, and the book referenced does seem to be an Aikido source. Unless the source were fully independent, it might be best to state the two characteristics without the comparison with other martial arts.
  • The "spiritual awakening" language leaves me a little uneasy. This sentence in particular: "Ueshiba developed aikido after experiencing three instances of spiritual awakening." It might be better to say something like "Ueshida described three spiritual experiences that led him to develop aikido." In that way, the article avoids any implication that it is verifying that these experiences took place or that they amounted to "spiritual awakenings". I would say the same about the reference to "spiritual enlightenment" in the lead of the article.
  • "The technical curriculum of aikido was undoubtedly most greatly influenced by the teachings of Takeda Sōkaku." - the passive voice plus double-adverb doesn't read very well.
  • "The early form of training under Ueshiba was noticeably different from later forms of aikido..." - There are a number of aspects of this paragraph that I'm unable to trace to the Green & Svinth source cited. The paragraph has been in the article for a very long time. It started off uncited at all.
  • "As Ueshiba grew older, more skilled, and more spiritual in his outlook, his art also changed and became softer and more circular." - what does "more circular" mean?
More circular means less direct - would the latter work.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It still sails over my head a bit... Syek88 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the lead - "It is now practiced in many countries around the world." - "in many countries" could be superfluous?

I think that's likely to be it from me. Thanks again. Syek88 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Development of aikido" bit was, as you say, part of the article that I'd done very little with. I've now reordered it, changed some of the wording per your suggestions above, and added a few more sources. Thanks for giving me the impetus to sort it out a bit! Yunshui 雲水 10:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another couple of read-throughs of that section and I'm now marking my review down as a support. I have one point for other reviewers and the FAC delegates: the point I raised above about the extent to which the article relies upon sources, such as Stevens and the Aikido Journal, which are written by Aikido followers (if that is the correct term). I didn't feel qualified to comment further upon this issue and its relevance to the Featured Article criteria in this case. Syek88 (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

This is an unfamiliar topic for me, please excuse silly questions ;)

Infobox

  • Do I need to know at this point that two of his children died in infancy?
  • "see below" - never saw that, - how about three names which people might know, adding "among others" (or not adding, it doesn't have to be complete)

Lead

  • Do I have to know what a dojo is?
  • "Aikido, the martial art Ueshiba had created, continued to be promulgated by his students (many of whom became noted martial artists in their own right) after his death." - After the long bracket, "after his death" comes unconnected, - I guess it could be dropped altogether, and perhaps the brackets also?

Early

  • "but Ueshiba's father Yoroku vetoed the idea. He" - made me think "he" was the father.
  • "he was also presented with a certificate of enlightenment (shingon inkyo) by Mitsujo Fujimoto of Jizu temple, who had been Ueshiba's childhood teacher." - first "he", then "Ueshiba's"?

Ayabe

  • "His son Kisshomaru Ueshiba was born in the summer of 1921." - I'd pipe to just first name, as for the other children.
  • "regularly retreating by himself to the mountains", - what does "by himself" add?
  • "This move was a major event in aikido's development", - this is the first mentioning of aikido in the body, a bit surprising, without explanation of the name or other help.

Awama

  • I find it a bit surprising that the World War is mentioned almost in passing, and little about influence on our subject.

Students

  • I find the table a bit hard to read. How about having the top groups headers, and below a table, where each student has a line with name, life data, time studying, reference? - If you keep it as is, you might see that "from" and the year appear in one line.

Interesting article, thank you! I only looked at the prose, simply trust that you used your many sources well. I'd like more images, but understand that in FAC time, every new image is a new problem ;) - If you also want to look at an unfamiliar topic: I have a FAC open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the kind words, Gerda, but as Nikkimaria has established above, there is literally no way for this topic to ever become a Featured article (it's impossible to include suitable images that comply with the PD requirements, and you can't have an FA without images). As such, I'm no longer trying to make FA improvements; in fact the whole process has left such a bitter taste in my mouth that frankly I think I'll just dewatchlist it and go do something else. Yunshui 雲水 13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pity - are the images really that much of a problem. I had thought they were acceptable but admit to being totally confused with the jargon.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is saddening. I'll alert a commons admin, who solved my last image license problems, - often it's just a missing license. My expert for FAC image problems is RexxS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. Going through the FA process can be full of roadblocks which on the face of it are insurmountable. Help would be appreciated.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm back here, I figure I should address Gerda's points:

  • Do I need to know at this point that two of his children died in infancy?

I think this is relevant; since his other children had some influence on history (Matsuo by marrying Nakakura (the one-time inheritor of Ueshiba's martial art) and Kisshomaru by being the actual inheritor) it seems reasonable to indicate why the other two did not.

  • "see below" - never saw that, - how about three names which people might know, adding "among others" (or not adding, it doesn't have to be complete)

How big a can of worms would you like to open? The problem is, adding a selection of students in the infobox could easily seem to elevate them above the others mentioned in the article body - cue edit warring as readers try to make sure their teacher/lineage head gets included at the top of the page... Even if we restricted it only to students who developed their own schools of aikido, you'd still have ten or so names in the box. To my mind, a link to the table of notable students is still the best way to do this and still keep both a stable article and a reasonably-proportioned infobox.

  • Do I have to know what a dojo is?

It would probably help, I've wikilinked the term.

  • "Aikido, the martial art Ueshiba had created, continued to be promulgated by his students (many of whom became noted martial artists in their own right) after his death." - After the long bracket, "after his death" comes unconnected, - I guess it could be dropped altogether, and perhaps the brackets also?

That was rather clumsy wording, you're right; I've restructured the sentence to make it more readable.

  • "but Ueshiba's father Yoroku vetoed the idea. He" - made me think "he" was the father.

Changed this to make the subject of each sentence clear.

  • "he was also presented with a certificate of enlightenment (shingon inkyo) by Mitsujo Fujimoto of Jizu temple, who had been Ueshiba's childhood teacher." - first "he", then "Ueshiba's"?

More clumsiness on my part; rewritten for clarity.

  • "His son Kisshomaru Ueshiba was born in the summer of 1921." - I'd pipe to just first name, as for the other children.

God idea, done.

  • "regularly retreating by himself to the mountains", - what does "by himself" add?

Not a lot; it's now gone.

  • "This move was a major event in aikido's development", - this is the first mentioning of aikido in the body, a bit surprising, without explanation of the name or other help.

The debate over whether he was teaching aikido at this point is a long one (I think the name would have been Ueshiba-ryu Aiki-jujutsu around that time), so I've removed the term (and improved the sentence structure as a result).

  • I find it a bit surprising that the World War is mentioned almost in passing, and little about influence on our subject.

By all accounts it didn't actually have much influence on him - he was in a pretty remote, rural part of Japan and was largely self-sufficient. The only major effect of the war on him was the prohibition on martial arts by the occupying forces - which Ueshiba ignored anyway! I'll have a dig around to see if there's more to say on the subject (the Iwama section is quite short compared to the others and I'd like to flesh it out if I can), but most histories seem to agree that Ueshiba's day-to-day life wasn't particularly impacted by the war.

  • I find the table a bit hard to read. How about having the top groups headers, and below a table, where each student has a line with name, life data, time studying, reference? - If you keep it as is, you might see that "from" and the year appear in one line.

I haven't made any change on this as yet; I'm going to have a think about what information needs to be in there and how best to organise it.
Many thanks Gerda for your suggestions (especially the bits that needed rewording; very much obliged for those!). Yunshui 雲水 11:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did, and am close to supporting. I was always told that a link from the infobox to below in the same article was a no-no, - how about a separate little article "List of students ..."? Which would also remove the appearance of the table from FA consideration. We made Franz Kafka works, when the list got too long ;) - The infobox could link to it, as Beethoven's to his list of works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, that's a bloody genius idea! I've always hated that table - changing that section into a paragraph or two on his relationships with his students and the international spread of aikido would be much better. I'm strapped for time right now, but I plan to do some more work on this tomorrow, so I'll implement this change then. Thank you so much for this solution! Yunshui 雲水 15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I've actually ended up doing is modifying the existing article List of aikidoka to include this information (since almost every student was already listed there) and deleting the table. I'll have a rummage through my books and see if I can flesh that section out a bit. Yunshui 雲水 08:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And on further consideration: I've now incorporated the content of that section into "Development of aikido", since it seems more relevant there. Yunshui 雲水 08:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did! Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review unless I've missed it somewhere. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. To whoever completes the source review, I should draw your attention to Syek88's point in their review above about sourcing. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Sources have now been reordered to match their order in the text, supplied with URLs, and reformatted to use the same citation formats, so hopefully that should make this review a bit easier for whoever picks it up. Yunshui 雲水 10:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • Refs formatted consistently.
  • FN 7 used once. material faithful to source.
  • FN 8 used twice. material faithful to source.
  • FN 36 used once. material faithful to source.
  • FN 38 used twice. material faithful to source.
  • Earwig's tool has a false positive as it is a site that has used Wikipedia material. Otherwsie clear.

All looks in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Just a quick one on sourcing; glancing through with a view to promotion, I noticed that a few citations to books (e.g. refs 1, 2, 3 and 9) have links but no page numbers. Is there any particular reason for this? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super quick flying-visit nominator response: I'm going to hazard a guess that these are older references from before I started work on the article, but won't have time to check them out until probably Wednesday. Pretty sure I own most if not all of the books cited, even those I didn't add myself , so I can probably dig out page refs. Thanks for the review, Cas Liber! Yunshui 雲水 21:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, actually I can answer that now - the page references for those books are given in the text, using {{rp}}. Yunshui 雲水 21:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 [13].

Waiting (2015 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 19:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2015 release starring Kalki Koechlin and Naseeruddin Shah. The article has underwent a GOCE copy-edit and a Peer Review and has been stable since. Looking forward to the comments. NumerounovedantTalk 19:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Thanks a lot! All your edits are always appreciated! NumerounovedantTalk 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • Infobox image has completed Non-free media information and use rationale and is appropriately used in the article.
  • The rest of the images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for being the wonderful person that you are. XD NumerounovedantTalk 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the compliment :) Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

I like the article. Short but sweet. I have a few comments:

  • Kiwi singer-songwriter -> Seems a bit odd to use the nickname; I'd prefer New Zealander
  • and she shares her disappointment with her friends and followers on social media for having abandoned her. -> not clear to me what abandoned refers to
its not the easiest thing to put in words, but in the scene she feels let down by the fact that despite of having such a huge of no "friends" on social media she is at a lonely stage.
  • not sure if email is the preferred spelling of e-mail, but you should probably choose one
  • In an interview with The Hindu, Koechlin revealed that before the actual shoot began -> would this sentence not fit better in the previous section?
  • last paragraph of Filming and post-production is largely quotes. I don't think they all have to be quotes, could be rewritten
  • This sentiment was echoed by a reviewer for Koimoi -> this makes it sound as if it's just a user review, not written by a staff member
  • The Marketing and release section also relies too heavily on quotes methinks
  • praised the cinematography -> that's 3 times praised in short succession, maybe rephrase?
  • the script was "dignified [and] without any false notes", and the film "manages -> that's past tense and present tense in one

Spot check references

  • ref #2 links to another page with no reference to Waiting
  • ref # 6 does refer to James being an anesthesiologist, but doesn't confirm "fellow London Film School alumnus"

Edwininlondon (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On it. NumerounovedantTalk 16:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: Tweaked the prose, and hopefully fixed everything. Looking at the refs now.. NumerounovedantTalk 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: Done. NumerounovedantTalk 14:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Gets my Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Had my say at the PR. Looks worthy enough. But, i feel that the poster can have a source other than IMDB. Good luck! ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pavan, I'll see what I can do about the poster. NumerounovedantTalk 20:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • The phrase "got under way" in the lead sounds somewhat informal to me, and I believe that a stronger word choice would improve this.
  • Replaced with "started" (although not sure if that's the best word either.)
  • I think it is a better word choice for now; you can always come back to this in the future if you think of something better as I do not believe it is anything hindering this from being promoted to FA if this is successful. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, would it be helpful to include a brief part about what specific aspects of the film received praise from critics?
  • Expanded.
  • In the lead, you mention that the film received positive reviews upon its release in India. Do you think you should include information on its reception overseas, since you have a separate section for it in the body of the article?
  • The article mentions the response from Dubai, which was the film's world premiere.
  • Makes sense to me; I must have overlooked this by accident so thank you for clarifying this to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "average grosser" sounds somewhat odd to me; I have never encountered it before, and I think a stronger word choice would benefit the article.
  • Tweaked.
  • Do you have any information regarding the film's budget? You say "a modest budget", but do you have anything more specific?
  • No, unfortunately independent films do not attract any sort of media coverage here in India, and it's almost impossible to get the production details.
  • That is what I thought from reading the article, but I just wanted to make sure. Thank you for clarifying this. It is fine as it currently stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may sound childish, but the phrase "probed Menon" just sounds extremely dirty to me, and I would recommend a different phrasing for that part.
  • Had a good 15-minute laugh right about here. Fixed.
  • I had a laugh at that too lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could move the image from the "Marketing and release" subsection down into the "India" subsection to replace the current image there. The caption for the image in the "India" subsection references both actors so having an image of both actors there would be useful, and I am not certain about the value of having two images of Kalki Koechlin in the article.
  • Should you link The Huffington Post India to the general Huffington Post page? (I am referencing the resources/sourcing)
  • Removed.
  • The word "Watch" should not be in caps in the reference titles.
  • Fixed
Great job with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Fixed everything (hopefully). Thanks for taking out time for the review. NumerounovedantTalk 19:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks great; I can definitely support this. Good luck with getting this promoted, and I look forward to working with you more in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The feeling's mutual. Cheers. NumerounovedantTalk 20:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Development began in June 2014, --> The development of the film began in June 2014.
  • Done
  • Newspapers like TOI, The Hindu should be in italics and use 'work' or 'publisher' parameters instead of 'website', as its widely used.
  • Done
  • How 'Ishka films' a RS?
  • It's the official page of the production house, should it qualify as a RS?
  • Then I guess it does.
  • I see reviews of prominent critics like Anupama Chopra and Rajeev Masand are not mentioned. Also, you should add 1-2 negative or mixed reviews for the sake of neutrality.
  • Added Masand's mixed review, and expanded on Gupta's mixed review as well.
  • Mention the writers name in the lead.
  • It's already there.
  • "In her review for Firstpost Anna Vetticad said that.." A comma is missing somewhere. Also, it should be 'wrote that' unless its a video review.
  • Added
  • I'm not sure a site like Koimoi can be used in a featured level article since many of its stuffs are WP:MIRROR.
  • Removed the review from reception section, I don't think that the one line in the music section should cause any issues, but if you're still uncomfortable with the use of the site, I can remove the too.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking out time to review this, I greatly appreciate all your help Yash, you're a wonderful person. NumerounovedantTalk 21:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yashthepunisher: Fixed everything. NumerounovedantTalk 19:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't see any issue now. Great work on the article bro and thanks for your kind words for me. Cheers! Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ssven2
  • "The next day she is angered on reading an intimate message on Rajat's phone from a colleague Sheetal, who is later revealed to be a man." — Isn't Sheetal a woman's name? Don't quite get this part.
It is, traditionally. I'll try to help you make sense out of this. In the particular scene Tara suspects that her husband was cheating on because of messages from a person named Sheetal. She confronts Rajat's junior, and he reveals that Sheetal is actually a guy, Rajat's boss and the messages were regarding a private work meeting which Tara had misinterpreted. It's just used to some humour to the film, and aksi helps brings out the Tara's paranoia in the situation.
  • Are Bollywood Life and RadioMusic.com reliable sources? There's also a music review from Scroll.in here if you like to use it.
I agree that they might not be best sources. I'll look into them and try and find more reputed reviews
@Numerounovedant: That's about it from me.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking out time for this. I'll get back to you as soon as the second comment is addressed. NumerounovedantTalk 16:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2: I have essentially re-organised the whole section, and have removed the objectionable source material. Hope it looks better now. NumerounovedantTalk 18:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Numerounovedant: You have my support. Good luck with your FAC.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I previously missed out on adding the link to the recent PR. Also, I believe that the article has received substantial amount of commentss. Sorry for the trouble, but can i get a status report on the nomination. Thanks a lot. NumerounovedantTalk 20:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't scanned the article myself as yet but it looks like we have a healthy level of commentary and support for promotion; as to remaining checks, I can see Ssven has looked at source reliability but we should have someone check reference formatting as the other half of a standard source review (unless I missed that above). Cheers, 07:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)~[reply]
@Ian Rose: Yash did go through the format and offered comments, and they have been addressed. Thanks for taking a look. NumerounovedantTalk 07:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2017 [14].

Phantasmagoria (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hunter Kahn, GamerPro64 16:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Kahn did the vast majority of creating the article to the way it is now. I've asked him if I could nominate it on his behalf which he allowed. (conversations 1, 2). Made by one of the most important women video game designers Roberta Williams, this horror game was a far cry from the type of games Sierra On-Line made back in the day, such as Space Quest and Police Quest. Still the history behind the creation of this game, along with the controversy and banning from Australia once it was released, a fascinating look at gaming back in 1995. GamerPro64 16:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indrian[edit]

A lot of good things happening in this article, but a few areas where I feel it can be tightened up a bit.

Plot[edit]
  • "who had five wives who all died mysteriously" - We can come up with a better verb than "had."
    • Changed the part to "whose five wives all died mysteriously." Does that work better? GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hoping to find an inspiration for her next novel, Adrienne begins having nightmares immediately upon moving into her new home" - As written, this sentence is describing how Adrienne deliberately induced nightmares to find inspiration for her next book.
    • Changed "begins" to "starts". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem was that the introductory clause is linked to the action verb of the sentence, so it reads as "because she wanted inspiration for her novel, she decides to induce nightmares." I took the liberty of rewriting this myself to avoid this connection.
  • "culminating in a controversial scene in which he rapes Adrienne" - I don't think culminating works here, as the culmination of his bad behavior is really when he starts killing everybody.
    • Changed "culminating" to "resulting". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meanwhile, Harriet, fearing for her safety, decides to leave with Cyrus as Don becomes more abusive and erratic" - Meanwhile is not the proper transition here, as it denotes something happening at the same time as the events of the previous paragraph when it is actually something that happens later.
Writing[edit]
  • "Williams had previously created suspenseful murder and crimes stories in her earlier mystery games, Mystery House and the Laura Bow series" - the use of "suspenseful" feels like unnecessary puffery to me.
  • "She felt the horror genre had not yet been properly explored in computer games yet, and that most attempts were just "a lot of hack and slash (where) the whole point seems to be to kill everyone and blow them away" - This is the first instance of what will become a recurring theme in this review: this is Williams talking to a house organ specifically to promote her game. As such, this may merely be sales puffery. I would take it out.
    • Just take out the sentence or should I take out everything involving the house organ? GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GamerPro64:I think it's okay to use InterAction for basic facts like plot points, gameplay features, development time, release dates, etc. Where I would be wary of using it is when it analyzes how Phantasmagoria compares to other games or proclaims how distinctive or wonderful any of its features are, as this material may take liberties since the primary purpose of the magazine is to entice people to buy the game. Indrian (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gotcha. Removed the sentence. GamerPro64 16:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams found it stressful working on two major games at once and said she had "some difficulty keeping both games in my head", but felt each received her undivided attention during the most crucial times in their respective developments." - Well she would feel that way, right? Is she going to say she neglected her games? This biased opinion does not really add any understanding to the creative process of the game.
  • "She said having a female lead in Phantasmagoria was not a ploy to attract female gamers, but rather felt like the correct choice for the game." - If she just chose a female protagonist because she wanted a female protagonist then there is really nothing to see here. This sentence does not really add to the article.
Casting[edit]
  • "Morsell said appreciated that her character was intelligent and not a typical horror film heroine, saying: "She doesn't do incredibly stupid things. You don't see her screaming in her underwear. The character isn't about decoration. She's a very real person." - This is just an actor promoting a project. I would not consider that source a reliable read of her feelings on the project.
  • "Homb compared acting in Phantasmagoria to working in an entirely new medium, and called it "one of the best experiences I've ever had in the entire entertainment business"." - Same as above but even moreso. Lots of actors talk about how great their experiences were when promoting a project, which was the entire point of the source in question.
  • "Unlike Homb, Miano primarily played antagonists throughout his career; he estimated "90 percent of the time, I play the bad guy." - This quote does not really add to our understanding of the subject.
  • As a general note, I have examined several FA-quality film articles, and virtually none of them list extensive CVs for cast members. This info seems excessive here, especially for the actors that have their own articles on Wikipedia.
    • What does CV stand for? GamerPro64 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GamerPro64:Sorry, CV is short for Curriculum Vitae, which is basically a fancy way of saying résumé. The article includes a lot of prior roles for each actor, and going into that kind of detail appears atypical for FA articles on similar topics like films. This is especially unnecessary for the actors that have their own Wikipedia articles. Indrian (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I get it now. I trimmed down the section a lot. How does it look now? GamerPro64 01:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks pretty good at a quick glance. I forgot to respond to your question about the analyst quote below, which I have now done. Once that final thing is addressed, I will give the whole article another look. Indrian (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Filming[edit]
  • "with the average scene taking about an hour to shoot, while others were significantly longer or shorter" and "The average filming day began at 6 a.m. with setting up the studio, with actors coming in at 7 a.m. or 7:30 a.m. for make-up calls. An hour-long pre-production meeting would detail what would be shot that day to ensure all necessary backgrounds and props were ready. Shooting would begin around 8 a.m. and conclude at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m." - So in other words, it followed a similar filming schedule to any other special-effects driven movie. This does not seem noteworthy and encompasses a level of minutiae not found in other FA-quality articles.
  • "Williams had no experience working with actors and feared it would be difficult due to "huge Hollywood egos", but she instead found the actors to be professional and hardworking" - Again, this may well be true, but it is drawn from a promotional book. These always go out of their way to emphasize camaraderie and harmony and are not really reliable for facts like these.
  • "They normally had two grips on set, but needed six for this scene, and Wolfe used friends who were visiting from out of town to help throw the props from ladders, boxes and scaffolding" - This feels like an unnecessary level of detail.
  • "At one point in the film, Carno lies in the hospital bed after having just survived a fire, his face wrapped in bandages with blood leaking through. During filming, Miano spontaneously sat up and started singing Al Jolson songs, making the crew laugh hysterically." - That's a cute story, but again seems out of step with maintaining a summary style.
  • "The Doberman Pinscher simply barked behind a fence during his scene, and was trained to bark on command using different hand signals. The scene with the rats simply involved them running along a wall in a basement, which they were trained with to do using food." - These are standard practices not unique to this game, so it again seems like an unnecessary detail.
Effects[edit]
  • "He said the game reminded him of working on one of his earliest movies, the slasher film The Slumber Party Massacre (1982)." - Another extraneous detail taken from a promotional source.
  • "Morsell had to have her face covered in plaster when the model of her head was created, and she experienced some anxieties during the process, saying it felt "like being buried alive".[87] Robert Miano had similar feelings of anxiety when a model of his body was created, which was used in the game for a scene when Carno is set on fire. Miano had to sit on a chair for hours as the crew put plaster all of his body and face, during which he had to breathe through straws in his nostrils." - More extraneous anecdotes of a common type for actors having plaster molds made of themselves.
Release[edit]
  • "and one of the first horror games from any company written specifically for adults" - So says Sierra's house organ as it tries to promote the game. It is not a reliable source for this type of information.
  • "Phantasmagoria was the first game to get an "M" rating for "mature" audiences" - No it wasn't. When Night Trap was released on the 32x in 1994 it boasted an M rating. Same with the DOS version of Mortal Kombat II in 1994. I think there were a few others as well. This is why house organs can be of limited utility as sources.
    • Removed. Really common knowledge for people who know about video game history. Also had to rework the part of the paragraph so let me know how it looks. GamerPro64 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sales[edit]
  • "InterAction, a magazine published by Sierra On-Line, wrote: "Never before has a new product jumped to number one on the charts so quickly." - I highly doubt that, and I would certainly never trust a company organ to tell me the truth about that.
    • Actually found the issue online. Page 25. The quote isn't the same as what InterAction wrote, though. But would the InterAction work as a source here? GamerPro64 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GamerPro64:It still feels a little promotional in nature, but I assume InterAction has a decent handle on how the game did relative to Sierra's own releases. I would be okay with the magazine being used as a source for the claim that Phantasmagoria jumped to number one faster than any other Sierra game, but clearly the bit about fastest in computer game history is marketing hype rather than fact. Indrian (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Indrian:I changed the sentence to "InterAction, a magazine published by Sierra On-Line, wrote that no other Sierra game topped game charts as quickly as Phantasmagoria did." Does that work? GamerPro64 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite coming out in August" - Games achieve most of their sales in the first couple of months after release, so there is nothing surprising about a game coming out in August selling better than a bunch of games that came out in January or some other earlier month.
Reviews[edit]
  • "The violent content drew a great deal of attention, with Lee S. Isgur of Jefferies & Co., a global investment bank that followed the computer game industry, wrote, "It's probably one of the bloodiest games ever."" - This is a statement from an analyst and is not part of a critical review of the game. It may fit in the article somewhere, but it does not belong here.
    • I agree with you with it not being relevant in the "Reviews" section but I wouldn't know where else to put it. Would the "Release" or "Legacy" section work? GamerPro64 21:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GamerPro64:Sorry I missed this one. Isgur is already mentioned in the controversy section, so that seems a natural place to work it in. Indrian (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay I moved it to that section and re-tooled it. GamerPro64 01:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy[edit]
  • "While happy with the game, she said she did not expect to make another horror game again, saying, "It's not really my area"." - Yeah and after finishing Time Zone in 1982 she said she would never make another adventure game again. This statement really has little probative value.

And that's it. I really do feel the article is mostly in fine shape; it just needs a little bit of trimming here and there to retain summary style and needs to take a little more care in the use of promotional sources. Indrian (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @GamerPro64: It looks like all my concerns have been addressed. I have also made a few edits here and there to improve the flow of the article. There is just one more thing I would like to see before supporting: The book High Score by Rusel DeMaria and Johnny Wilson includes a little bit of info on the game and brings up two points that I believe are of interest for comprehensiveness. One is that the game originally contained nudity as well as violence and gore, but they decided to take it out. The other is that during post-production Roberta Williams became an absolute perfectionist and kept sending back footage that did not fully integrate the actors with the blue screen backgrounds so as to avoid a "halo effect" like that found in 7th Guest. If you do not have access to that source, I would be happy to add the info myself. Indrian (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have any real way to access the source unless I buy it. You can add the info if you want. GamerPro64 03:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll go ahead and add it in the near future, but I see no reason to wait to offer my support. Indrian (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I've read this through a couple of times now and no prose clangers are jumping out at me...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would imagine that the image in the infobox would need an ALT description. Same goes for the images in the body of the article.
  • Should you use Adrienne’s full name in the first mention in the lead?
    • I guess not. Removed it. GamerPro64 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GamerPro64: I was actually wondering if you should put the character's full name in the first mention in the lead. I think it is fine to put the actor there. I have adjusted this in the lead, but feel free to revert it if you prefer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide more of a context for the final sentence in the final paragraph of the “Gameplay” section? It reads like a reception of the game, but I am assuming that it is someone involved in the production (if not Williams herself) who said this.
    • Just a reminder that this is the last comment left unaddressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was getting around to it. You don't have to rush me. I honestly don't know what to do with that sentence as Hunter Kahn wrote most of the information. GamerPro64 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was just trying to help; no need to be rude about it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I looked into it and it was from a Computer Gaming World writer. GamerPro64 17:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the following sentence (Lee had mostly done theater work the in), eliminate “the”.
  • I think twenty-five in “Twenty-five professional actors” should be written out as numerals according to the policy on numbering. You write out 12 as numerals in the following section.
    • Does that apply here since its the beginning of a sentence? GamerPro64 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The “Media data and Non-free use rationale” summary needs to be completed for the screenshots.

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • The words "announce(d)" and "release(d)" are overused in the Release section.
    • Trimmed the usage of the words down in the section. GamerPro64 17:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we still need image and source reviews, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already made the request. Been waiting four days. GamerPro64 22:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed that, it's been a long week! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't see an image review above or a request for one at WT:FAC, but checking the screenshots I think all have acceptable FURs so I think we can wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • No dead links or other problems of that sort.
  • I assume the plot section is like that of movie articles and is meant to be uncited. the rest of the text is well-referenced.
  • I changed a few dates to standardize them with the rest of your citations.
  • Everything else looks good to go. Good luck with the rest of the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2017 [15].

Resident Evil 5[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the best selling video game in the Resident Evil series. Article is GA, has received a peer review and a copy-edit from the guild of copy-editors. Freikorp (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • The first sentence in the lead's second paragraph is quite long and it may be beneficial to separate it into two parts. The first part could focus on the addition of co-operative gameplay and the second could focus on the departure from survival horror game mechanics in favor of those of an action game.
  • Done.
  • You have a stray ending parenthesis in the second paragraph of the "Development" section that should be deleted.
  • Removed.
  • Would it be beneficial to provide the name of the original theme song in the final paragraph of the same section?
  • The source, unfortunately, doesn't mention the name of the song.
  • No worries as this is not a major point of concern. This was more of a clarification question as it is not absolutely necessary for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first three paragraphs of the "Critical reception" subsection seems to lack focus and it would be beneficial to organize these paragraphs around shared ideas/concepts from each review. The third and fourth paragraph appear to be fine as they focus on negative reviews and the reception of the DLC (though the inclusion of the nomination as Best Action Game at the end of a paragraph primarily dealing with DLC seems a little odd and it may be better to relocate that to an earlier paragraph in the same subsection.
  • I've reorganised it, take a look and let me know if it needs further work.

@Freikorp: These are the only comments that I could find on my first read-through. Great work with the article. I will support this nomination once my comments have been addressed. Good luck with this and I hope this receives more traffic in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for your comments; I've replied to all concerns. Let me know if you spot anything else or think anything needs more work. Freikorp (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with this article. I support this nomination and good luck with getting it promoted in the future. I hope this receives more traffic in the future. Aoba47 (talk)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

Resolved comments from Jaguar
  • Definitely footnote the Japanese name per WP:JPN
  • "The seventh major installment in the Resident Evil series, the game was announced in 2005, the same year its predecessor Resident Evil 4 was released." - I think this sentence read a bit awkwardly. How about The game is the seventh major installment in the Resident Evil series, and was first announced in 2005—the same year its predecessor Resident Evil 4 was released.
  • All three paragraphs of the lead start with "Resident Evil 5". I'd recommend mixing it up slightly
  • "When the game was released the minigame multiplayer mode was offline only, but a release-day patch gave the game online multiplayer modes" - to me this sounds contradictory. When the game was released, minigames were offline only, but on the release day they were patched to give them online capability? Do you mean that the game's minigames are offline when the game isn't updated? Maybe reword it to something like that, if that's the case
  • "Mercenaries unlocks when the game's story mode has been completed" - Mercenaries is unlocked when the game's story mode has been completed
  • I couldn't spot any issues with the plot section—it seems to be an appropriate length too
  • "Actors Reuben Langdon, Karen Dyer and Ken Lally portrayed Chris Redfield, Sheva Alomar and Albert Wesker" - needs a ", respectively." on the end.
  • "Resident Evil 5 was introduced by Capcom on July 20, 2005" - announced?
  • "on the Xbox Live Marketplace and the PlayStation Store" - de-link PlayStation Store here as it's already linked
  • "It was the fastest-selling game of the franchise in the United Kingdom, and the biggest Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 game release in the region" - the United Kingdom is a country and not a region. I think "region" means North America, Europe, PAL regions etc
  • I think the third and fourth paragraphs of the critical response section could be paraphrased so it doesn't have to rely on quotes. This is an aspect reviewers will mostly nitpick to death in FACs

That's all I could find during my initial read through, but other than that I thought this article was pretty solid, and all of the sources I've checked were verifiable and reliable. I'll come back to this once all of the above are clarified! JAGUAR  18:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaguar. Thanks for your comments. I've addressed everything, and have paraphrased three direct quotes in the 'Critical response' section. Let me know if you think I should paraphrase more, or if you find any other issues. Freikorp (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take another look through the article now. Another thing I would recommend is reworking the reception section somewhat so that it avoids the "A said B" problem (User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections is an excellent essay which deals with this). To accomplish this, I would put a short summary sentence at the beginning of each paragraph in the reception section, for example the first paragraph could have something like Reviewers praised the game's visuals and level of content and the third paragraph could have The game's control scheme was viewed negatively by critics which a bunch of citations at the end of it. I notice that the paragraphs are organised by topic, so writing summary sentences shouldn't be a problem. JAGUAR  10:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jaguar. I've added summary sentences. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing them. I've read through the article again and am happy that all of my points have been dealt with, so I'm glad to lend my support here. Well done! JAGUAR  13:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Jaguar

As requested, I'll start doing my source review of the article now. I'll go through all of them and will highlight any issues if I see them:

  • "Wounding an enemy with a firearm often causes them to stagger; if the player is in close range, an icon will appear with the option of a melee attack such as an uppercut or a somersault kick" - none of this is mentioned in the citation given. Could it be in another ref?
Hmm I'm not sure if that was ever sourced. I've just removed it. Freikorp (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many of the game's cutscenes and boss battles involve quick time events" - the IGN source does mention that boss battles involve quick time events, but not cutscenes
Removed the words 'cutscenes and'.
  • "Customised weapons" - not related to the source review, but is this article supposed to use American spelling throughout?
Fixed.
  • I've spotted a few sources from the development section which aren't archived. It's always best to archive them if possible
Are you sure? I can't see any online sources that aren't archived.
Ah, my fault! When I was accessing the links I deleted the archived url so that the pages would load faster for me. I forgot that I was looking at all the non-archived links the whole time. JAGUAR  20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Takeuchi said that about three years of "actual development time" were spent on the game, after a year devoted to concept and planning. At its development peak, about 110 people worked on the project." - this needs a citation, as it's not mentioned in the Joystiq interview. I found "Takeuchi explained that next-gen projects easily spend three to five years in development" in the GameSpot source, but I can't find where it says almost 110 people worked on development anywhere else. I'll keep looking, but the first two sentences of the second paragraph in the development section will need citations
Unfortunately I think that was originally backed up by a now dead 1UP.com source. Archive.is has backed up the first and last page of the interview ([16][17]) but thee three pages in the middle appear to be dead forever. I've removed the information as it is can no longer be verified, and have removed the mention in the lead about it as well. I've added some new, unrelated information to fill the space.

I'm halfway through the development section at the moment. Will continue in a few hours! JAGUAR  14:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Jaguar. I've attempted to address your concerns. Looking forward to the rest of the source review. Freikorp (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll continue with my source review now. JAGUAR  20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The package included a Resident Evil Premium Theme for the Xbox 360 Dashboard" - minor, but the dashboard itself isn't mentioned in the source
Found a new source to support it. :)
  • "and was retired in 2012" - not mentioned that it was retired in 2012 in either of the two sources
Removed.
  • "Resident Evil 5 was re-released on Shield Android TV in May 2016" - missing italics
Fixed.
  • "with a physical disc copy following in the Americas on July 12, 2016" - the source only says that the physical copy was released in North America. I think "Americas" refers to both North and South America
Fixed.
  • Ref 43 misspells "channell"
Fixed.
  • "Versus became available for download in Europe and North America on April 7, 2009, on the Xbox Live Marketplace and the PlayStation Store" - might sound better as Versus became available for download in Europe and North America on April 7, 2009 through the Xbox Live Marketplace and the PlayStation Store (not related to the source review but I don't know why I didn't pick this up on my prose review)
Changed.

My review is done. I've checked all of the refs, and those were all of the issues I could find, albeit minor ones. The sources in the reception section are flawless as they match the content perfectly, and I couldn't find any other issues anywhere. Overall this is a solid article and once all of those minor issues are addressed I'll be happy to support again on the sourcing. JAGUAR  20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All issues replied to. :) Freikorp (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them! I will support on the sourcing side of things. Everything checks out for me. JAGUAR  21:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PanagiotisZois[edit]

Resolved comments from PanagiotisZois
  • In the lead section's first paragraph, should you include that Chris is also looking for his missing partner Jill Valentine?
I've now mentioned Jill in the lead.
  • In the second paragraph you could maybe include that it expands upon the gameplay of RE4, having even more melee moves.
Did you notice that mentioned in any of the sources or do you just remember this from playing the game? Everything in this section needs to be sourced and I don't recall any of the sources mentioning that, but I'll have a more in depth look later.
  • in "Gameplay" you have ) after the word space.
Removed. Thanks for pointing that out.
  • Add that on the first playthrough in single mode, players can only use Chris but once the game is completed the can choose Sheva instead.
That is already mentioned in the fourth sentence in the third paragraph. :)
  • Maybe add that the Mercenaries minigame, while originally from RE3 is based more on RE4 in regards to gameplay style.
This is true, but I've looked through all the mercenaries sources and none of them compare this version to versions in previous RE games.

Due to time constraints I've only looked at the lead and "Gameplay" sections. Will look into the rest as well. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments PanagiotisZois. I'm looking forward to the rest of your review. No rush though; whenever you're ready. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few minor changes to the plot. Added that the name of the parasite is Las Plagas on their first mention, that the mind-controlled Jill is the hooded figure (in the hood XD) and a few minor G&S changes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references are all good except number 22 "The Making of Resident Evil 5" which has beed dead for a few days now. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haha what annoying timing. Anyway I've removed the now dead (and unfortunately unarchivable) source and replaced it with three new ones, one for each actor. Freikorp (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the development section just say "who directed Onimusha and produced Lost Planet". By the way, the link to the first game doesn't specify which one he worked on. "from both RE4 AND the original RE". PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Both issues fixed. Freikorp (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section seems to be in order. Only one more section to go. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the "Additional content" section is good but, this might just me I may be having a temporary brain malfunction, the third paragraph is kind of confusing. So Alternative Edition was released only in Japan and its only additional content was LiN. Gold Edition which was released in NA and EU has LiN as well as DE and new outfits/Mercenaries content. But in the third paragraph you say that "In addition to Gold Edition both episodes and costume packs are available as DLC, with two of the eight new Mercenaries Reunion characters bundled with each downloadable item; after buying all five sets of DLC, players own all content on the disc. This only applies to the PlayStation 3 version; the Xbox 360 version has no DLC on the disc. The Xbox 360 version comes with a download token allowing free download of all DLC, and the PlayStation 3 version has all of the new content on disc." Do you mean that the GE additional content was eventually released as DLC for the base games for PS3? I think that specific paragraph needs to be slightly re-written to make it clearer. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through that again I found it confusing also. I ended up just trimming a couple sentences to fix the problem. Let me know if anything still seems out of place. Thanks again PanagiotisZois. Freikorp (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It definately makes more sense now. I have to say, great work on the article. It was one my first RE games so it's nice to see it in such a good condition. I definately support its promotion to FA-status. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Coordinator[edit]

We have three supports here, but I'm not quite seeing the depth of review that we really need. PanagiotisZois looks to have given this a fairly good review on content and accuracy, we have a check of the sources from Jaguar, and general comments from the other reviewer. I don't think we have an in-depth prose review yet (and I might ask a few people myself if no-one comes forward) and I would like some assurance that we are fully representing the literature and the article is comprehensive (i.e. a little more on criteria 1a, 1b and 1c). Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarastro1. Thanks for your comment. I've contacted a couple editors myself seeking the kind of review you are after but haven't had any luck as of yet. if you could ask someone for one I would appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Sarastro1. So we now have a support on prose, though no additional review on content. Where do we go from here? Will this FAC stay open until it gets another review, or are you satisfied it has enough support? I ask as if it needs a further reviewer I will embark on another attempt to find one, though I'm not confident it will have any more success than my last attempt. Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This won't be archived any time soon, so you are quite safe taking your time. I think Dank has covered prose, but I still would like more commentary on 1b and 1c. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PresN[edit]

Freikorp asked me to take a look at this for 1.b and 1.c concerns, since I have my own FAC up (Homeworld).

  • Development sources you're not using may not have seen - [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] - these may not all have new information, but I suspect it's actually the opposite, given that the development section right now is primarily "who did what" and technical decisions, not artistic ones.
 Done: The first source there is already used in the article. I've added some new information from the other four you provided.
  • Your reception table includes both Metacritic and Gamerankings; the template discourages using Gamerankings for modern games, as the scores are generally identical to Metacritic- and indeed, here it's just a few percentage points off.
 Done
  • Similarly, it's recommended to only put 7-8 scores in the table, even if you use more in prose- you have 9, which is close enough, but I'd personally recommend cutting either Game Revolution, X-Play, or both.
 Partly done: I've cut X-Play. Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why you suggested cutting these two in particular?
  • I'm not personally a fan of the depth of the reception section- each paragraph is: Topic Sentence, 2-3 sentences from 3-4 reviews about that game aspect; Topic sentence, 2-3 sentence from 3-4 (generally different) reviews, done. Eurogamer and Game Informer are the only reviews to be used twice. I'd like to see the sources used for more than a single pull quote/paraphrase, even if they're in agreement with each other.
 Partly done: That format was actually reccomended by another reviewer. I have, however, used another two reviews a second time now.
  • Except, of course, for the thesis paragraph ("Although the game was praised..."), which I really don't like, cited or no- you basically have a mini-lead for the reception subsection, and then expand on that lead for the next 3 paragraphs. It's pretty clunky. Frankly, that whole paragraph should go, and the award sentence should be expanded.
 Done
 Done: The awards paragraph grew big enough that I thought it warranted its own sub-section. Let me know if you don't think that was a good idea.
  • The "Allegations of Racism" section is crossing the line into editorializing, in my opinion. Mainly because of the long "congenital retardation" quote- that frankly comes across as overly dismissive and rather childish. If you want a better counter piece, use this IGN pre-release one, where she talks about different cultural perceptions being the root of the controversy, saying that the objective scenes and actions aren't racist, and also wouldn't be perceived as such in cultures that don't have a historical sensitivity to images like them.
 Done: I've drastically shortened the editorialising and have expanded the coverage to include the new source you have provided.

No concerns in the unmentioned sections about source use or comprehensiveness. --PresN 18:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments PresN. I'll start working on these issues. Freikorp (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to address everything PresN. Take a look and let me know what you think. Freikorp (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on 1.b and 1.c. --PresN 18:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Coordinator[edit]

Can we do something for the non-specialist here? For example, in the first paragraph of "Gameplay", I see "in addition to melee attack", "to evade enemies" (without specifying who these enemies are" and "boss battles". These need explaining, or linking at the very least. Also, is it standard practice to have "gameplay" before "plot"? Someone who has no idea what this is all about probably wants to know what the aim and plot of the game are before they discover how to play it. For me, reversing the order makes sense, unless there is any great need to do it this way, or if that is the standard format for games. Also, watch out for close repetition of words; I cleared up one, but there is also "Despite initial concern that a second player would dampen the game's tension and horror, it was later realized that a second player could increase tension in situations where one player had to be rescued." Sarastro1 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay comes before plot in most cases, because gameplay is the core of what a game is. Unless the gameplay is more easily understood if the section order is reversed, it should come first.--IDVtalk 12:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think the gameplay needs a bit of work to give it context, or we are told how to play the game before we know what the game is. For example, the gameplay section in the just-promoted Donkey Kong 64 explains the aim of the game too. Not to say that this should be copied, but I think we are assuming a level of knowledge in our reader that might not exist. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reworded the sentence you pointed out Sarastro1. It was one of the few sentences that were added after the article was copyedited, in order to address other reviewer concerns. Copyediting has never been my strong suit.
I've wikilinked boss battles, and reworded it to introduce it better. I've also wikilniked 'melee'. I've added a sentence explaining what enemies are being fought. I've described the typical enemies as 'infected villagers'; this raises the question of what they are infected with, but that is covered later on. Let me know if you think I need to expand on this. Freikorp (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I'm still not convinced. It makes little sense to me to discuss the characters and the aim of killing enemies without first establishing who those characters are, or why they are fighting. I'm no video game person at all, so maybe it's just me, but it seems counterintuitive. I might ask a couple of people to take a look, for my own peace of mind, before I promote this. Also, the prose still looks like it needs a little massaging. For example: "Takeuchi said that the decision to have both screens in their original 16:9 ratio in split-screen' mode was influenced by a desire to avoid stacking the screens, which might be distracting, and the restriction on simultaneously moving and shooting was retained to increase player tension with the inability to move freely." Aside from the fact that I'm afraid this makes no sense at all to me, we have more repetition within one sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded that sentence to have less repetition and make it easier to understand (The issue is introduced with this sentence in the Gameplay section: "Split-screen mode presents the game in two windows with the wide-screen proportions of one-player mode, rather than splitting the screen in two, and the entire screen is not utilized"). I believe the format I've used meets the generally standard for video game articles, so it might be best to ask someone else's opinion regarding the other issue. Freikorp (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2c from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Okay, I have scanned through the prose and no ungainly clangers jump out at me. In terms of flow, the only thing I would do is move descriptors of Redfield and Alomar to their first mention (in Gameplay) and just use their surnames at the subsequent section in Plot. Then I think it is okay. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert as needed.

  • "was first announced in 2005" -- isn't "first" redundant here?  Done
  • Suggest linking or footnoting "checkpoint" for readers unfamiliar with game terminology.  Done
  • "Split-screen mode presents the game in two windows with the wide-screen proportions of one-player mode, rather than splitting the screen in two, and the entire screen is not utilized." I don't follow this; can you clarify?
    Right. So normally when you play a two player video game the screen is cut in half; one player's view is the top half of the screen and the others is the bottom. This game was quite unique at the time in choosing not to do that. Instead of splitting the screen in two, they retained the widescreen format for each player, which resulted in two views, each of which was significantly smaller than half the screen. So basically there were two windows within the entire screen with a whole lot of black space around each as a TV isn't designed to display two widescreen images; each widescreen image had to be reduced to fit, resulting in leftover space. Does that make sense?
    That helps; and a quick Google finds some representative images that make it completely clear. I think you could justify a fair-use image to explain this, if you wanted to. It's a hard thing to explain in words. How about "In split-screen mode, one player's viewpoint is presented in the top half of the screen, and the other in the bottom half, but each viewpoint is presented in widescreen format, rather than using the full width of the screen, resulting in unused space to the left and right of the two windows."? Or an image would make it immediately obvious. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added your explanation, which is better, and I've also replaced the previous image with one showing co-operative gameplay. Freikorp (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot section, why is Excella Gionne referred to by her first name, but Albert Wesker by his last name? And why is it Alomar and Jill, not Alomar and Valentine or Sheva and Jill? I would think last names would be standard for a third-person description.  Done
  • "Redfield and Alomar follow Wesker to a bomber loaded with missiles containing the Uroboros virus, injecting him with additional doses...Furious‚ Wesker exposes himself to Uroboros": if they injected him with additional doses, surely he's already exposed himself to Uroboros?
The additional doses mentioned are not of Uroboros. I've clarified what they are.
  • "In February 2007, members of Capcom's Clover Studio were asked to help develop the game; many of the studio's developers instead worked on Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, which debuted for the Wii." Not sure I follow -- this sounds like the developers turned down the request, but surely that's not right.
No that's not right. Reworded to clarify.
  • "created the in-game files": what is an in-game file?
No idea, come to think of it. Another editor added that. I've just removed it.
  • Given that Takeuchi was the producer, I don't think you need to attribute him inline for a couple of the statements in the development section; the citation is good enough. You could just say "The decision to retain..." and "The restriction on simultaneously...."  Done
  • "helped her get the role of Alomar": suggest "win the role", since "get" also means "understand", which is how I parsed this when I first read it.  Done
  • "shown at the Captivate 08 media summit": I see from the in-article comment that the sources don't give any further explanation of this. I'd just cut it in that case, as we don't really know what it means or how important it is; or else find other sources so we can link or explain this.
Removed it.
  • "Capcom also confirmed a way around limitations in the Gold Edition release for Steamworks, which returns support for DirectX 10 and Nvidia 3D Vision, as seen in the Games for Windows Live version": I don't know what this means.
I've reworded it to be clearer.
  • In the critical response section, do we need the reviewers' names and publications attached to every comment? It really breaks up the flow for the reader. For example, I think in the first paragraph you could say "The gameplay was described as exhilarating and frantic, with a surprisingly high replay value." If the reviewer's name or publication is particularly prominent in the field it might be worth noting, but if not, I think most readers would prefer to see those details in the footnotes rather than interrupting the text. It might also be worth including the reviewer's name where you're including a lot of material from one reviewer, such as in paragraph three, where three consecutive sentences refer to Mielke's review. Direct quotes are also sometimes (but not always) naturally attributed inline.
    Every other reviewer seems to have a significantly different opinion on how the reception section should be stylised. That's the way I was advised to do it by someone else.
    I agree this is a pretty standard reception section, as good as most other video game FAs. I'm not going to oppose over it, but I think it could be much improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "criticized several inconsistencies in the game, such as the ability to interact with objects and use cover": I don't follow; what's the inconsistency?
For example, the player may be prompted to use, say, a low wall as cover at one point, yet the game may not allow the player to use another similar wall as cover later on. I've reworded this to explain it better.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Christie. Thanks for your comments. I've replied to each of your concerns. Freikorp (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. I think the reception section is weak, but I don't want to withhold support since I am in a minority on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Video games ... aren't my specialist subject, but I was asked to cast an eye over this so let's see...

  • The first thing that jumps out at me is the dates in the opening sentences. I'd expect to see the year it was released in the first sentence and certainly before you mention the announcement date, which is four years earlier.  Done
  • making it the franchise's best-selling individual game and also the best-selling Capcom game of all time is a little awkward. First of all, the construction "and also" should be burnt with fire. Second, do you really need "of all time" and "individual game"? How about re-phrasing it to make the game the subject of the sentence, a la is Capcom's best-selling game [of all time] and the best-selling of the Resident Evil franchise or something like that?  Done
  • players can upgrade weapons with money Are we talking about game money (rewards earnt by completing tasks etc) or in-game purchases?
    Specified that it is money found in game.
  • This might be heresy, but have you considered putting the plot section first (ie swapping "plot" and "gameplay")? As things are, I'm wondering why I'm attacking infected villagers (And what they're infected with) etc.  Done
    Normally this is the accepted order for video games but considering you're the second person to say that I'll swap it.
  • What does equipping of weapons and items in real time during gameplay mean?
    In a lot of video games you could just pause the game, bring up your inventory, and change weapons. In this game, you can't do anything like that. Reconfiguring your equipment/inventory most be done in 'real-time' during gameplay. This changes the strategy of gameplay. For example, in a different game if an enemy was charging at you and the weapon you were currently holding was ineffective against them, you could just pause and swap weapons. In this game, it might take several seconds of gameplay to do that, so you may have to choose to run instead as there wouldn't be enough time to change weapons before your enemy closes the distance. Does that make sense?
  • Special Tactics and Rescue Service (STARS) member and now part of the Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance (BSAA) I assume these are fictional agencies? Can we add that adjective in there somewhere just for the avoidance of doubt?  Done
  • his new partner I was going to ask what you meant by new but I see from her article that Sheva Alomar was introduced in this game, so perhaps say that?  Done
  • there is an option to make Alomar the primary character Does this make any difference to the gameplay? almost certainly too much detail for the article unless there's a major difference, but indulge my curiosity!
    If I recall correctly, no. Sheva and Chris are together the entire game anyway and physically I don't think there was anything one could do that the other couldn't. That being said, I haven't played this game since 2010. :)
  • local player Since this is contrasting with "online", I assume it means "in the same room"? Can we say something like that instead?
    Ive changed it to 'with a second player using the same console' - is that OK?
  • deliberately separated during gameplay [...] can trade items during gameplay Undesirable repetition. Zapping the first "during gameplay" might solve the problem.  Done
  • Wesker announces over the ship's intercom that he has betrayed and infected Gionne with Uroboros suggest Wesker announces over the ship's intercom that he has betrayed Gionne and infected her with Uroboros  Done
  • it was later realized that this could actually increase such factors due to situations where one player had to be rescued is not at all professional-standard prose and needs a rewrite (especially due to situations...
    Yep, that was written by me after the copy-edit to address another reviewers' concerns. I am not good at professional standard prose. I've removed 'due to situations'. If there are additional problems you're going to have to point them out to me.
  • The decision to retain wide-screen proportions in two-player mode was made to avoid having the the first player's screen directly on top of the second, which might be distracting So you're saying that the screen is split horizontally, and that there is black space around the two players' parts of the screen? (I agree with Mike that a photo would instantly make this clearer)
    Yes that's correct. I've uploaded a new version of the main image to show this. From experience, this may take a day to update properly on all browsers.
  • cited the film Black Hawk Down and his experience working on Lost Planet: Extreme Condition as influences In what way? Is this related to the increased tension mentioned in the previous sentence, or is it something different?
    Specified this.
  • version 1.4 of Capcom's MT Framework engine,[1] with scenes recorded by motion capture The comma implies that there's a relationship between the two facts (is there?), and "with" is a sloppy way to join two halves of a sentence. I highly recommend Tony's guide for this (User:Tony1/How to improve your writing#Sentences, scroll down a bit to "Two poorly used additives on WP").
    I think I've fixed this.
  • principal composer, with additional music by see what I just said about "with"  Done
  • The composer's Do you mean Suzuki? If so, just say so. If not, who? It's not clear from the context because you've just mentioned three other people.
    I've just removed 'composer's' entirely as I'm not sure who it was specifically referring to.
  • Resident Evil 5 was announced by Capcom Try to use the active voice (Capcom annnounced rather than announced by Capcom wherever possible.  Done
  • Can we spell out E3 on its first mention?  Done
  • Try to group references at the end of sentences or paragraphs wherever possible for readability.
    Are you sure? What if one source only backs up part of the sentence?
  • Do we need the exact dates of all the releases of the demo version in different locations?
    No, we don't. What do you suggest I replace them with? Just the month?
  • the two consoles, with over 1.8 million "with" again
    Reworded.
  • it was announced that a competitive multiplayer mode called Versus would be available Announced by whom? And use the active voice if possible.
    Specified it was Capcom
  • I agree with Mike again that the critical response section is choppy, with lots of short quotes and "reviewer X from publication Y said...". Maybe you could go with something like Joe Bloggs, Jane Smith, and John Hancock praised X; Bloggs called it Y and Smith called it Y?
    Yeah, I get it. The reception section could be better. I feel like that's going to take me a lot of time, and I've already spent more time than I anticipated addressing FAC concerns here this weekend. Its cut a lot into my real world commitments. Can we leave this till last? As in, can you go through all my other replies and make sure your concerns have been satisfied, and then I'll have a look at this if you can't support the nomination without this section being reworked? Thanks.
  • horror shooter," Generally, punctuation should go outside the quote marks (MOS:LQ); check these throughout the section
    I've removed that instance. I believe all the terminal periods in this section were present in the original material.
  • However, he concluded that despite Don't use five words where one will do; just snip the first four.  Done
  • 'Reed also criticized aspects of the controls Not a big deal but can we avoid using "aspects" twice in quick succession?  Done
  • Whitehead stated that We can do better than "stated", surely?
    Changed to 'said'.

Sorry to come in with a long list like this late in the day. There's a little bit of work to do here, but most of it is relatively simple, and a lot of these are fairly common issues (some of them I only learnt about from having my own writing criticised). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ Mitchell. I've made a reply to everything, take a look through it all and let me know how I'm going. Freikorp (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the edits you've made. The only outstanding point of any significance is the reception section. That could be improved, but it's fairly typical of featured articles on similar topics, so it would be unfair to single yours out, and I feel we can overlook one or two flaws in the prose for otherwise exceptional articles. Thus, support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment[edit]

I didn't spot an image review above but, checking them myself, licensing looks to be in order so I think we can finally wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2017 [23].

Operation Grandslam[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Operation Grandslam, a UN peacekeeping operation undertaken in the Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) (presently the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in 1962–1963 to suppress the secessionist State of Katanga. This little-discussed episode formed a part of the Congo Crisis, a tense moment in the Cold War. The operation is unusual in the sense that it, in spite of being a "peacekeeping" action, involved thousands of soldiers and included a UN air raid on a rebel air base. This article extends beyond the purely military aspects of the conflict and showcases an interesting moment in international and Congolese affairs as UN member states debated over what courses of action to take while the Congo struggled to rebuild. Though marking the end of a formal secession movement, insurgency continued to be a large problem in the region until October 2016. This article has passed both a GA review and a WikiProject Military history A-class review. I have extensively researched this topic and developed this article to a point where I believe it qualifies for FA status. At this point, the only improvements I can make are those suggested to me be others. Considering that I have already had such reviews conducted, there is no further step for me to make but to nominate this article for featured status. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In my view this is a clear pass. The article is well-written in that the prose is simple and never tries to do too much. The structure is logical. The sourcing is of a high standard; I did limited spot-checking of the early parts of the article. I made some minor wording changes myself, which I hope are correct. I then had the following two very minor points which I raise here only because I hesitated before dealing with them myself:

  • "Shortly thereafter South Kasai and the State of Katanga declared independence from the central government."” – As far as I’m aware, one secedes from a country, not from a government.
  • "Peacekeeping contingents from Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Ireland, Sweden, and Tunisia were officially earmarked to carry out Operation Grandslam." – earmarked by whom? (The passive voice here doesn’t work well on this occasion). Also, “officially” seems unnecessary, as does "publicly" in "publicly announced" later on in the article.

Those points are nowhere near consequential enough to delay me from marking my review as a support. Syek88 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: - I think I've addressed these criticisms. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As an aside, concerning this edit, I agree with Dank. The term "damages" does not have a generic meaning; it has only a specific meaning in a legal context, namely compensation payable for loss. I think "damage" is correct here. Syek88 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - Before any other reviewers proceed, I, the nominator and primary author, feel one point must be drawn to their attention. In the WikiProject Military history A-class review for this article (under my response to HJ Mitchell) the matter of two UN Security Council resolutions were brought up. In the end, I never really got a clear answer on whether to include information about the two resolutions in the article. These resolutions are what gave ONUC the ability to use force against Katanga. I've found no sources that make an explicit connection between these resolutions and Operation Grandslam. I have found a source that makes the connection between those resolutions and Operations Rumpunch, Morthor, and perhaps Unokat, as well as the suppression of the Stanleyville government. I have also found that Dorn and Kille (which, for the record, is a chapter written by Dorn) make implicit and vague references to the resolutions in the context of Grandslam. So, my question is, should I provide information on these two resolutions in the "Background" section of the article? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some source that might help in drawing a link: pages 244 to 245 of this book, which says quite firmly that Operation Grandslam was the UN making "effective use of its new powers for forceful intervention", having previously referred to the 24 November 1961 resolution as "more robust" and "much less ambiguous" than the earlier authorising resolution. That looks rather solid to me. There is also page 72 of this book and page 217 of this book, which aren't as strong. I would think that (a) if there are scholars who say the operation was authorised by UNSC resolutions, and there no significant contrary view, only silence, the article should present that view as fact, and (b) if there is genuine scholarly debate, the article should present that debate. Syek88 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, @Syek88:. I have added the info on the security council resolutions to the best of my ability. That's some good stuff you've found, but I'm afraid those sources are somewhat inaccurate. I've come across this issue before. In attempt to put everything into summary style, a number of authors have ended up combining the events of Operation Unokat and Operation Grandslam. This is apparent in Klose (first source you provided) because that sources says that a combined strike force of Swedish, Ethiopian, and Indian aircraft were fielded in Grandslam. We know from Dorn that this is not true, because India and Ethiopia had withdrawn their aircraft by November 1962. Only in Unokat were all three country's air forces operated simultaneously. So when the source says, "It would be another year before the UN made effective use of its new powers for forceful intervention", it's in effect whitewashing the whole occurrence of Unokat. I can try and make the connection between Unokat and the second resolution distinct (there are sources that support the relation), but I think in terms of Grandslam I've added all that I can accurately do so. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds entirely prudent. The authors of the books to which I linked may well be generalist international relations or legal scholars who aren't sufficiently across the facts of the Congo operations. Syek88 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Irish_captives_in_Katanga_1961.PNG: when/where was this first published? Same with File:United_Nations_peacekeeping_air_forces_in_Congo_-_January_1963.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The first file was uploaded by Katangais, a good fellow here on Wikipedia and on the Commons. However, it does seem they give little info on the source of the image. As such, I've removed it from this article. I've replaced it with a quotebox with a statement by Thant. The second file was a blatant copyright violation and has been removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Finetooth

Support on prose
This flows along nicely. I made 15 or so small changes to the prose or punctuation; please revert any that seem wrong. In addition, I have a few questions or suggestions.
Background
  • "first Congolese prime minister" - Name and link him, Patrice Lumumba?
  • "There, Bunch worked with local UN Mission Chief Robert Gardiner..." - Since Wikipedia has no article on Gardiner, perhaps identifying him as "Robert K. A. Gardiner (Ghana)" would help to distinguish him from the world's many other Robert Gardiners.
ONUC
  • "ONUC forces in Katanga were under the command of General Prem Chand and his operational deputy, Brigadier Reginald Noronha, both professional and capable officers." – The phrase "both professional and capable officers" seems unnecessary and possibly patronizing, though that's not your intention.
First phase
  • "...there may be some who would be inclined to refer a United Nations 'military victory.'" – Is the quote from U Thant missing a word? Should it say "be inclined to refer to"?
ONUC communications breakdown
  • "I have found beyond doubt that it is our machinery, that is at fault,..." – Is the first odd comma here part of the original?
Fate of Katanga
  • "A new constitutional commission was established, and in March 1964 it was recommended that the Congo switch from its parliamentary system to a presidential model of government." – If the commission did the recommending, flip to active voice by deleting "was" from "was recommended"? Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to @Finetooth:
  1. Done. I had originally avoided doing that because I thought it might distract from the focus of the article but it does seem fitting.
  2. Done.
  3. I've removed that information. "[P]rofessional and capable" is how Urquhart described both of them, and I think he meant that in a positive light. ONUC's previous Katanga commander, R. S. Raja, had been criticised as not fit for his post.
  4. Fixed.
  5. Fixed.
  6. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Highly readable and informative. I've noted my support on prose above. Finetooth (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed one somewhere, I think this still needs a source review. Also, as I believe this would be the nominator's first FA, we also need a spot-check of sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Tony1[edit]

Lead:

  • "gendarmerie"—better not to force readers to click on the link; a lot of people won't know what it means, so "(police)"?
  • Up to you: I'd write "Republic of the Congo" in central Africa. Same issue.
  • Can't we have "UN" after the first use? Without "(UN)", too, since it's so well-known.
  • "causing an incident among the United Nations leadership"—what, fisticuffs in the office?
  • "sued for peace"—yes, elegant, but many readers won't know what "sued" means in this context.
  • "Tshombe initially participated but feared his arrest and fled to Europe."—comma after "participated"?
  • "Many Katangese gendarmes and their mercenary leaders, acting under orders from Tshombe, evacuated to Angola to reorganize."—consider "Many Katangese gendarmes and their mercenary leaders evacuated to Angola to reorganize, acting under orders from Tshombe."
  • "upon" requires special justification. Why not "on"?
  • "gendarmes"—why not "gerndarmerie" as above ... unless you want to imply individual police officers?
  • "Insurgent activities aimed at Katangese secession continued until late 2016." the "at" slightly unclear. Would you consider: "Insurgent activities striving for Katangese secession continued until late 2016."

Tony (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Tony1:

  1. "Gendarmerie" is what the Katangese force is called in nearly all sources on the topic, and in fact what they called themselves. If you read into the article, you'll find that I've elaborated that the Gendarmerie was, for all intents and purposes, a fully equipped army. Think of the Force Publique. To call them "police" is inappropriate, as the Katangese Police was an entirely separate entity. I'd say the only other option is to change it to "forces", but that would be redundant. Perhaps "military". I think it's best as is.
    I don't care what the English word is: just provide a translation smoothly in parenthese after first mention. "Military" sounds ok. Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done.
  3. Done.
  4. Revised as "embarrassing United Nations leadership."
    Needs "the". Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This phrase actually has a specific meaning and I don't see how I can modify it without going into unnecessary detail. I could say "petitioned" for peace, but I'm not sure that does it any good. I've wikilinked it for the moment.
    Petitioned/sued whom for peace? That's the core problem in either wording. Can't you say? Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Done.
  7. Done.
  8. Done.
  9. When I say "gendarmerie", I'm referring to the entire organization. When I say "gendarmes" I am indeed referring to a selection of members of that organization.
    But the back-reference is a bit hard for readers. Why not: "Relations between the new central government and the expatriate gendarmes soured"? Or "the gendarmes in Angola". Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response part 2 to @Tony1:
I've corrected everything else except for 9. I'm not sure how the "back-reference" is confusing. The gendarmes weren't expatriates at that time. They had returned to the Congo to suppress the revolts. Only after the mutiny did they go back to Angola. Does this need clarity? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review[edit]

  • @Sarastro1: Sources looked good. Paraphrasing is good. presumably editor has these volumes available, because much of the material isn't online.
  • @Indy beetle: This sentence, Gardiner reported that the nun on duty had said that some of the patients were wearing khaki clothing similar to the gendarmes' uniforms. He conceded that one patient was shot in the leg while another received a grazing wound. could be reworked so that there are fewer "that"s in the sentence....? auntieruth (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntieruth55: I've removed two "that"s from the passage in a manner I believe to be grammatically correct. As for the sources, whether it matters much, the only one I possess in print is Kennes and Larmer. The rest I was all able to find online (with a little patience, it's possible to extract juicy details with only snippet view). Took much searching and some accidental discoveries! -Indy beetle (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just check with Auntieruth55 what spot checks you did? Normally on a source spot check, it is helpful if the reviewer notes which sources were checked and how they compared to the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: sure, here you go....
  1. Boulden after page 28 was not in my preview, but the other pages were detailed and should have produced the type of information cited
  2. Briscoe checked 105 and 117. no closeparaphrasing. editor summarized well what Briscoe wrote
  3. Chakravorty no snippets. supposedly lists Indians who rec'd medals for valor.
  4. Dorn,edited volume. wiki-editor is citing a chapter by William K. carr, planning and organizing and commanding the air operation in the Congo 1960. Accurately summarizes text.
  5. Fulton. Newspaper article summarizing initial complaints by a priest who said the UN troops were acting out.
  6. Gibbs Book on political intervention. Could not confirm text. Reputable press. Scholarly work.
  7. Othen and Katanga, didn't find exact citation, but read several of the pages which referred to same topic in article
  8. Kennes University press. Principal Author has several publications. Studies political elite formation in Katanga.
  9. Kille University Press. Author is professor at Wooster College. International Relations, specialist in UN, Political leadership.
  10. Meisler Authoratative chapter on the airplane crash, garrison uprising, etc.
  11. Mockaitis. De Paul University. Military History Studied U Thant
  12. Murphy Straight forward documents list. plus associated documents
  13. Oballance 41-63 were not shown in the preview
  14. Packham couldn't read page 194-195. Page 28 checks out
Hope this helps! auntieruth (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think that's everything, and between this review and the A class review, we have considerable commentary. I'm not sure if Tony1 had any other concerns, but he often does not revisit, and he did not oppose, so I'm assuming he is relatively happy with the prose. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 [24].

Simone Russell[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, this article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions, which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. While her early appearances center around her love triangle with Chad Harris-Crane and her sister Whitney, the character later receives more prominence on the show through her experience coming out as a lesbian to her family, and her relationship with Rae Thomas. The network defended the show's treatment of Simone's sexuality as a serious commentary on the topic. Created by the soap's founder and head writer James E. Reilly, the role was portrayed by three actresses over the course of the show: Lena Cardwell (July 5, 1999 to April 16, 2000), Chrystee Pharris (April 17, 2000 to April 22, 2006), and Cathy Jenéen Doe (July 23, 2004 – September 4, 2007). The character was created as a part of the show's effort to represent a full African-American family and full-realized African-American characters on television.

Her storyline made daytime television history by having the first instance in a soap opera of two women in bed making love. The character is also notable for being daytime TV's first African-American lesbian. At the 17th GLAAD Media Awards, the show won Outstanding Daily Drama for its portrayal of Simone's sexual orientation. The show's representation of LGBT topics, and Cathy Jenéen Doe's performance as Simone, received a mixed response from critics. This is my fourth nomination of a Passions-related article through the FAC process; the other three were Chad Harris-Crane, the Russell family (Passions), and Eve Russell. I look forward to receiving everyone's feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I didn't notice anything major. Good work. MCMLXXXIX 22:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Tintor2

I almost support it but there is one thing that kinda bothers me

  • The storyline section seems a bit in-universe (like "Born in 1983" seems trivial for the casual reader). Couldn't it start with something like "The character debuts in the season x, episode x"? Same with the other paragraphs.

Ping me when you are done, and I will support.Tintor2 (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for your comment. I completely understand what you mean by this as it is an odd introduction into the "Storylines" section. I have changed it to say that she first appeared in the series premiere. Since Passions is a soap opera, to does not have the season x, episode x format of other shows. The years in the rest of the section, such as "In the summer of 2005" correspond to the episode's air dates to provide a context for when this story arc takes place. I hope this clears things up and let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Syek88

I probably won't review this article, I'm sorry, but I did notice one thing - the article seems to be inconsistent (lead, infobox, body) about whether the Cardwell-Pharris casting change occurred in 2000 or 2001. Syek88 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comment. Another user had changed the years on the article a little bit ago, and I forgot to change everything back. I have fixed this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Carbrera
  • I'll be on and off today so I'll try to leave a few comments here and there throughout the next few days. In the references section, you should only provide links to different publications and website (like Soapcentral) on the first occasion.
  • Thank you for helping with this article; I look forward to your further comments and take your time. There is absolutely no rush with this. I received a note from my previous FACs that the publications and websites actually should be linked for every single reference in the reference section (probably so if a reader is looking at any individual reference they can easily click the appropriate link to find out more about the publication and the work). I am not completely sure on the right way of doing it, but that is just a note that I have received in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carbrera: Just wondering if you had any further comments about this? Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I don't see anything wrong with the article at all. Great work! Support. Carbrera (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Support I've just finished reading through this article and couldn't find anything that jumped out at me. I did notice that ref 14 has a typo ("=Variety"), but other than that, I think this article meets the FA criteria. It is well written, comprehensive and engaging. Good work! JAGUAR  14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your support. I have fixed the typo. Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:CathyJenéenDoePinkTop.jpg: Non-free image, which seems like the correct license for such an image. Using it to show the article topic seems fine for me. The non-free rationale seems to address all aspects of NFCC.

ALT text is ungrammatical. Otherwise all seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — Well written, comprehensive and admirably no-nonsense. I wanted to comment on the faulty alt text but Jo-Jo Eumerus did it just now to my amusement. Great job! Pavanjandhyala 15:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Everything is in good state with wikilinks and archives. I'll give it a pass.Tintor2 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gen. Quon

This looks pretty good. I just have a few points, and if they are resolved/explained, I'd be more than happy to give support for the prose.

  • The opening sentence features the phrase " which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV from 2007–08." This isn't a major issue, but to me there seems something off about using the 'to' between "1999" and "2007" and then using an endash for the next years. I could be totally off here, but would "1999–2007 and on DirecTV from 2007–08" work?
  • That makes sense to me. I agree that consistency is always the best way to go, and I have made the adjustments. I have been looking at this for so long that I have been overlooking that the entire time lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good point. I have expanded these in the lead and the body of the article as well. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need to add access dates to the URLs? I always do by force of habit, but I'm not sure if it's required.
  • I do not need the access dates as everything is archived. I was told in a previous review that if something is archive, then the access date should be removed to avoid padding. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gen. Quon: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good to me now. I Support this nomination.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Just wondering if someone could check the status of my nomination? Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PanagiotiZois
In the lead section shouldn't it say "fully-realized" instead of "full-realized"?
In the "Casting and creation" section, seeing as you already mentione what NBC stands for in the lead section, I don't think it's necessary to do so again. Also wouldn't it be better to say "made [her] feel loved and appreciated"? Though if you feel it's better the way it is I have no problem.
Everything seems fines with the "Storyline" section. One question though, it says that Simone's mother Eve panicked when she found out about her sexuality. Was she concerned for her safety or was it out of homophobia. Because later it's stated that Simone went to her for help with Rae. Was Eve by that point accepting?
  • To the best of my understanding, Eve was primarily concerned about her daughter's safety and eventually became more understanding and considerate of her sexuality. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Reception" section I noticed this in the box: "stories of our lives, he says." Is he quoting someone on that?
  • Oops, good catch. That was actually just a tag from the original article and I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those minor things, the article is amazing. Not really a surprise though, given that you wrote it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your kind words and your comments. I believe that I have addressed them all. I still have a lot to learn and improve on for this site, but I greatly appreciate your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, do I support this article? "Lesbian request denied." XD Lol just kidding. I fully support this article and its promotion to featured article status. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support! Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Leaning Oppose from Vedant

Will put some soon. NumerounovedantTalk 17:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • You might want to consider re-arranging the second paragraph. It goes back and forth discussing the character and the actresses. Line 1 talks about the creation of character, followed by the line talking about the actresses. The next line goes back to the conception of the character, and the next talk about the actresses again. It just comes out as a little disconnected IMO.
Casting and creation
  • Again, the last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't really belong there. The entire paragraph talks about the casting of racially diverse cast and the no. of actresses that played Simone doesn't really relate to any of it. You might want to start the next paragraph with "Over the course of the show, Simone was played by three actresses:...". And then continue with the details of actresses in their order.
  • Did Cardwell never say anything (other than the fan-mail bit) on her exit? The article isn't really giving the reader anything on her exit. (I am assuming there's to give in the first place?)
  • This is all that I can find regarding this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she shaped her performance through her friendship with Pharris; she explained that Pharris answered all of her questions about the character." - this is rather minor, but can you think of a suitable pronoun to replace the second occurrence of "Pharris"?
  • No as a pronoun in that instance would result in a confusion on whether I am referencing Pharris or Doe. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Characterization
  • Considering the contrasting reviews, can you think of a better conjunction than "and" to connect the second sentence.
  • I find it a little odd that the Doe's approach to the character is discussed in the Casting section, while Phariss' in the Characterization section. Also, Cardwell's approach (if available) is missing altogether.
  • Doe's part was about best preparing for the show and the role, and she did not go into anything particular about the actual character other than that so it seems more appropriate for the "Casting and creation" section, while Pharris actually provides a deeper understanding of her approach to the actual character. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there nothing worthy of discussion about the character prior to bisexual storyline?
  • No, she was a background character for a majority of the show, only acting as the third wheel in a love triangle. Her lesbian storyline was her primary storyline, and even then it was rather abruptly ended and brushed away to make room for more of the show's major players. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Storylines
  • Not sure if I can be of much help here. I am completely unfamiliar with the series and characters and wouldn't want to mess with plot and storylines.
Reception
  • I am not sure if the opening sentence is appropriately placed. I am sure its a big part of the character as such, but the general viewpoint towards the character needs to be mentioned first.
  • Moved to the end of the second. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things don't seem to get any better as we move ahead, these are completely disconnected and underwhelming claims and should be treated as separate entries (expanding them might be helpful).
  • I have tried to restructure this section so let me know if this needs more improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also some very basic errors here as well. Caps fix needed "the soap opera won", repetition of "Doe".
  • I don't think that the section should start with mentioning the awards; they should either go in the end together or be mentioned after a relevant fact.
  • Moved to the end of the section. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simone's storyline about coming out as a lesbian received mainly positive feedback" - what about before that, anything on her earlier reception?
  • The character was a minor character and did not gather much in terms of critical reception until this particular storyline. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An article on Soaps.com noted that Simone would be remembered as "a character who broke down some barriers for the depiction of lesbians on daytime TV and earned the show awards and accolades from civil rights groups"." - This has already been said, adds nothing new here, however, I do believe that this belongs here and should be removed from the development section.
  • This seems more appropriate for a "Reception" section as it was a reviewer's opinion of the character. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • emphasized "on"?
  • I do not believe the "on" is necessary in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With no time line the "right now" bit seems odd here : "Soapcentral's Brandi Pine found Simone's homosexuality to be "the most real and moving story on the show right now", and highlighted".
  • I also think the sentence should be split into two.
  • The third paragraph has a lot of claims with missing in-line citations.
  • That is not true as everything is cited. Every sentence does not need a citation if the same resource is being used multiple times. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarah Warn criticized Simone's relationship" - just "Warn" would suffice.
  • The Herndon L. Davis review has no base here, the intersex serial killer? Where did that come from? I am missing something?
  • I have revised this. Davis is saying that Simone's storyline was overshadowed by the storyline involving Vincent Clarkson. I have revised this to better reflect it by simplifying the sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section is in a rather poor state, it both begins and ends abruptly. There is too much negative criticism and too little of the favorable reviews to balance out the "positive feedback" claim, some going back and forth, and some unsubstantiated claims (comparisons between Simone and other LGBT characters never finds a mention). You might need to put in some extra work here.
  • Revised. this part. Not sure what you mean by it ending "abruptly" though.Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better now, well structured and balanced. Thanks for the prompt replies, just the minor tweak. NumerounovedantTalk 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am concerned that there's not much on her earlier story (I am not sure if that was the case on the show) in the article and too much focus on her sexuality storyline, without the mention of any other aspects of her personality. Similarly, the development (especially the characterization) section too feels to be missing out on a lot of aspects. This remains to be a highly underwritten character (either in the article, or the show itself). I'll wait for a reply to have a better perspective on this, and although I see that a lot of work has been put into the article, it does look a little short of FA standards to me. NumerounovedantTalk 20:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Numerounovedant: From my research, the character was a relatively minor character prior to the storyline focusing on her sexuality (which also turned out to be relatively minor in comparison to the grand scheme of the show). She was primarily a background character involved in a love triangle between two other characters or a side character for a majority of her time on the show. If that prevents the article from reaching FA standards, then there is nothing else that I can do as I highly doubt I can find further information on this character as I had to do a lot of digging just to get this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since there seems to be no information available other than what's included, I don't see a reason on discussing the idea further. What you can do is mention at least once in the article (probably in the development section), that this was a minor character that gathered attention with the later developments in her storylines. Looks good to me at this point, will have a final say after proof reading. Great work Aoba47. NumerounovedantTalk 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Thank you for taking the time to do a thorough review, and I apologize for my mistakes. This was one of the very first articles that I worked after joining Wikipedia so that probably explains the questionable prose in certain areas. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me now, just the one thing. The soaps review is still being repeated, I believe you agree with me on the fact fact that it is better suited in the Reception section, and thus should be removed from the Development section. I can now Support (in good faith the last point will be addressed, which i am sure will be). Great work on the article. NumerounovedantTalk 07:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties, I've done a quick copyedit; pls let me know if I've accidentally altered any meaning. Given the brevity of my review, I won't declare outright support, but nor do I have any particular objections from a prose perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much. Your copyedits have helped to improve the article a great deal; I greatly appreciate your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I believe that this nomination has received enough commentary to be promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think this is almost ready, but I noticed a few little issues in the prose. If someone could give it a last polish, I think we'd be there. For example: "she breaks with him" (idiomatic); the second paragraph of "Storylines" has a series of similar sentences which make for repetitive reading and could perhaps be varied a little; "Viewers saw the set-up for the ending of Simone's romance with Rae through the beginning of 2007" (Wordy, and a little unclear what this means); "She does not make a physical appearance during the show's run on DirecTV or in the series finale" (what other kind of appearance is there?); "Damon Romine, media entertainment director of GLAAD (2005-2009), emphasized the show's ability to normalize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics for a wider audience" (What was he talking about when he emphasised this? Or do we mean he "highlighted" or something similar?); "Passions also made history by becoming the first daytime television series to show two women in bed making love" (Redundancy: unless women had been shown "making love" somewhere else, we don't need the location. I'm not keen on "making love" in an encyclopaedic article either, but that's not a huge issue). There is nothing major, but there is enough to give me pause before promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sarastro1: I believe that I have addressed all of your above comments. I am not sure how missed all of that. I just changed "making love" to "having sex" as some of the articles really emphasized that the show had scenes of the two characters having sex and it was a subject of criticism from viewers as well. Let me know if anything else should be changed and/or removed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to take this -- the prose has changed a bit since my quick ce, so I was planning to give it another run-through anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sorry, been one of those weeks (actually been one of those weeks for the past month!) but I started checking yesterday and will aim to finish today. Cheers, 22:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you; hope the rest of your week goes well. Aoba47 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I'm done prose-wise. Just looking at sources, I couldn't seem to find SoapCentral's "about us" section -- what makes them authoritative, and can we confirm this is not a site that the public can edit? Also why is SoapCentral italicised in the references but Soaps.com is not -- I gather they're both websites as opposed to magazines, so I'd expect standard case for both. Cheers, 01:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ian Rose: Thank you for your response. I italicized SoapCentral as it was done that way on the List of soap opera media outlets, but I agree with you and I have corrected this. Here is the "About" page for the website (1), which provides information on the website's owner/founder and the editors. It provides more information about the site that confirms it is not a website in which any user can make edits. I have also used this websites in my past FACs without any issue so I pretty sure that the website is credible in this context. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1:@Ian Rose: Hey, just wanted to check in on the progress of this FAC? Sorry for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that's why we're here! I just want to hear back from Ian on this one before we promote, as he raised one sourcing issue. But, to warn you, he's a little busy IRL at the moment, so this might be a day or two longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response and that makes sense to me. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks for your patience, guys. Re. SoapCentral, I can see that it (along with other sources) has been given a clean bill by one of our more experienced reviewers at earlier FACs, and that it's been brought up at the RS noticeboard a couple of times and not been deemed unreliable, so fair enough -- no objections to promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your help; I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2017 [25].

The Chase (U.S. game show)[edit]

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American version of The Chase, a primetime game show on Game Show Network (GSN) from 2013–15. The series is arguably one of GSN's most successful shows of all time and is an adaption of the popular British version of the show. I have tried to model this article after that of another GSN game show, The American Bible Challenge, which recently passed FAC itself. All feedback is welcome and appreciated. Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Aoba47
  • The official website link in the “External links” section is dead and needs to found through a website archive. Same goes for the link in the infobox.
  • Done by another user.
  • Makes sense, as it was probably added when the website was still active. This should be an easy fix as I would imagine you can find an archived url of this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the transition: “For each question answered…” twice in close proximity and I would suggest changing one for variety.
  • Done.
  • The phrase “fell through” in the “Production” section is rather informal and I would recommend using a stronger word choice.
  • Done.
  • The “Production” section seems rather short. Is there any more information about the production of this show? This may not be possible, but I just want to double-check.
  • I will check again. Bible Challenge had an actual book published with behind-the-scenes information; The Chase did not, which is perhaps why there is not much info beyond renewal and premiere dates.
  • That makes sense. If you cannot find any more information, then it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest revising the second paragraph of the “Production” section, as it seems to read rather like a list of dates rather than a cohesive narrative. I would work on presenting the information in a more engaging manner if possible.
  • I would combine the two paragraphs of the “Critical reception” subsection as they are both rather short independently.
  • Done
  • Are there any more reviews of the show? I understand if it is not possible to get more information on this, but I just want to double-check.
  • I was a bit surprised by this too...I'll give it one more look but I doubt there are any I haven't come across.
  • That makes sense. If you cannot find any more information, then it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please links Game Show Network the first time that you use it in the body of the article. Also, spell out the network the first time you use it in the body of the article and put the acronym in parenthesis next to it so the future use of the acronym makes sense for the reader. Put the acronym in parenthesis in the lead too.
  • Done.
  • Do you really need a separate subsection for accolades as it is only one paragraph? I would combine this under the umbrella of the “Critical reception” subsection.
  • Done.
  • Why is Labbett referred to as “the Beast”? The article does not provide a clear answer for this.
  • Added explanation for the nickname the first time Labbett is mentioned in the article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some edits to the article here. Feel free to revert them if you do not agree.
  • Looks good to me.
  • Thank you. Just wanted to make sure with you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only reference the rotating panel from other versions of the game show in the lead, but not in the body of the article. Would it be beneficial to include this comparison in the body of the article as well, ideally with a source to prevent accusations of original research? I also approach leads as including only information covered in the body of the article so the omission of this bit of information in the body of the article seems odd to me.
Rewrote the lead and removed the OR; feel free to tweak my post-midnight writing if you so desire. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bcschneider53: Overall, great work with the article. Good luck with your work on game shows. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. If possible, could you possible look at my FAC too? Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thank you for picking this up after Bible Challenge. I'm very busy with schoolwork right now (I was actually working on a research paper for The Tempest when I saw this and have four papers due this week) so I may not be able to get to this immediately. No promises, but if I can find the time, I'll try to take a look at your FAC, or you can let me know if you would like any other help (perhaps a GAN or something?). Cheers, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message and no worries. Good luck with all of your schoolwork (your research paper on The Tempest sounds interesting). And don't worry about it if you do not have the time. I enjoyed reading through your article and I hope that I could be some help. Cheers! Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of some of the simple fixes. Will look into the others later. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I think it may be done? I'm off to get some rest now as it's after midnight here on the eastern US coast. Also, I have an FLC and GAN right now that need attention (not to mention real life work) so I'm afraid I won't have time to review myself in the immediate future. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everything looks good for me; good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • I think an explanation of what a "chase" is needs to be earlier. I didn't understand it until the third paragraph of the gameplay section, which is too late. I'd suggest an early explanatory sentences that says something like 'A key element of the show is a "chase", in which the chaser and the contestant each answer questions, with the contestant starting with a disadvantage, and the chaser attempting to catch up." This might need to be as early as the second or third sentence to explain the concept before the reader gets too confused.
  • Can we get a fair use screenshot of the gameboard? That would help explain sentences like "For each question the contestant answers correctly, the prize money earned moves one step closer to the team bank".
  • How about a brief summary of the UK show -- date it began, popularity, any significant differences from the US show? I don't think you need more than a couple of sentences, but since it was based on the UK show I think a little more information is warranted.
  • There appears to be a board game based on The Chase, but I'm not sure if it's based on the UK or US version. If it's the US version, I think you should mention it.
  • Yes, the board game was for the UK version (I actually have a copy of it so I can confirm this is the case). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably the app doesn't really have Labbett answering questions; there's some sort of simulation going on, right? I'd suggest rephrasing to clarify that.

That's it for a first pass. I think the prose needs a bit of work; I'll do a copyedit pass once the above points are taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)`[reply]

Reading through the gameplay I'm not convinced I fully understand. Here's what I think it's saying -- tell me if I have this right.

  • There are four players in a show -- three new contestants (i.e. they weren't on the previous week's show), and the chaser.
  • The first round has each contestant answering as many questions as they can for one minute. The chaser also does this, so all four players have some amount of money in their bank at the end of the four one-minute rounds. There's no competition between the players to answer any of these questions; they're all solo.
    Only the contestant competes in the first round, and is awarded $5,000 for each correct answer in the minute time period. The chaser then gives his two offers, so no, he does not do this. Once the contestant has selected which amount to play for, the chase is played, and the process repeats for all three contestants. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The article currently says the Cash Builder round adds money to the team's bank, but does the chaser only chase the amount that each contestant won? E.g. If I win $40K, and the chaser doesn't catch me, and you then win $50K in the Cash Builder round, and the chaser catches you, the team bank only loses the $50K you won, right? So it's not really in the team bank until the chase is over? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you win $40K in the Cash Builder, that money gets placed on the gameboard five spaces away from the bank. The chaser then makes a higher and lower offer, say $90K and $20K. The contestant chooses which amount to play for. If he contestant wins the chase, s/he adds that money to the team bank. So yes, in your hypothetical situation, you would move on to the Final Chase, while I would be eliminated. Our team would have $40K in the bank (which was not added to the bank until you won your chase) with our third teammate still left to play. Hope this helps! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once this first round is over, each contestant participates in a chase. The contestant is given two offers: one to play for more money and start further from the bank; the other to play for less money and start closer to the bank. If they don't accept either offer they are five spaces away; the offers are for four spaces and less money or six spaces and more money, but the chaser may also choose to make a super offer of seven spaces and even more money. This choice is at the chaser's discretion; the other two choices are always offered.
  • The chase then happens, with the displayed gameboard showing $90,000; after the chase starts presumably the other slots go blank. Is the red arrow the chaser? Does that move down as the chaser answers questions correctly?
  • Correct, the chaser's position is indicated by the red arrow; I'll clarify this. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chaser doesn't have to overtake the contestant; they just need to get to the square the contestant is on, so the contestant presumably goes first. The default (five spaces) means that the chaser has to have three more right answers than the contestant before the contestant gets five right answers. The super offer would mean that the contestant has no room to manoeuvre -- if they make a single mistake the chaser can catch them. Is that right?
  • At the end of the three chases, contestants who were not caught advance to the Final Chase; if all were caught, then the three contestants choose one of themselves to play.
  • Correct. Incredibly rare (only happened in the cited episode), but yes, this is the case. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No additional money is added during the Final Chase; the money at stake is the sum of the individual banks of the contestants who made it to the Final Chase. The contestants get a head start of one space per contestant who reached the final round; if none won their chases, do they still get a head start of one space?
  • What's the choice between A and B? Do the teams know anything about each set of questions -- e.g. that the A questions are all about sports?
  • It's a random set. Nothing is known about it. Neither the chaser nor the contestants know what questions are in each set. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does it mean to "pass a question"?
  • The teams move as far as they can, and then the chaser tries to catch them, except that an error by the chaser allows the team to try to answer that question and move further ahead (or push the chaser back a space).
  • Correct, a correct answer pushes the chaser back, unless the chaser is at zero, in which case the teams total increases by one space. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the chaser catches them the team loses the money and the show is over.

Any mistakes? Can you fill in the answers to the questions? Once I understand it a bit better I'll give it a copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I think I hit every question. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added one more question above, but I think I know the answer so I've done a rewrite of the first part of the game play section on the article talk page, without putting in the sources. Can you take a look and see what you think? I did it because I found it hard to be sure I understood the gameplay correctly, and once I got the answers and had it clear in my head I thought it might be useful. I think it's easier sometimes for someone who is not familiar with the material to write an description, because they know what's not obvious. I'm not saying you have to use this version, of course, but to me it's clearer than what you have now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heading out to dinner now. I'll take a look in a couple of hours. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're eighteen months past the last air date mentioned in the article -- did the fourth season finish yet? Is it currently airing?
  • The fourth season finished as of December 2015, which is when the last new episode aired. GSN very rarely makes official cancelation announcements, but the series hasn't been seen in new episodes since that time. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "dick-related" line is worth a grin, but that's just the headline; are you sure we need to mention it? Teti's actual comments don't really call it out; the clip gives him an opportunity to crack wise but that's really it.
  • How about trying to add an abbreviated definition of "chase" to the lead? It's a short lead, so it would have to be a very concise definition, but it might be worth trying as otherwise reading the lead really doesn't explain what's going on.
  • Gave it my best shot. Feel free to tweak it as always. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything I can see on a second pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that covers the second pass. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I tweaked the lead a little. Everything else has been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is well-written and appears to be comprehensive. I have made some minor prose adjustments but have not spot checked the sources. The only issue I can see is the sources need to be archived which I recommend to prevent link rot. MWright96 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I read this with a view to promoting but ended up doing a little copy-editing, so I'll have to recuse from this. I think we're OK from a prose viewpoint and would have no objections to promotion, but two little points which I think need clearing up; I would probably support after this. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Gameplay section, we have a few places where we are apparently unreferenced; I think that the information is probably covered by the next cite but it is good practice to always end a paragraph with a reference even if it is covered in the next paragraph.
  • I see the point is covered above, but it is quite a big one; if the show is no longer broadcast, we really need something to say this as it is a gaping hole in an otherwise comprehensive article. I'm sure we can find something. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarastro1: Like I said, GSN rarely announces cancelation. The only evidence I can find is that their Facebook page for The Chase makes no mention of any new episodes after December 11, 2015 (and has been relatively dormant since then). I assume their Facebook page is not an acceptable source though. I'm thinking maybe I could say something along the lines of "The series has not aired a new episode since its season four finale, which aired on December 11, 2015" and then cite the applicable episode, but do you have any other suggestions? Another solution may be to note the series' absence from any recent press releases regarding series development, citing said press releases. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think simply stating that no new episodes have aired since... would work perfectly. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made it "As of March 2017", since we want the article to stay accurate even if a subsequent series appears. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I personally have no problem with this, but... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, not sure why they reverted. I won't oppose over it, but if you agree it should be re-added please go ahead. We can discuss on the talk page if it's reverted again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehh, I'm indifferent. Don't worry, if the series ever does come back, you can be sure I'll make a note of it :) --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Happy to support this now (obviously recused as coordinator and did a little copy-editing). Sarastro1 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:
  • File:The Chase (U.S. game show) logo.jpg: Non-free license seems correct to me, ditto for using the logo in the infobox to identify the work. Non-free use rationale seems sufficient.
  • File:Chase gameboard.png: Not sure how a screenshot of a work provides "critical commentary". It also isn't a logo. So the non-free use rationale needs some improvement.
  • File:Brooke Burns 2010.jpg: Free image from Flickr. Using it to show the presenter (?) seems OK to me. Not seeing any evidence of copyvio.
ALT text may benefit from a slight expansion in image #2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you! I've tweaked the second image's rationale a bit as well as the ALT text. Is this better? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now it seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Sarastro1: To the coordinators: I will be leaving for a 10-day missions trip in Mexico a week from today, and it is unlikely I will be able (let alone wanting) to do any editing during that time. Based on my prior FAC experiences, I believe this is a source review away from promotion, but aside from that, is there anything I need to do to ensure this is closed and (hopefully!) promoted within a week's time? Many thanks again, Sarastro, for your main review a couple of weeks ago. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference and source review by Cas Liber[edit]

  • References formatted consistently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwig's too clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9 used once - material faithful to source.
  • FN15 used once - material faithful to source.
  • FN26 used once - material faithful to source.
  • FN31 used once - material faithful to source.

Ok, I am satisfied. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thank you so much! :) --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2017 [26].

Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Bronze Age stone circle in southern England. It will likely intrigue editors interested in archaeology, religion, and folklore. The article is fairly short and is already GA-rated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bruce1ee[edit]

An interesting read – just a few comments:

Infobox

  • Not sure if I like the map caption ("Shown within Dorset"); how about "Location within Dorset"?
  • I like your proposed change but I don't know if I am actually able to change it. It appears that "Shown with Dorset" is generated automatically when I include the map of Dorset. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location

  • "Enclosed within iron railings ...": no mention is made of when these railings were erected; is this information available?
  • Unfortunately I do not believe that it is. That would indeed be information worth putting it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • Some of the author's names can be linked to articles. I take it the links were omitted here because they were linked in the body of the article. I would link them here also, but that's my personal opinion.

General

  • There is an inconsistency with units of measure in the article: sometimes the primary unit is metric with imperial conversion; other times it's imperial with metric conversion; in some instances there is no conversion. WP:MEASUREMENT says "In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric ..." Distance, it seems may be miles, but, as I see it, everything else should be metric with imperial conversions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  • Very good point. I've made sure that metric measurements are always listed before imperial ones. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistency in the use of the thousands separator in years, eg. 3,300 and 3000. One or the other should be used.

—Bruce1eetalk 17:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Bruce1ee. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the prose. Thanks for your responses and edits – I'm happy with them. —Bruce1eetalk 07:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank[edit]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "located" (lots of these), "over a period", "A number of": Some reviewers object to these phrases in some contexts; I have no comment.
  • "silent and empty monuments": quote marks, but I can't tell from the text who said it.
  • "The area of modern Dorset": Does this mean "modern Dorset"?
  • I used "modern Dorset" here so that readers would not presume that "Dorset" as a distinct demarcated region existed in the Neolithic/Bronze Age. I have nevertheless trimmed this down to "Modern Dorset". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thin scatter": If it was an actual thin scatter, remove the quotes. If you don't like the term, use a different term. If you're quoting someone, say who, but this isn't something I would quote.
  • I've added that the quote comes from Burl. I appreciate the concern here but I think that it would be difficult to paraphrase the term "thin scatter" with alternate wording and the term is perhaps a little poetic to be used without quotation marks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Nine Stones circle has been described": WP:INTEXT violation. INTEXT has been disputed a bit, but I think we can live with it. If it isn't important who said something, then the exact wording probably isn't all that important, either.
  • "In 1965 a woman from the Isle of Portland stated that her own father had always raised his cap when passing the circle.": I don't know why this is significant, or how it's related to the rest of the paragraph. Also, see the next bullet point.
  • It's a piece of recorded folklore associated with the site and has been mentioned by two separate books on Dorset folklore. Granted it may seem a little random but if the reliable sources mention it then so should we. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of Folklore, and all of Recent developments: I have concerns about FAC's "high quality" requirements ... is the say-so of a random person what we're looking for at FAC? But this is above my pay grade.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Thoroughly charming. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, sorry, I thought I was done, but there's something of a consensus now to look at tightening leads. I did some editing, and there's one more thing:
  • "The Nine Stones, also known as the Devil's Nine Stones, the Nine Ladies, or Lady Williams and her Dog": I didn't know until I looked it up tonight that our policy page WP:TITLE says that this is too many aliases for the lead sentence. They can be mentioned below the lead, or in the lead infobox, or in a note. No more than one alias in the first sentence would be ideal, if one is more common than the others. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Technically, this nomination is out of process as the nominator had an article archived within two weeks. However, as that article had little review, and as this already has a support, I'm happy to let this one go rather than stop it on a technicality. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Sarastro1 - it seems that I got a little confused with regard to this rule. I always used to think that there was a two-week embargo period that had to be observed following the end of any FAC nomination, till your comment to me here in February. I mis-remembered your comment and somehow thought that there was no two-week period at all following the termination of an FAC. It won't happen again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sabine's Sunbird[edit]

This is great. Some minor quibbles.

  • Location launches straight into a grid location. That's probably less useful or interesting than more descriptive information like Dorset or Southern England. I know you mention Dorset in the lead, but the lead should cover material found in the main body of the article.
  • The area of modern Dorset has only is slightly odd, maybe just Dorset?
  • I adopted this prose because I wanted to avoid the impression that a region known as "Dorset" existed in the Neolithic or Bronze Age. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dorset circles have a simplistic typology, being of comparatively small size, with none exceeding 28 metres (92 feet) in diameter. This confuses me slightly. Are they simplistic because they are small? Also, what are they small compared to? Other stone circles? Other stone circles in Britain?
  • I have amended the prose here to the following: "The Dorset circles have a simplistic typology and are of a comparatively small size in comparison to other British stone circles,". Hopefully this explains things in an appropriate manner? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why only metric in the lead, but then leading with imperial in the description?
  • The site is in the care of English Heritage, when did they aquire it?
  • Unfortunately I have no idea, and cannot find any information about this in the sources. It would certainly make a good addition though, so hopefully future sources may mention it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will be happy to support when my points have been addressed or explained. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Sabine's Sunbird. I'm glad that you were happy with the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I note you still go metric imperial in the lead and imperial metric in the article. I'd probably go metric then imperial, as Britain is mostly metric these days, unless they are drinking or driving (but hopefully not both). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now... support. nothing to complain about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw[edit]

Another interesting article.

  • Would it be worth including the [citation sheet from English Heritage of its scheduling as an ancient monument?
    • Are you referring to the fact that the website states that the site was scheduled in August 1916? The article already mentions the scheduling of the site, although refers to the year 1888, which is what a number of printed sources describe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had not spotted the discrepancy in dates (which may be differences reflected in our two unclear and possibly contradictory articles Ancient monument and Scheduled monument, but as Historic England is the government body responsible for the recording of these sites, its record of the site, which is a copy of that signed by the Secretary of State, should be included (at least as a reference or footnote).— Rod talk 21:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could also be added to the Category:Scheduled Ancient Monuments in Dorset.
  • Sarsen is wikilinked in both "Context" and "Description and design" sections. Cornwall is wikilinked twice in the "Folklore" section (minor quibbles)
  • In "Antiquarian and archaeological research" it says "As of 2003, the site had not been excavated." can this be updated? to the best of my knowledge there has been no excavation in the last 13/14 years.
    • This is true, but the source in question is dated only to 2003. Stating "As of 2016" would therefore be stating something which is not in the source material provided. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough if there is nothing more recent which can be cited, then this seems reasonable to me.— Rod talk 20:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isle of Portland could be wikilinked for those not aware of local geography
  • Could "Dolmen Grove Druids" be explained?

Apart from these minor issues I think the article does a good job in describing the context, history and structure of the site.— Rod talk 19:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. I can now support this article as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 16:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed one, and once Rodw's comments are addressed, we need a source review, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cas Liber[edit]

  • Earwig's clear.
  • References formatted consistently.
  • FN 25 - used thrice. material faithful to source.
  • FN 34 - talks of Broad Stone being either 2.8m or 10 ft long, which differs from the text, which says 2 m (6.6 ft)....
  • FN 35 - used once. material faithful to source.
  • FN 39 - used once. material faithful to source.
  • FN 55 - used once. material faithful to source.

Thanks for the source review, Cas. I believe that the discrepancy with regard to the size of the Broad Stone comes from the fact that two different sources are cited; John Gale's book and the Historic England website. I'm not quite sure which of these is the more accurate of the two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the situation, it appears that the Historic England website claims that the stone is 2.8m or 10ft long based on a field archaeologists' 1955 observation. John Gale's observation that it is 2 m (6.6 ft) in length was probably made about fifty years later. To me that suggests that the stone has lost about 0.8m of its length over the intermittent half century, which perhaps is not surprising given that it sits next to a road and may well have been hit by passing traffic once or twice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2017 [27].

Yugoslav torpedo boat T3[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a torpedo boat that was built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1913–1914, and served under their flag in WWI. She was transferred to the new Yugoslav state after the war, and saw service with them until Yugoslavia entered WWII, when she was captured by the Italians. She was later captured from them by the Germans and saw service with them or the puppet Croatian state until she was sunk in February 1945. This article has been significantly expanded in the last couple of months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a prose suggestion:
"Originally built as 78 T, a 250t-class torpedo boat built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1914" Perhaps "Originally built as 78 T, a 250t-class torpedo boat of the Austro-Hungarian navy, which was built in 1914." -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with a slight modification. Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's Support[edit]

Support. Brief but no real issues, I'm impressed we know so much about something so obscure. A few questions/quibbles

  • Isn't Croats better than Croatians? I understand Croatians is becoming accepted usage but Croat is better for the people (but not the language) - it is where our article is.
  • It depends on the context I think. Where they were nationals of the Independent State of Croatia, Croatians is probably more appropriate. Croats is better in other situations. I have changed one where Croats is better.
  • Why show weight in tons (convert tonnes) in background and tonnes (convert long tons) in Description and construction. Consistency would be good.
  • An oversight. Fixed.
  • I can't find any reference to those things, I imagine she was raised and broken up if she was in the port area, to ensure she wasn't a danger to shipping. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy[edit]

  • There are a couple of dupe links. The second is from the German language template, which I think is redundant in that case, since we just said it was the German Navy.
  • Fixed.
  • One wonders why the article is under the Yugoslav name, but the majority of the article is about her service with the Austro-Hungarians. Granted, she carried the name T3 much longer than 78 T, but it seems like her service during WWI was more notable than during the interwar period and WWII.
  • Maybe, but she spent the vast majority of her career as T3 in Yugoslav, Italian and German/Croatian hands and was sunk under that designation, so I think it is ok to leave her as is.
  • Might want to make clear that Cattaro and Kotor are the same place.
  • Done.
  • Why are Novara and Saida described as different types of vessels? They were sister ships.
  • Might have been a confusion from the sources, fixed.
  • You might also give a bit of context for what the Austro-Hungarians were doing when Szent Istvan was sunk, similar to what you have in T1.
  • Added.
  • Why do some of the books include links to Google Books but others don't? Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question, a function of cutting and pasting references I think. There didn't seem to be any underlying reason, so I just removed them.
  • Oh, one other thing I thought of while reading T5 for the A-class review - is there any indication this vessel was one of the 14 250ts present in Cattaro during the Cattaro Mutiny? If not, no big deal, but it'd be an interesting bit of info if you can confirm. Parsecboy (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bell and Elleman don't give designations, but they do say the torpedo boats weren't much involved in the mutiny. 80 T did have a mutiny in May 1918 though. I'll keep looking. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • No DABs, external links OK
  • T3 was captured Since you used the new name to close out the first para of the lede; start the second one with "The ship" to avoid close repetition
  • Done.
  • T3 was captured by the Italians during the German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 and, after her main armament was modernised, she served with the Royal Italian Navy under her Yugoslav designation, although she was only used for coastal and second-line tasks. Kind of a complicated sentence, perhaps splitting it might be in order?
  • Split.
  • and after being fitted with additional anti-aircraft guns she served commas after "and" and "guns" as it's a subordinate clause.
  • Done.
  • I'd be inclined to compress the whole Background section down to a sentence or two as that amount of detail is better off in the class article, IMO.
  • Per T1, I'd prefer to keep it as is for context.
  • While the 250t-class T-group boats barely exceeded the specifications laid down for a coastal torpedo boat, they were classified as capable of operating on the open sea. The 250t-class, T-group Find another version of the name for the second usage.
  • Done.
  • 23 August 1914.[2] In 1914, Perhaps "Later that year, an 8mm MG..."
  • Done.
  • Due to inadequate funding, 78 T and the rest of the 250t class were essentially coastal vessels, despite the original intention that they would be used for "high seas" operations. Wouldn't this be better off in the description para?
  • Moved.
  • harbour defence barrage Link or explain this.
  • linked.
  • Tell the reader that the ships specifically mentioned in the Szent Istvan para are battleships.
  • Done.
  • Done, Bay of Kotor was already linked as Cattaro.
  • I've expanded the link to Bocche di Cattaro (which is what it was called at the time), with (Bay of Kotor) following. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Earwig check at 6.5%
  • All sources reputable, highly reliable.
  • Source formatting consistent.
  • Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2017 [28].

INS Vikrant (R11)[edit]

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first aircraft carrier of the Indian Navy. Built by the United Kingdom, the ship was commissioned in 1961, and served until 1997. She played a decisive role in India's naval victory over Pakistan in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. The article has already passed an A-class review from Military history project. For reference, you can view the review on the talk page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I gave this article very close scrutiny during its recent Milhist A-Class review, which followed a GAN review by one of Milhist's naval specialists. I supported it at Milhist ACR after further improvements were made. I believe it now meets the FA criteria. It is great to see Indian naval subjects being given such attention. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments – really happy to see a warship like this brought to FAC. I've made several copyedits.

  • In the lead, there's only one sentence on the ship's service in the Indian Navy. Can that be expanded? (I recognize that there's not a lot out there, but it comes across as a hole)
    • Same for the article. Were there no deployments between 1971 and 1997?
  • Why was the ship decommissioned? I assume it was age-related, but were maintenance costs getting to high? Too much breaking down? Etc.
  • "After the war, the carriers were sold to several Commonwealth nations." Do your sources have a reason why? I assume it was because Britain didn't need them and was in something of a financial crisis in the post-war period? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: Thanks for the edits and the review. I've added a sentence to the lead and I think nothing much can be added. Because it covers all the sections now. Between 1971 and 1997 the ship had seen only general service with no specific deployments. Regarding the 2nd and 3rd points, what you are correct, but we don't have any sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Sorry to ping you out of the blue. Do you have any sources for the third point above? @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: what is "general service"? Can we pin that down? Were there any notable voyages? Did the ship ever sail with the later Viraat? Things like that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've got two sources that deal with this briefly. The Brits were broke, as you surmised, and the Majestics were surplus to requirements as more, and larger carriers were on order. Hobbs, p. 199 He also mentions a serious fire aboard Vikrant in 1994 and that the ship's catapult was removed in 1987 as part of the refit. p. 203
Friedman says that the Majestics could not be modernized to meet the new 30,000-lb landing weight expected for the new and heavier jet aircraft and that the available hull space was insufficient for the desired 200,000 Imp gal of petrol and kerosene. Pages 232–33 in Friedman, Norman (1988). British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and Their Aircraft. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-054-8. cheers Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 and The ed17: Many thanks both you. Sturm, especially you for the input. I'll work on this ASAP. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I've supported! Can't do much if the sources aren't out there, I empathize. Thank you for checking and adding what you could. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

@Dank: Thanks for edits. Fixed the parentheses. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we still need source and image reviews. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid I don't have the time to do a full source review; perhaps I will in a few days. Off the top of my head, though, there are serious questions about the reliability of globalsecurity.org and of books on demand as a publisher. They do not seem to be used for absolutely critical information, so perhaps they can be replaced without too much trouble; or at the very least, investigated to establish their credibility for this information. Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the review, replaced the sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Most of the image sources/licences look alright (if all those photos were really created by the Indian navy), but there are some issues with other images. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one needs an OTRS permission:[29]
  • The author info on this one seems dubious:[30] The Flickr user has uploaded several historical photos that he hardly took himself, including of WW2 Nazis:[31] Seems he may only have scanned these photos, and therefore does now own the rights.
  • The last two images in the article should have their pixel size forcing removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Thanks for the review. Fixed the issues. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I tagged the one that needed confirmed permission, it may get deleted if no one obtains it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • I'm confused about the Hobbs 2012 source. I found this 2013 source called "British aircraft carriers : design, development and service histories" written by David Hobbs, but the ISBN doesn't match your source (nor does the year). On the other hand, the ISBN does match this 2010 book called "British aircraft carriers 1939-45" written by Angus Konstam and Tony Bryan. The Konstam/Bryan book is published by Osprey and the Hobbs book is published by Seaforth, neither of which match the publisher you list -- Bloomsbury.
  • Is uboat.net a reliable source?
  • Fn 49 times out when I try to access it -- could be just a temporary issue with the site. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coemgenus: Thanks for the review. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that all looks to be in order now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2017 [32].

Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 10:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a 2007 song recorded by Barbadian singer Rihanna, part of her third studio album, Good Girl Gone Bad. Being one of her signature songs, "Don't Stop the Music"'s article on Wikipedia (IMO) is well written, comprehensive (maximum of the available sources online are used) and tidied up. This is the article's 3rd FAC, the previous one was closed because of inactivity, so I hope this one will bring more attention to editors. Thanks :) — Tom(T2ME) 10:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera[edit]

  • You could use "hlist" rather than "flat list" to condense down some of the infobox parameters
  • The lead is often the hardest section of an article to write, so I have a few issues I feel need to be addressed:
  • Just a suggestion – Add "Both" before "Rihanna and Jackson were sued by..."
  • "The song was critically acclaimed" → This isn't very neutral
  • "it sold more than 3.7 million copies..." → "it has sold more than 3.7 million copies..." (the song is still available for purchase; this period never ended)
  • The first instance of "critics" could be linked to "Music journalism"
  • "The song received generally positive reviews from music critics" → Same; I don't know how neutral this is
  • The "Weekly charts" section for Rihanna's version should read "Chart (2007-2009) per the new WP:MoS for this specific template
This is what I noticed from a quick glance. I will try to go deeper in my next comments, but otherwise it looks great so far! Carbrera (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments Carbrera. Appreciate them. I believe I have fixed all the upper presented issues. To make it more neutral, for the critical part of the song, I wrote Critically, many music journalists praised the sampling of the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook. A similar sentence replaced the positive reviews part in the 'Critical reception' section. I hope it reads better and more neutral now. And I can't wait for your other comments ;) ! — Tom(T2ME) 10:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Moisejp[edit]

  • "Dibango's attorneys brought the case before a court in Paris, demanding €500,000 in damages and for Sony BMG, EMI and Warner Music to be "barred from receiving 'mama-say mama-sa'-related income until the matter is resolved".[4]" Is there any information on how those legal proceedings ended up? Your source says "French judges will announce on 17 February [2009] whether they will hear the case." Moisejp (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source in Radio France Internationale says that the judge on Feb. 17 ruled against Dibango but it sounds like the latter was expected to appeal the decision. [[33]] Here is another source in La Presse about the same ruling: [[34]] I did a quick Google search and couldn't find news about any later developments, but quit after 5 search pages—but if you want you could see what you could find. In any case, you should probably add mention of the judge's decision. If you happen to need help with the details in the French articles, just let me know. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Moisejp! Thanks for the comment. I remember when I was writing the article (3 or 4 yrs ago) I didn't have any luck finding sources about what happened after the lawsuit, same as now. I am really bad with French, so maybe if you have time you can translate what you found in this sources and add it to the article (if it's not too much trouble)? — Tom(T2ME) 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll try to do so in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on it now. By the way, it looks like you have at least two raw URL references that need fixing: #77 and #111. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tomica, as you saw, I've added info about the February 17 court ruling. This is my best translation of the French sources, although I'm not a legal expert and can't guarantee there might not be more precise legal terms to use. One other side note, I would like to recommend that you archive all of your sources (as I did for the two I added). I'll admit that I only recently became converted to this practice, but I'm now a strong believer in its benefits. Of course it's up to you, but it's just generally a good idea. Good luck with the article, and take care. :-) Moisejp (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Both of the subtitles from the first two images in the body of the article repeat the line about the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook. It seems a little unnecessarily repetitive to me, but this may just be a stylistic preference.
  • I do not think you need to repeat the full title of the song ("Don't Stop the Music") in such close proximity in the first paragraph of the "Development and release" section. I think it would stronger to just say "It was recorded at..." instead.
  • Do you have any information about the lyrical interpretation of the single? I was just wondering after comparing this article to "S&M" and I noticed the absence of that information in this article. The parts about the composition are very good though.
  • @Tomica: Great job with the article. These are the only points that I have noticed. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47 Thank you for your comments Aoba. I think I resolved the first two issues :) Check to see if it's better now. While for the third one, "DSTM" was released in 2007 while "S&M" in 2011, so a lot of online sources are dead from back then and that's all that I found for the 'Composition' section. I know that it can be more complex, however, I think I used maximum of the available online sources. Again, thanks for the comments and praise! — Tom(T2ME) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great work with the article! The response about the "Composition" section makes sense to me. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • "he allegedly approved the request without contacting Dibango beforehand"..... if possible, I would try to use something more definitive than "allegedly"
  • Well, I opened the source and read the original publishing, it really says that. I don't have an idea, how would I re-write that. If you have something on your mind, feel free to share :)
  • "compared 'Don't Stop the Music' to Rihanna's 2006 single, 'SOS'" could use some elaboration; go into how Slant felt they were similar
  • He is not specific at all, just compares it to it :/
  • "After the release of Rihanna's single 'Only Girl (In the World)' in 2010, many critics compared its composition and structure to 'Don't Stop the Music'"..... same as before
    They really just elaborate more for "Only Girl" which is important for that article not really here, IMO EW's comment is the only one who could be featured here as well
  • In that case, it would be better to only mention the EW review for this comparison Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already menionted it :)
  • While "Rihanna's 20 Biggest Billboard Hits" is really more about commercial performance, I would contain a quote along with its ranking
  • Added quote
  • "In 2008, the song was certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)" is outdated when it's gone 5x platinum in Australia
  • Fixed it
  • Shoot, totally forgot that. Fixed now — Tom(T2ME) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far looking pretty good. I'll go through this again later and perhaps conduct an image review. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) SNUGGUMS Thanks for your comments. Appreciate it! :) — Tom(T2ME) 19:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through again.....

  • The only glaring problem I find is how the About.com link used says nothing about this video; please replace the URL or remove that bit entirely
  • Removed it :'( Now the section is even shorter than it was, About.com update the article on the same article and sadly I haven't had archived it
  • For live performances, four digits are preferred for years per this discussion. Could you perhaps add commentary for her performances of this track, even if part of a tour review?
  • In "Credits and personnel", psuedo-headings (using bold text and especially ";") are discouraged for accessibility concerns

That should be it.Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • SNUGGUMS I think I resolved the last issue. For the commentary, there is no significant mention of how she performed, or what she wore, it's just that she performed it along some other dance hits "Pon de Replay" and "SOS". — Tom(T2ME) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now support this for FAC following its improvements. A job very well done! Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media review[edit]

Image and sample review complete. I find nothing of concern. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This has been open for quite a long time now (and listed at the FAC urgents page), and I think we are in danger of going stale with only one support in all this time. I'm afraid if nothing happens in the next few days, this will have to be archived. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we probably just need a source review, unless I missed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomica: There are unanswered comments lingering below for more than a week—what is your status in addressing them? --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry[edit]

Music is not my area of expertise but I quite like this song and seeing as the review seems to be struggling for input, I'll take a look. Obviously take my comments with an appropriate dose of salt.

  • StarGate, with Michael Jackson receiving This isn't a great use of "with" in professional writing, especially not in the second sentence of the lead.
  • Done/Adjusted it a little bit. Hopefully, reads better
  • praised the sampling of the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook Do you think it's necessary to repeat "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" here?
  • I am afraid so. I know it's a long word, but at the same time I don't want the readers to be confused
  • number one in more than 10 countries Is there a reason not to give the exact number? Also, switching between numerals and words is discouraged by MOS:NUMERAL.
  • I did now, it was actually less than 10 if you see the table (great that you pointed). Also, I chose words for the numbers
  • with additional songwriting by Tawanna Dabney and Michael Jackson.[a] It's surprising that you use the footnote to explain Jackson's relevance in the body, when you mention it in the prose in the second sentence of the lead. If it's important enough to be mentioned in the lead, I'd be inclined to put it in the prose in the body.
  • I changed it and now it corresponds with the lead
  • The song samples the line "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" from Jackson's 1983 Ah, perhaps this is the place to explain why Jackson gets credit? It wold also reduce repetition.
  • I clarified it in the first paragraph and just removed this part in the latter section
  • This was due to the fact is again not really professional-quality writing
  • Removed the phrase.
  • territories including Australia, Italy, New Zealand and Spain Just out of curiosity, why "territories" and not "countries"?
  • Changed to countries
  • four-minute, 27-second mixing words and numeral again
  • Adjusted it!

Other than the above, the article seems very well put-together and, based on a quick look, comparable to other featured articles on individual songs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell Harry thanks you so much for the review you. Appreciate it! Hopefully my responds/edits worked for you :) Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. This is much, much better and easier to follow. Just FYI, you don't need to write out all the numbers; the MoS just doesn't like you mixing numerals and words in the same sentence. Regardless, I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry :) — Tom(T2ME) 18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Don't Stop the Music screenshot.png this non-free image does not have an appropriate rationale (Purpose of use "To illustrate in the article"?) Per WP:NFCC#8—contextual significance—the music video would only need to be pictured if it contains a scene that could not be adequately described with sourced text alone. Since it's a simple image of her dancing in a club, it's completely understood without the need for an image. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 15:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The change from "territories" to "countries" may be in error, as iTunes has stores for a few places (Hong Kong, Macau) which are not countries. Reference 9, next to it, also doesn't contain any information about the date of release (only the year) or the territories the EP was released in aside from Australia. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     03:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Moisejp[edit]

Sorry these are late in the game, Tomica. I hope you can quickly address these within the time period of the FAC. These are all in the Composition and Release & reception sections:

  • Neither the Fair Use Rationale of File:Rihanna - Don't Stop the Music.ogg nor its caption say specifically how this sound clip illustrates the song in a way that words alone could not. Whenever I do FURs and captions for sound clips, I try to include points directly mentioned in the article that the sound clip can be said to illustrate in a way that words alone could not. In your case, you could say (for example) that it contributes to the "pulsating musical structure" and that it adds to the effect of the song's powerful beat (a paraphrase of "blur[s] into the track's overpowering beat").
  • Changed it! I hope it satisfies the criteria right now. :)
  • The FUR notes that the sound clip is under 30 seconds, but what is more relevant is that it is under 10% of the song's length. Sound clips must be under 10% or under 30 seconds, whichever is less—so the 30 seconds is only relevant for songs 5 minutes or longer.
  • I firmly believe it is under 10% of the full length of the song. It's 24 seconds long, while the full song is 4 minutes and 27 seconds long.
  • Sorry that I wasn't clear for this point. I did not mean to imply that the sound clip was not under 10% of the song's length. What I meant was that the FUR should say "The sound clip is xx seconds long, which is under 10% of the song's length of 4 minutes 27 seconds" NOT "The sound clip is under 30 seconds." Moisejp (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the release of Rihanna's single "Only Girl (In the World)" in 2010, Brad Wete from Entertainment Weekly described "Only Girl" as a "stronger" and "sexier version" of "Don't Stop the Music"." This feels like weak filler content that does not add to the reader's understanding of the composition of "Don't Stop the Music". I would recommend removing it.
  • Restored the original text. Well, tbh, when "Only Girl (In the World)" was released, the fuss about being similar to "DSTM" was huge! So I think it deserves a slight mention even in this article.
  • Great, this restored version is a definite improvement. :-) Moisejp (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of direct quotations in these two sections—I would argue there are more than is ideal. I know it's not always easy to paraphrase music quotes and get the exact nuance, but I urge you to try to paraphrase at least two or three of them. For example, "we defy you to get the hook from this pounding 2007 dancefloor favorite out of your mind" should be easy to paraphrase. Moisejp (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just on that particular example, I disagree. Sure, you could paraphrase it as "felt it was a catchy tune" or something like that, but that's much less fun. Quotes aren't just devices for accurately conveying somebody's words, they add variety to the prose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much agree that a given quotation can be "fun" and add variety to the prose. But my point was that, for me, the number of quotations here risks being a little bit too much. With the goal of reducing the number of quotations, the one I cited above seems it would be easy to paraphrase without losing any nuance of meaning (although it could lose some fun factor as you say). Tomica could paraphrase other quotations, but might have to work harder with some of them to not lose any nuance. That was just my impression from scanning the various quotations, but maybe Tomica has ideas for effectively paraphrasing some of the other ones, in which case it's all good. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do take your point; we all know the challenges of writing featured articles and trying to balance all the competing demands. I'd just hate to see Tom go too far in the other direction and leave us with bland prose because he tried not to use too many quotes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, Moisejp thanks for the input, I really appreciate it. For the last "issue" of the direct quotes, I checked them and... in my opinion they are kind of specific in a manner of paraphrasing them. Also, I am gonna admit, I am kinda burnt these days and my paraphrase inspiration is null. On the other hand, they are pretty short, so I don't think it's a really big of an issue to stay like this. If you have time, and idea how some of them can be rephrased feel free to edit them :). — Tom(T2ME) 21:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm making some tentative paraphrases. As I mentioned in my edit summary (and taking HJ Mitchell's comment to heart), I am not saying we necessarily need to keep all of these paraphrases. These are just some ideas, and maybe we can find some consensus on the best ones to keep. Moisejp (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cullum's take on Rihanna's 'Don't Stop the Music' is best of all..." This seems to be in reference to something else mentioned in the source (previous to this quote), but without the context given, "best of all" is not really meaningful. I didn't read the source, but maybe it is saying it is the best track on Cullum's album; if so (or even if not), I recommend paraphrasing this first part of the quotation to clarify the meaning. Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moisejp Hey, thanks for all the c/e :) I think you really did a good job. I paraphrased that one, I hope it reads good. 21:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is getting close. I'm leaning towards supporting. I'd like to look at it one more time when my brain is fresh (hopefully tomorrow or soon), and likely make a couple more mini-c/e's if I spot anything else. Moisejp (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have done more copy-editing, and I now believe the article is well-written and satisfies the FA criteria. There are a couple of places where if it was me I might add less detail, but this is likely a matter of preference, and perhaps Rihanna fans appreciate the extra detail. Good work on the article! Moisejp (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Moisejp. I really appreciate the copy-edit and all of your input in the article. — Tom(T2ME) 15:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Fn 95 is a dead link
  • All of the other citations look appropriate for the information that they are citing.
  • Everything that needs to be cited is cited. Other than the first point I raised above, this is good to go as far as sources are concerned. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

  • "Don't Stop the Music" is a song ..." opens the article. Then the first para ends with ""Don't Stop the Music" is a dance song ...". Could the grammar be changed for one of those instances?
  • In my opinion it should stay like that, because "Soul Makosa" is mentioned in the previous sentence, so if we change the last sentence it might confuse the readers.
  • "Critically, many music journalists praised the sampling of"—is "Critically" ambiguous in this context? It appears again below.
  • Removed it.
  • "Certified four times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)"—suggest "Certified platinum four times by ...".
  • Hmmm not sure about this one, I think it should stay as it is, since that's how it's used in all the music/albums FAs.
  • "In the video, Rihanna and her friends sneak into the back of a candy store which contains a secret club and she parties with club-goers."—Suggest "that" for "which", and a comma after "club".
  • Done.
  • ""Don't Stop the Music" is a four-minute, twenty-seven-second dance song."—since the fact it's a song is very very obvious by now, perhaps: ""Don't Stop the Music" is 4 minutes, 27 seconds long."?
  • The emphasis here is also on the genre, so I think song as a word should stay.
  • Because it would read like this "'Don't Stop the Music' is a four-minute, twenty-seven-second dance." If it reads like this I would think DSTM is a dance, not a song. — Tom(T2ME) 09:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems far-fetched. At least use numerals, which is standard. Tony (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Sony/ATV Music Publishing's digital sheet music, it was written in the key of F♯ minor in common time, with a moderate tempo of 123 beats per minute.[14] Rihanna's voice ranges from F♯3 to A4.[14] The syncopated song samples a variety of layered rhythms,[3] with hip-hop rhythms and a heavy bass drumbeat predominating.[3] The sampled "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" was added to the arrangement for a "pulsating musical structure".[3]" Surely the key and tempo (and the other obvious musical features) can be observed on the recording, and need no citation. Query, then, why you need to announce "According to" anything/anyone—sounds like you're questioning the veracity of the score. The citation is fine, but ... do we really need 14, 14, 3, 3, 3? Successive reftags of the same number can be irritating unless they verify really critical or controversial propositions. (Put at end, once? Reftags are retrospective in reach.)
  • Fixed now.
  • It's not fixed. Why do we need "According to ..."? If you listen to the source, it's easily recoverable. It's like saying that "According to the music score, Beethoven's Eroic Symphony is in E-flat major and compound time." And ... why do we need [14] and [14] a few centimetres from each other? Tony (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wondering why you didn't use numerals for the two-digit numbers; wouldn't it be easier for readers? We have "13th", too.
  • Restored them.

Doesn't smell, thus far, like a featured article. Tony (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tony1 Thanks for the comments! Changed some stuff, commented for some other things :) — Tom(T2ME) 20:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It was successful on the Swiss Singles Chart, peaking at number one for five weeks.[52] The song also reached number one in Austria,[53] Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium,[54][55] Hungary[56] and the Netherlands.[57]"—Do we need "also"?
  • "fourteenth", but "13th". Tony (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Support on prose -- I have not reviewed the tables of data. There are a couple of minor points below, but I don't think they should hold up promotion. I've copyedited; please revert if necessary.

  • Suggest adding the date of recording to the first paragraph of the body; it's in the infobox but not the body text.
  • Why do we need the details of some of the chart performances spelled out in the "Commercial performance" section? The chart tables give much of the detail. I can understand calling out some of the higher-profile facts, such as the Billboard Hot 100 peak position, or coutnries where it reached number one, or the gold and platinum certifications, but why do we need to read here that "The single debuted at number 31 in New Zealand on October 12, 2007. After fluctuating for four weeks, it peaked at number three for a week and spent a total of 22 weeks on the chart."? You don't have "weeks on chart" or "debut position" in the table, but those are fairly minor facts unless they set a record in themselves. You could add them to the table if they're that important, or just let the reader can go to the source for those details.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Tomica, when I wrote above that "There are a couple of places where if it was me I might add less detail, but this is likely a matter of preference..." Mike's comments about the charts was actually one of them. I agree with him that it might be beneficial to take out some of the detail from this section, although it is a minor point. Moisejp (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think, despite Tony1's reservations, we have enough support to promote this now. Reading through, I agree that there are places where the detail could be trimmed about performances, etc, but that is not enough to delay promotion. However, I would recommend addressing the points of Mike and Moisejp after the article has been promoted. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2017 [35].

HMS St Vincent (1908)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St Vincent had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired during the Battle of Jutland mid-way through the war and that was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few other unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea. She was reduced to reserve after the war and was scrapped in the early 1920s. I've trimmed some of the extraneous details since the MilHist A-class review (which included an image review) last month and I believe that it meets the FA-class criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A solid entry in the series. Lots of attention to detail. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed the article at A-class and my concerns were addressed there. Great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support- All images are correctly licensed.

  • "She was unable to comply with the order before the Germans turned back after Moltke suffered engine damage" This bit seems a little oddly phrased. Perhaps "Although she moved to comply with the order, the Germans turned back, after Moltke suffered engine damage, before she could arrive." Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nicely done. Just a handful:

  • "with a slight increase in size, armour and more powerful guns, " I'm not sure this works. "Increase" is plainly meant to apply to size and to armour, and grammatically it should apply to "guns", but obviously it isn't meant to.
  • See how it reads now.
  • "The first armour-piercing, capped..." somewhere in these sentences I'd make it clearer you are talking about damage to Moltke.
  • I dunno. I'd think that the close succession between "hitting her twice" and "The first hit" would make it pretty clear that the damage was inflicted on Möltke.
  • While you say she was deemed obsolete after the war in the lede, this isn't backed up directly in the body.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Missing bibliographic details for Massie
  • Most of the Naval Institute books say Annapolis Maryland, one says only Annapolis. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well done, nomination has my support --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images comply with our guidelines except as follows:

  • File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff: The second license being used says not to use for a UK work, with Template:PD-UK-unknown being recommended.
  • File:St Vincent - NH 54835.jpg the item description says it was taken by a US sailor or a commercial photographer, but the tag used says that it was taken by a sailor or employee of the US Navy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no specific tag for NHHC images; this is as close as we can get. Key point is that the NHHC states that the image has no known restrictions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think between here and A-Class, this has had a solid review and there is a clear consensus to promote. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2017 [36].

Operation Bernhard[edit]

Nominator(s): The Bounder (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bernhard is a fascinating tale of what could have been the Nazi's most powerful weapon of the Second World War, utterly wasted because of poor management in the confused and conflicting bureaucratic infighting in the German high command. A plan to counterfeit British currency to bring about the collapse of the strongest economy in the world was changed into a way to pay for intelligence operations (which it did), although it made some Germans extremely rich in the process. In and among the greed and mismanagement, the plan ensured the survival of around 150 concentration camp prisoners who were the ones forced to make print the money. A badly worded German order to kill them, and an engine failure of a truck, led to a last minute survival of the group, of whom one is still alive, I believe. This article has undergone a complete re-write recently and reached the standards of a MILHIST A class (passing this morning). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Per my detailed comments at the A-Class review here. I gave my comments then and the article a quick look-in this morning before supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, Thank you very much for your extremely useful comments at A-class and your further time and effort here. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • All good, except this one: Operation Bernhard only ever printed money - other people used it. - The Bounder (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to a poorly worded German order, the prisoners were not executed on their arrival": As much as I'd like to think that the lack of a copyeditor saved their lives, the article text doesn't seem to support that the problem was poor wording.
    • Teutonic precision in interpretation was the real problem, and I've tweaked accordingly. - The Bounder (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. One of the better concentration camp stories I've read, on or off Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dank, thank you very much for your tweaks and comment. I've slightly reshaped the "poorly-worded order" to make it more precise. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Syek88[edit]

I found this interesting, it reads well, and it appears to be a comprehensive history of the operation based on reputable references. Unfortunately I haven't been able to look at any of the references, so my review necessarily excludes Criterion 1c.

Some fairly minor points and questions:

  • The second sentence of the article is "The plan was to drop the notes over Britain to bring about a collapse of the British economy." Is this not too broad in that it is only correct insofar as it describes the plan for the first of the operation's two phases, a point that doesn't come through until the next paragraph? Perhaps "initial plan" or "original plan"?
  • The lead refers to the "overly precise" interpretation of the imprisonment order, but none of that is explained in the relevant section of the article. In other words, I didn't see anything in the second paragraph of "Final stages of the war" as explaining how the order was interpreted in an overly precise manner and how that helped the prisoners. I make the point below that the second paragraph of "Final stages of the way" is perhaps short of clarity. Maybe that is the issue. I'm guessing the over-precision arises from the guards at the receiving camp waiting too long for the third group to arrive, but that seems to be exactly what the order required them do, in which case "overly" might be too critical of them.
  • "Prior to the release of any notes by the Bank of England, all serial numbers were recorded in ledgers so the bank could verify their liabilities" - Whom or what is the pronoun "their" covering? I thought it should be the bank, but the plural pronoun leads me to wonder whether it is the notes. If it is the bank, "its" would put it beyond doubt.
  • "A watermark appeared across the middle of every note; it differed depending on the value of the currency and the alphanumeric combinations used." - are the "alphanumeric combinations" the same thing as the "alphanumeric serial designation" to which the previous paragraph refers? The difference in wording made me wonder.
  • "The Jewish prisoners working on the operation at the time complained to Krüger at having to work with a criminal and he was given his own room to sleep in." - Is the "and" intended to denote causation: that he was given his own room because the other prisoners complained? If so, I'd use a different word. If not, it isn't clear why the two clauses of the sentence go together.
  • "They were divided into three groups, and the truck was to make trips to and from the camp. An order had been issued the prisoners were to be killed, once they were together at Ebensee. The truck delivered the first two groups—the men were housed separately from the general camp population—but the vehicle broke down on the third journey; the men in the last group were marched to the camp, which took two days." These three sentences are a bit strange. This is the first mention of a singular truck, so maybe "a truck" would be better. And is there a missing word or two in the second sentence? In the third sentence it is not clear how the parenthetical clause explains any of the sentence's content. It seems to relate more to the sentence that follows. Finally, as above, this is the paragraph where I think there needs to be a clear explanation of how the order was interpreted imprecisely and how this helped the prisoners.

Thanks again. Syek88 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Syek88. I've worked on them all, but I'll have a proper look in the morning at the final point, just to see how it looks now when I'm much less tired! Thank you for all your comments, and the copy edits too. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a further read-through this morning of the clarifications, I'm happier with the new text. Does it read well to you? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I think that paragraph steps it through very clearly now. Marking as support. Syek88 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Syek88 - that's very kind of you. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Publisher for Boeykens?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher and/or location for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much Nikkimaria, both points now addressed. You passed the images in your review for A-Class, so does that mean they pass for FA too? (For,the sake of completeness I have added one since the review, File:Toplitzsee.jpg, which appears to be ok. Thanks again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This is a very interesting and well-developed article. I have the following comments:

  • The first para of the lead should say when this project commenced
  • "On receipt of Hitler's go-ahead Heydrich opened a counterfeiting unit " - can you be specific about when this occurred? (was it literally as soon as Hitler's approval was gained, or shortly afterwards?)
  • "Counterfeit notes worth £15–20 million were in general circulation at the end of the war.[14] With such a volume in general circulation, in April 1943 the Bank of England stopped releasing all notes of £10 and above" - the chronology here is a bit unclear. Also, how did the British detect this large scale counterfitting? Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good afternoon Nick-D, and many thanks for your comments. I have altered the text according to your first two comments. The British were not aware of the huge scale of the operation until much later, but they knew there was something going on (which we cover in the Origins of the plan section). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the response. Based on the edits, I'm pleased to now support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you very much for your comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Can I just clarify with Nikkimaria that the image added after the A-Class review is OK? If so, I think we are clear on images. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think between this review, and that at A-Class, this has a consensus to promote. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2017 [37].

Donkey Kong 64[edit]

Nominator(s): czar 03:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This 1999 video game marked the decline of the adventure platform genre. "As ... Super Mario 64 breathed life into the 3D platforming genre", Electronic Gaming Monthly wrote, "Donkey Kong 64 sucked it all out". But you couldn't infer that from the lionizing 1999 press. Interesting enough, today's game journalists remember the game's 1999 reception as "mixed" even as Metacritic called it "universal acclaim". Reading the original reviews, almost all mentioned the nagging backtracking for collectibles, but only one reviewer (GameFan) went so far as to call it (as retrospective reviewers do) a deal breaker: "a big bloated project with not enough brilliant moments to justify the numbness ... [of] sitting through the whole thing". Indeed, as much as GameFan was an outlier among the 1999 hype men, it had its finger on the game's legacy. The game is not a "recommended" title in the overall Donkey Kong series, but as the console's top seller in the 1999 holiday season and with over two million copies shipped, the game is famous despite how it was sold.

This article is the most complete treatment of the topic on the Internet, and includes a wide range of online and offline sources worked into readable prose. I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria, and look forward to your feedback. czar 03:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

Resolved
  • I'll review this soon. Always disliked this game, because it had none of the atmosphere of the SNES games, so will be fun if this article can in some way change my opinion... FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, well, I think it'll do more reinforcing than changing of opinion, unfortunately! czar 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some words are not linked at first occurrence outside the intro, including the characters (that have articles), minigame, Rare, etc.
  • I'm not sure whether the design of the console and its components are copyrighted, so I'll leave it and see if it is brought up during image review, but may be a problem.
  • "and avoid consumer confusion,[25] However, according to Rare" Seems the first comma should be a full stop?
  • "Nintendo said that it bundled the accessory with the game to simplify its installation and avoid consumer confusion", "Additionally, Nintendo said that the choice to bundle, rather than selling the accessory separately, would avoid consumer confusion." Seems like the same information repeated?
  • "The game released in November 1999" Was released?
  • "as Nintendo fought off the new Sega Dreamcast console." This seems a but hyperbolic, and I'm not sure what is meant (did Nintendo win?). "Competed with" might be more neutral?
  • The setting is barren and nondescript at first, and only later introduces lighting effects and richer textures." I think this subjective statement needs clearer attribution.
It's a statement of fact, not interpretation, and it's within the IGN citation segment. I can move a direct citation next to the sentence if necessary, but I didn't think it was needed
The sourcing is fine, I'm just not sure who says this from reading the text, I think you could mention who made this opinion (IGN, it seems). FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I meant that it isn't an opinion—I see that it's between two opinion statements from IGN but this one is evaluative (like the statements also sourced to the review and used in the Gameplay section). Reception sections can be monotonous "X said Y" affairs, so it's important to diversify the prose. I'm open to rephrase suggestions but I don't think that attributing the statement to the author ("IGN said") clarifies more than it congests in this case. czar 01:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I would have suggested semicolon, but then the combined sentence would be overly long. But if no one else latches onto this, should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It always baffled me that Dixie and Kiddy Kong were not in the game, though they seem to have been replaced by very similar characters for no apparent reason. Any discussion of this in the sources?
As far as I can recall, not at all, or at least no one made a point of it. The closest is that Dixie and Kiddy are "lookalikes" of Tiny and Chunky.[38] (I'd consider this a minor point, in any event.)
Heheh, at least now I know I wasn't the only one who thought this... FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Donkey Kong 64's 3D platforming commonplace by the time of its release" Missing a "was"?
Thanks, @FunkMonk. Addressed this first batch. czar 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - while I may be a bit biased seeing as I contributed a bit to the Development section, it cannot be denied you've done an outstanding job here, especially considering the scaricty of any substantial sources. So yeah, I pretty much agree with the intro claim about the article being the most comprehensive body of information about the subject. Another thing of note is that the prose seems to be concise, well-written and diverse all across the board. All in all, this is exemplary work. You've got my vote for this one. Electroguv (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just one comment from Niwi3[edit]

Resolved comment from Niwi3
  • You've picked a poor gameplay screenshot. Try to illustrate a gameplay mechanic or show a good perspective with the player character in the center of the screen. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Niwi3, do you have a suggested shot? It illustrates typical gameplay, shows some environmental distance, which few other shots have. I looked at alternatives, such as those printed in the original reviews, and would have used them if they were significantly more illustrative. I considered a shot with the special ability pad/swap barrel, but those concepts could be adequately explained in the text, so the image is for illustration of how the character plays in the environment. Also the player-character is rarely in the center of the screen when the character is in motion, so not sure that tip is instructive—it illustrates more that the character is frequently not in the center of the screen (which helps lead the camera to see what's ahead). czar 15:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: you can find many good screenshots here. This one, for example, is better to illustrate typical gameplay and environmental distance. You can also use this one to explain that players can climb up trees and swing from vine to vine. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the screenshot with the first one you recommended—it has a little extra draw distance of the original scene, but it also has the benefit of being an emulated rendering (and thus, sharper). czar 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:DonkeyKong64CoverArt.jpg: Non-free cover art, which seems like the appropriate license to me. Non-free use rationale appears to satisfy all requirements.
  • File:Dk64 jungle.jpg: Non-free screenshot, which seems like the appropriate license to me. NFCC#8 rationale is a bit generic, may want to specify what it is used to illustrate.
  • File:Nintendo-64-Memory-Expansion-Pak.jpg: Free image on Commons. Image topic is discussed in the adjacent section. Good EXIF, no indication of impropriety.
  • File:Jungle green Nintendo 64 (10448842084).jpg: Free image on Commons. Image topic is discussed in the adjacent section. Image is from Flickr, no evidence of copying in GIS.
  • File:Grant Kirkhope.png: Free image on Commons. Dependent on OTRS and hasn't been processed yet apparently. Image is of the composer and is discussed in the adjacent section.

All images appear to have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Fn 7, 35 - These aren't really References, they are cited notes point to something else. You should make a separate Notes section for something like this.
  • Fn 3, 10, etc. - Provide an ISSN for each magazine cited.
  • Fn 49 - Incorrect citation: This is the June/July 2005 issue.

Otherwise, looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Laser brain! Updated the heading and ISSNs. Ref 49 uses "June 2005" instead of "June/July 2005" because the citation template throws an error for dual dates. czar 20:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we are close now, but given that Electroguv says that they contributed to this article, I'd feel a little happier to have a little more review before promoting this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sarastro1, for what it's worth, that contribution was a sentence & source, which while appreciated, I wouldn't consider enough to make the editor affiliated. Either way, your call czar 00:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this a day or two more and see if anything pops up, but I won't hold it up if no-one else comes forward. One little thing in the meantime, there are a few places where the references aren't in numerical order. I think this probably needs fixing. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's intentional (I usually order the refs by pertinence) czar 06:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2017 [39].

Naruto Uzumaki[edit]

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fictional character whom is a eponymous protagonist of the series Naruto. The article is a GA article with mid-importance in the Anime and Manga WikiProject. A peer review was opened regarding this article, and issues with the article has been discussed and fixed. It has also been copy-edited recently. I have done things on my part for this article like expand it, fix dead links, and archive all of the links listed in the references section. I have a feeling that this article may be ready for FA. Thanks, MCMLXXXIX 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Tintor2 (Passed)

Doing the Source review:

  • All references are linked, pass reliability and have archives in case of deletion. As a result, I think the article passes the source review. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tintor2: Does this mean you support this nomination? The nomination viewer script doesn't count the word pass as a support. MCMLXXXIX 17:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: You see, as far as I know, the FACs are divided in three parts: the general prose review, the source review and the image review. Since I used to work on this article some time ago, I my prose review would biased so I decided to do the source review. Also, another suggestion I could give you to have more feedback is going to other reviews like List of Blood-C episodes where the nominator also needs feedback too. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • In the lead, the phrase "added a harsh past" sounds a little odd to me. I understand what you mean, but I would refine/revise it to make it clear you are referencing the character's past.
  • In the first line of the lead's third paragraph, you have variations of the word "popular" in the same sentence. I would change this for variety.
  • I don't think you need to say "Naruto's character". You can just say "Naruto" or you could adjust to "Naruto's character development".
  • I could not find any problems with the "Appearances" section. It reads very smoothly to me, with only minor instances standing out to me (such as the "who, as a newborn," reads a little awkward to me). I just want to post a reminder that I am not familiar with this character or the manga/anime at all so I cannot comment on the accuracy, but it looks really good to me.
@1989: Overall, you have done a wonderful job on the article. My comment focus on some awkward areas in the lead that could be corrected (I always find the lead to be difficult, probably because it is the last part of an article that I work on). It is really cool to read through an article about a manga/anime character, and it actually inspires me to trying working on a similar article. Once my minor comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great work with this article. Everything looks in shape to me. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: Thanks! If you'd like, could you also do an image review? MCMLXXXIX 16:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course; I am currently at work, but I will do an image review later tonight if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was only one thing that stood out to me, a simple punctuation/grammar mistake that I've just gone and fixed. Everything else about this article seems sound. I'll give this my Support to this article's promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Aoba47 (Passed)

Image review[edit]

  • No audio files used, images only.
  • Good use of captions that illustrate the image in a clear and concise manner for the reader. All images in the body of the article are appropriate for the sections. It does seem a little odd to me to include the sketch of Naruto in the "Appearances" section as I would imagine that it would be more appropriate in a background/development one instead, but given its connection to the film, it is fine as it currently stands.
  • Both images for the voice actors (Junko Takeuchi and Flanagan) and the image of [File:Paris Manga 13 - Hiroshi Matsuyama - 001.jpg Hiroshi Matsuyama] were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • The other three images mostly have appropriate tags. Could you please be more specific about the source for this one? Is the source really titled (Naruto artbook 3)? Also include the year of its publication?
  • @1989: Once my minor question is addressed, then this will pass my image review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Everything looks good then, and this passes the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review by Narutolovehinata5 (Passed)

General prose review[edit]

  • The article is well-written and is among the best-written articles I have seen for an anime character. However, there are currently a few minor issues I have seen: "Dub" should not be capitalized in the sentence "she decided to look the show up and felt the release of the English Dub would be popular". Also, there are a few inconsistencies in the reception section, such as switching between "ANN" and "A.N.N.". Carl Kimlinger's full name is mentioned twice when his full name should probably only be mentioned on the first mention. But these are easily resolvable problems and once these are fixed I'll be happy to give this a pass. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, this is a pass for the prose review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: Also, a suggestion: if the article gets promoted, I suggest you nominate the article for Today's Featured Article for either October 3 (the anime's 15th anniversary) or October 10 (Naruto's birthday). It's up to you what date to use. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to get Naruto to FA after this one ends. I already got it to GA, and it had a peer review, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. With that being said, I'll be nominating this article for TFA on the character's birthday, if this passes. MCMLXXXIX 09:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I been going over the article few times, trying to find any issues with it. Seeing that I can't find any problems with it, I will go on and Support this nomination. - AffeL (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I went over the article a couple of times too, and I couldn't find anything wrong with it. I checked all of the sources I could access, but found no issues there. This article is comprehensive enough without going into too much detail over lore, and it is well written. JAGUAR  10:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 122.108.141.214
Comments by 122.108.141.214
  • Comment - has the scholarly literature about Naruto been surveyed? The following book has an entire Part 2 covering "Naruto as a Cultural Crossroads", of six chapters.
  • Berndt, Jacqueline; Kümmerling-Meibauer, Bettina, eds. (2013). Manga's Cultural Crossroads. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. ISBN 9781134102839.

--122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to Oppose - the scholarly literature on Naruto (the series) has not been surveyed for criticism of Naruto (the character), and so I believe this article does not meet criteria 1c of the Featured Article criteria, where ""a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" has been undertaken. Without any investigation of scholarly literature about Naruto, this article cannot be considered "well-researched". --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: What is they talking about? MCMLXXXIX 01:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your question. I believe the editor is saying that they've located scholarly literature about the subject of the article. They are opposing over their concern that the article cannot be considered well-researched if you have not consulted scholarly literature. --Laser brain (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've located scholarly literature about the parent series the main character comes from, but the rest is correct. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested this text through an interlibrary loan to make it available to 1989. It may take a week or so to receive it, and further time for 1989 to incorporate relevant material into the article. Please hold for a bit. ~ Rob13Talk 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for Popular Culture in Counseling, Psychotherapy, and Play-Based Interventions seems to be incomplete as it doesn't have the chapter title.--122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN is fine, it's available on Amazon. MCMLXXXIX 10:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the older ISBN doesn't show up as being valid when I search for it in Google Books. The citation could still be improved by adding the book chapter title, though. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't originally add the citation, so I can't help with that. MCMLXXXIX 11:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was fixed. MCMLXXXIX 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was easy enough to do. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the topic of scholarly literature, I'm assisting 1989 with a lit review. There are extremely limited English-language academic sources, however. Some Japanese-language sources are available, but I don't think it's particularly reasonable to expect a reviewer to conduct research into sources from another language when high-quality sources are available in their own language. So far, I've identified one additional academic source in addition to the source provided by the IP above. ~ Rob13Talk 16:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's a great step in the right direction. Where have you been searching? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been searching through my institution's search engine. They do a pretty good job of interfacing with the various databases and print resources I have access to, but I will check a few good databases manually to verify there isn't more out there. I can't reveal the institution for obvious reasons, but I will say it has access through its print resources, databases, or relationships to other libraries to almost any resource present online or in the United States. I volunteer quite a bit at WP:RX. To the nominator's credit, the first source I found for him was actually already referenced in the article (Popular Culture in Counseling, Psychotherapy, and Play-Based Interventions). This is an academic source edited by a professor at St. Thomas University. The cited chapter is by another professor at the same institution. Both have PhDs. ~ Rob13Talk 22:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the citation for Popular Culture in Counseling, Psychotherapy, and Play-Based Interventions accurate? I raised some issues with it above and tried to fix it myself. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Big Heroes on the Small Screen: Naruto and the Struggle Within" is indeed the chapter title. ~ Rob13Talk 22:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: I've sent you two more articles that you may find helpful. They're related to Naruto in the context of religion. I didn't read fully, but at least one also talks about Naruto's emerging role as a noteworthy example of a Japanese literary "hero" figure. ~ Rob13Talk 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked DOAJ and found

I've done a quick add, but a more in-depth reading of it might prove useful to the article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the ones I sent him, just for the record. Didn't realize it was open access when I accessed it. ~ Rob13Talk 23:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could really use the eyes of someone who knows Naruto inside and out. @BU Rob13: - could you please post up the citation for any other sources you've found here? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a time sink for me. If you create an account and email me, I'm happy to send you the sources. Otherwise, I'll leave it to the nominator to type up the cites when adding to the article. ~ Rob13Talk 04:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that - this is more of a time sink than I knew when I first asked, too. Are there lots of sources, then? Just so that people have an idea of how much (or little) there is out there. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's relatively little that isn't already written in the article. A couple sources I've found are already incorporated in the article. I found a couple new sources focusing on religious aspects (including the one you cited above). I'm also still working to access the original source you pointed out. ~ Rob13Talk 15:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rob - it's helpful to know that the measure of the literature has largely been taken, but there's still a couple more potential sources that could be added. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? MCMLXXXIX 21:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rob has said that he's emailed them to you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you already used one of the articles he sent me, so I have to use the second one, and the other one he's planning to send me. Besides those two articles, there's nothing left to look for. MCMLXXXIX 21:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't know Naruto as well as you do, it would be helpful if you could look at the 'Confucian values' article to make sure that the important points have been used. It's encouraging to think that the measure of the literature has largely been taken. I also have some nitpicks below about translating source titles and "Jinchuriki" - will you please address them? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address them tomorrow. MCMLXXXIX 21:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks great! I love the work you've done adding Plumb's kitsune criticism to the article, and getting more of the point of the Confucian values article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add a nitpick to the sourcing section, the Japanese web sources could benefit from a more liberal use of |trans_title=. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to nitpick again, but I found a couple more - could you please add translated titles to these? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add a nitpick to the prose section, "Jinchuriki" is used twice, but never defined. It is not used at all in the main Naruto series article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new additions might need a bit of copyediting - I've heard it said that 'claim' can be value-laden, and I'm not certain what the seal is a catalyst for - Naruto's growing maturity? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also accidentally deleted something I just couldn't understand. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accidentally? Do you want me to readd it? MCMLXXXIX 00:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it so I could see what I was doing when adding in the text that I did. If you think an important point has been lost, please reword it when adding it back in. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added more stuff. MCMLXXXIX 13:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Naruto's character development is related to a modern American hero, but became a higher figure in the series accidentally to build and restore peace" mean? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the sentence. MCMLXXXIX 23:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's clearer. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can no longer oppose this nomination on the grounds that it does not reflect the available scholarly literature. Well done! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will support if you can explain where this line "In Road to Ninja: Naruto the Movie, an alternate version of the character named Menma appears as the main antagonist of the film." is cited. other than this, great job! Eddie891 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: I linked the article, hope that's good enough. MCMLXXXIX 01:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Support. (I apologize if I ask or say stupid things. I am still figuring things out on Wikipedia)Eddie891 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support From a perspective of someone who is familiar with anime, but does not do articles about them, I find the article to be easy to understand to new readers. I also checked for any disambiguations and connection issues, but none are found. Good job! Erick (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Congrats on doing a great job here, I fully agree that this article is ready for a FA. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: This is looking like it is getting close, but I'd like a little more commentary. I don't think we have had an in depth look at the prose. We are fine on 1b and 1c (comprehensive and well researched) based on the above comments, but I'd feel happier if someone could give the prose (1a) a little going over. Additionally, although we have a source review above, no-one has checked the sources for reliability and formatting. As I believe this is the nominators first FAC, we would also require a spot check of sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. I'm also not convinced about the image review as we have a lot of FU images. I also believe that the image of Hiroshi Matsuyama in costume could be a problem as the issue has been raised before that costumes can be copyright, which makes cosplay images problematic. But I'm no expert, so I'd like another image reviewer to just check this out. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the sources are passable since I was the user who made it GA. Sites like anime now are often cited by anime news network. On the other hand, I have mixed thoughts about using crunchyroll due to previos feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Image review by Nikkimaria (Passed)

Image review

  • Not seeing a strong enough rationale to include both File:NarutoUzumakiKishimoto.jpg and File:NarutoUzumakiPartIIKishimoto.jpg - we would need justification why it's necessary for the reader to see both. Similarly, there should be further explanation of why we need the sketched version (File:Adultnaruto.jpg) in addition to the fully realized version. These FURs are pretty minimal.
  • File:Naruto_Shiki_Fujin.svg: what is the copyright status of this design?
  • See here regarding the cosplay issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I don't understand. How strong do you want the rationales to be? Is the reason wanting readers to know what the character looks like not enough in the Purpose of Use section? I expanded it a little bit. The third image may not be needed, as it doesn't really provide context.
  • It seems that the author made a replica of the seal with SVG software. It was just recently added to the article.
  • The cosplay image shouldn't really be an issue IMO, unless you think otherwise. MCMLXXXIX 03:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "primary means of visual identification" argument is useful for a single image, usually the lead/infobox image - it's not clear to me why it would be essential to see the different ages.
  • Okay, but what is the copyright status of the design itself?
  • I think it well could be, although as the link indicates the matter is complicated. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tintor2: Would it be better to have only one image of what the character looks like, and I could update the lead image to his adult form?
  • Isnt there by any chance an image that has both parte 1 and 2 Narutos. I would definitely agree to remove his young adult sketch considering he has few appearances.Tintor2 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: It's derivative work, it's a reproduction of the seal in SVG form.
  • Would you like me to remove the images referenced in your second and third bullet points? MCMLXXXIX 13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if the article described what the character looked like in Part II, would it be necessary to keep the image for context? MCMLXXXIX 15:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand it's a derivative work - the point of a derivative work though is that it's derived from something, and that something has a copyright status.
  • If the changes between the two versions are significant, and you can source content that describes the significance of these changes, then that could justify the use of both images. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: It was derived from the manga, which is copyrighted. I'll remove the image.
  • Do you mean like conception or what I said above? MCMLXXXIX 23:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I added material, and changed the rationale for the Part II image.
  • I removed the derivative work, and the cosplay image. -- MCMLXXXIX 11:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been giving this a good read and prose wise, I don't find any issues with it. The article on the character was quite an interesting read. You have my Support.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I narrowly want to comment on the cosplay issue. The Supreme Court ruled just today in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. that the relevant test for copyright is that the useful article (e.g. the costume) must (a) be conceivable as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and; (b) that work of art would be eligible for copyright on its own, separate from the useful article. In this case, the costume itself is made up of simple geometric shapes and colors, and so it is not protectable. That means the clothing itself fails the second prong of that test. As for the head band and face paint, that's likely a copyrightable design feature of the Naruto character, but the principle of de minimis likely applies here. This is especially true because, as rendered on the page, the design on the headband is not clearly visible. (That may sound like a fair use argument, but it is not. See c:COM:DM.) So the short answer is that I do not think the image is an issue. There will need to be a broader discussion on Commons about what this ruling means for useful articles. We may well need to dump a large number of our images based on this ruling. ~ Rob13Talk 05:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Source review by Jaguar (Passed)
Source review from Jaguar

I'm just going to skim through the sources themselves to see if they're all formatted correctly etc, and then afterwards I'll start verifying:

  • Ref 2 - is Naruto the name of the website? Shouldn't Cartoon Network be in the website field and Time Warner in the publisher field?
  • Ref 7 is not archived
  • Ref 79 says "Viz Video" but the url goes to madman.com
  • Ref 99, 115, 116 and 117 needs IGN in the website field and Ziff Davis as its publisher

Those were all of the minor issues I could find regarding formatting. I'll start spotchecking the refs now and will leave the comments later as I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment. JAGUAR  13:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jaguar: Ref 2 is not a website. Cite web and Cite episode are different. The ref cites the episode that the information is presented.
  • I fixed the other issues you had. MCMLXXXIX 13:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just spent an hour spotchecking the sources and couldn't find any discrepancies at all, so I'll support on the sourcing side of things. Overall this is a well pieced article. JAGUAR  15:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not seeing that anyone gave the prose a last check. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I did notice it, but I was hoping for a little more feedback than a one-line comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose can definitely do with a bit of tightening. I have done this so far but will be busy for a bit before getting back to it in a day or two. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarastro1: I think Casliber's done with tightening the prose. Does his input count or do I need more feedback? 1989 11:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did what I could. I think more could be done but I found it heavy going after a while. No real gross clangers outstanding but just some overall massaging would help. 12:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Casliber: Are you suggesting that the article be copy-edited further? 1989 13:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that it wouldn't hurt. I find it hard to pick up new things after a couple of read-throughs, not sure whether reader fatigue or just tuning them out...but I do think the prose could be trimmed a bit more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, 1989, I can't take this on. I'm busy with other things. I notice that the article is being edited constantly which my be part of the problem. Many of the edits are a matter of style rather than substance. Also, the suggestion that the prose could be "trimmed a bit more" is too vague to be useful to any future editor. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the request of the nominator, I read through and made these edits. I fixed a couple of minor errors, but otherwise just tweaking the prose. My edits are mostly cosmetic, I couldn't see much wrong with the prose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: I think that should be it. 1989 08:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think we have enough commentary and support to pass now. I agree with Cas to some extent that this feels like there could be trims made here and there, but I'm not sure that my feeling is enough to hold up promotion, and it would be largely cosmetic. I had a read through and the only two things that I noticed were "The orange in his costume makes Naruto pop and the blue parts are complementary", where I'm not sure what we mean by "pop", and the use of "pants" which I think might be a little less professional than we should aim for. Otherwise, if Cas or anyone else has any other little trims or tweaks, these can be raised on the talk page. I would like to thank the nominator for their patience with this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2017 [40].

Clare Stevenson[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a long time coming. I took the article, on the first commander of an Australian women's military service, through MilHist A-Class Review back in 2009. It was (I believe) the project's first A-Class article about a woman. If it succeeds here, it'll be the first -- long overdue -- FA on a woman in the military biography category. I had planned to wait a while between ACR and FAC to see if any new sources turned up but little has so I think we have as comprehensive a picture of her life and career as can be expected and, besides, eight years is time enough. Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport Comments from Syek88[edit]

I've had a series of read-throughs of this article, including against select sources, and have very little in the way of suggestions. I think it is very well written: it has a natural flow that must have been very difficult to achieve given the extent to which material has been cobbled together from very thin sources. The second paragraph of "Early challenges" is a particularly good read.

It is both disappointing that the existing biographical material on Stevenson is so limited, yet so satisfying that here on Wikipedia we (you) have been able to fix that as best as possible. Also, the article also does an excellent job of outlining the discrimination Stevenson and her colleagues faced without bludgeoning the reader with commentary (cf Stephens and Isaacs, who do not mince words).

I have checked what sources I can. The Thomson source appears to be the most significant one not available for public access.

My only suggestions:

  • ”By the end of the war a total of 27,000 women had served in the WAAAF, comprising thirty-one per cent of Air Force ground staff and filling sixty-one trades, all previously occupied by men.” I don’t think the source fully supports this. In Stephens & Isaacs the 61 and 31(.5)% figures date not to the end of the war but to July 1944. I’m not sure this is trivial because much could have changed between July 1944 and the end of the war. It wouldn't be surprising if the number 61 increased substantially.
    • Appreciate you taking the time to spotcheck sources -- you're quite right, the text as I had it was making an assumption not explicitly supported by the source, so I've reworded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Stevenson obtained a Bachelor of Education degree from the University of Melbourne in 1948.” Is “degree” necessary? I told you I was scraping the bottom of the barrel for comments.
    • Have to admit I'm used to seeing the word "degree" in there -- could we see if any other reviewers comment on it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest having the dates of her tenure as Director in the lead. It's the most important thing she did, and the casual reader might want to know that information without having to read down the page.

Regards Syek88 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words and comments -- I'll try to look at these in the next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. There is nothing in the second point, so I'm marking this as (a very easy) support. Syek88 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, it only occurred to me after I nominated that I hadn't checked/updated the image links and licences since 2009, so glad I caught 'em before you reviewed -- tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks as always Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • Are there any more details available for "Although keen to support the war effort in some capacity, she demurred"? To demur can mean anything from privately expressing unwillingness to a friend to writing a letter requesting the withdrawal of the nomination; it would be nice to know where on the spectrum her reaction fell.
    • I can probably flesh that out a little.
  • Bell's resignation rather than "report to someone from outside the service fraternity" makes me wonder if anything can be said about the relationship between the two women once Bell rejoined the service? If Bell rarely interacted with Stevenson then the question isn't relevant, of course.
    • Since I wrote Bell's WP bio, which of necessity isn't as detailed as Stevenson's, I suspect I'd have picked up if there was relevant info and added it to their articles. I'll check again when I look at sources re. the previous point.
      • Mike, having re-checked several sources, including Joyce Thompson's history of the WAAAF, I can see nothing about any notable interaction following Stevenson's appointment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be an Australian English thing, but "Stevenson considered housing, uniforms, and recruit training as her first priorities" would read better to me as "to be her first priorities".
    • Whether it's OzEng or not, happy to use your wording, Mike.
  • "She drew on her retail experience to organise the WAAAF and to design its uniform": I would assume some uniform was already in place, so shouldn't this be "redesign"?
    • I think Nick-D has access to the ref for that -- Nick, would you mind double-checking?
      • Thompson's history of the WAAAF appears to confirm that no uniform had been finalised when Stevenson was appointed Director, so I think we can safely leave the statement in the article as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Air Member for Personnel (Australia).
    • Okay.
  • Did she have a successor as Director, or was the post left vacant in the knowledge that the WAAAF would soon be disbanded?
    • I believe she did have a successor, briefly -- will check and add as appropriate.
      • Double-checking Thompson, I think I know why I didn't mention this because it's not exactly straightforward... It seems that after Stevenson's retirement, the WAAAF -- as it was -- came under the control of the Directorate of Personal Services and Wing Officer Audrey Herring, Stevenson's deputy, was appointed Staff Officer to the Directorate, make her Stevenson's effective -- but not de jure -- successor. I think this sort of detail might well belong in the WAAAF article, but perhaps not here -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll leave it up to you; I think it would be worth giving the reader at least a pointer, since it's a natural question, but it's not a big deal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for stopping by, Mikle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The minor point remaining isn't enough to hold up support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

All sources look to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently and appropriately cited, with the small quibble that one of the books cited has a 13 digit ISBN and the rest have 10. I'd use the ISBN converter to change that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably comes from the age of the article, as I tended to only use 10-digit ISBNs back in the day -- will look at converting. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry Mitchell[edit]

Just a few quibbles. This a great article, and it's wonderful to see it here given her pioneering role.

  • Is it unusual that she was appointed almost against here will? Was there some sort of nomination process? I there was, do we know if she put her own hat in the ring?
    • To respond to the last point first, I'd hoped it was fairly clear in the article that she hadn't put herself forward for the position. I can probably expand a little on this per my response to one of Mike's first queries above.
  • Do we know if there's a reason they chose someone with no obvious military connection?
    • I felt we covered that in the third sentence of the first para of Appointment...
  • she later rejoined on the condition that she would receive no promotion higher than flight officer Is there anything more we can say about how she was persuaded to rejoin or why she made this stipulation?
    • Wrigley persuaded her; I mentioned it in Bell's article but not in Stevenson's, because it seemed more germane to Bell's, but happy to add it here.
  • One-time Minister for Defence "one-time" strikes me as unusual here.
    • Heh, yes it does now you mention it -- will double-check the source but we can probably afford to lose it.
  • comparable to that of "uniformed civilians" than to servicemen What does this mean? Does it mean that male officers in the mainstream RAAF didn't treat WAAF officers with military courtesy? Is "uniformed civilians" a quote from somewhere?
    • Yes, "uniformed civilians" is a quote from the source -- I can double-check if there's further explanation and, if not, perhaps attribute it inline if you think that helps.
  • his preferred choice as Director I don't think "director" should be a proper noun here (there are other instances of this throughout).
    • I think I was going by the predominant way of showing it in the sources, again will double-check.
  • She drew on her retail experience There's nothing about retailing explicitly mentioned above; I'm guessing this was with Berlei, but it would be nice if we could spell it out so the reader can make the connection in their mind more quickly.
    • Well I could probably say "retailer Berlei" earlier on...

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments, Harry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Only a few comments. I am surmising additional details on what she did during the war (did she travel, or basically stay in Victoria) would be a problem due to the limits of the sources.

  • "and from 1935 to 1939 represented the company in London as a senior executive." She seemed young and without much experience to be a senior executive as I understand the term (leaving aside gender and the 1930s). Her earlier career gives no real hint about what she might be doing. If possible, can something be said about her role?
  • " Air Vice Marshal George Jones. Jones backed Lukis' authority," Jones/Jones.
  • Nice job.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by JennyOz[edit]

Thanks for this due recognition of women, Ian. Minor comment. In regard to why she was selected - here suggests it seems related to what Berlei does - her job there involved specifically dealing with female staff. (But these are her own words, so not sure if usable here.) JennyOz (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2017 [41].

The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.[edit]

Nominator(s): —Bruce1eetalk 07:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is this article's second FAC; the first received a couple of reviews (thanks Imzadi1979 and Nikkimaria), but all the issues raised by them were addressed.

This article is about George Steiner's controversial 1981 literary and philosophical novella in which Adolf Hitler (A.H.) is found alive in the Amazon jungle thirty years after the end of World War II. It is currently a GA and has recently been peer reviewed. I believe it meets the FA criteria, but I'm open to any comments/suggestions. —Bruce1eetalk 07:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a few minor points:

  • I made a small edit, which is here.
    Thank you, I'm happy with that. —Bruce1eetalk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Orosso a town? When I first read the line that mentions it, I was a little confused.
    Orosso is a town, as stated at the end of that sentence. If you feel it's still confusing, I'll reword the sentence. —Bruce1eetalk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence in "Reception", as a stand-alone sentence, looks incomplete. Are there other awards for which the book was nominated? Was there any notable reaction to its nomination for the Faulkner Award?
    From what I've found this book didn't receive any other nominations/awards. Further, I can't find any notable reaction to this nomination. The nomination is mentioned in the lead – I could cite it there and remove it from the Reception section. What do you think? —Bruce1eetalk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it ever translated into other languages? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it has – I've added this to the Background and publication section. —Bruce1eetalk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coemgenus, thanks for picking up this review and for the support. I've responded to the issues you raised above. Please let me know if you find any others. —Bruce1eetalk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks great. The Orosso sentence seems clear to me this morning, so I must have just been being especially dense yesterday. Nice work, good luck with the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. —Bruce1eetalk 11:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • "and as requested by Steiner—it was a paperback original" might read more smoothly as "and, as requested by Steiner, it was a paperback original".
    Yes, that is better – changed. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the play confronts the audience with an event that "logic, facticity and morality", and a "knowledge of Hitlerian atrocity" are of little help": I can't quite parse this, and I suspect a verb or clause has been lost in editing.
    Simplified the sentence – I hope that helps. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's still an issue. The last clause of that sentence is "an event that "logic, facticity and morality" are of little help"; but there's a verb missing -- of little help in doing what? I suspect it should be something like "of little help in resolving", or perhaps "confronts the audience with an event, in the resolution of which 'logic, facticity and morality' are of little help". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworded the sentence – how does that look? —Bruce1eetalk 12:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Responding to theatre critics that Hitler had the last word": I think this needs to be either "Responding to criticism that" or "Responding to theatre critics who objected to Hitler having the last word"; the latter seems preferable to me.
    Changed to the latter. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He described it as "wearisome" that is "suffocate[d]" by too much "fine writing" (belles-lettres)." I think you're missing a noun after "wearisome", or else make it '"wearisome", and suffocate[d]', with a comma to separate the clauses. And why the parenthetical link to belles-lettres?
    Fixed. I parenthesised "belles-lettres" to explain "fine writing". I could pipe "fine writing" to "belles-lettres", but that means linking inside a quotation. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- I don't think you need the explanation, to be honest, but it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "Themes" gives the source for each of the scholarly opinions quoted; is that necessary? It breaks up the flow; the other two paragraphs read much more naturally.
    I don't understand this point. The source of each quotation has to be cited. I don't see how this differs from the other two paragraphs in the section. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the name of the source work. Why not make it "Margaret Burton sees the language in the book as polarised between "a venue for truth" and "a source of destruction", with Lieber representing the former, and Hitler the latter. Bryan Cheyette argues, however, that Steiner is not contrasting Lieber and Hitler, but is "portraying them as part of the same dialect", and that they reflect a dichotomy in Steiner himself." Not that particular phrasing, perhaps, but why mention the source works in the text? It's a way of introducing these names, but I think in a "Themes" section the reader is going to assume these are scholars and can check the citations for more information. It's not a major point, but I think naming the works inline makes it a bit less readable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misunderstood you – I thought by "sources" you meant source citations. Anyway I've adjusted that 2nd paragraph. —Bruce1eetalk 12:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't very clear; sorry. I cut it a bit more; looks better now, though the sentence structures in that paragraph are all a bit too samey. I'll see if I can think of a way to rephrase some of it, but in the meantime I'm supporting below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, any further help would be appreciated. —Bruce1eetalk 06:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for picking up this review, and your edits. I've responded to the issues you raised above. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the outstanding issues. Please have a look when you get a chance. Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 12:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and your helpful edits and suggestions. I appreciate it. —Bruce1eetalk 06:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Imzadi1979 did a prose review on December 28th, here. FWIW, I've looked at the changes since then, and they look fine. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank, thanks for that. —Bruce1eetalk 18:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

he brushes aside his "defence attorney" and begins... - why the quote marks here?
I quoted "defence attorney", "prosecution attorney" and "presiding judge" because they aren't real attorneys or judges – see also the quoting of "defence attorney" on p.199 of LaCapra (2001). If you feel we don't need the quote marks, I'm happy to drop them. —Bruce1eetalk 13:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any more discussion on what Teku means by "proven"?
Teku's statement is ambiguous, he didn't understand Hitler's speech but was moved by it. I've expanded on this at the end of the Plot and Controversy sections for clarity. —Bruce1eetalk 13:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks sound overall though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas Liber, thanks for picking up this review and your edits. When you get a chance, please have a look at my replies above. Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 13:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas Liber, thanks for support – I appreciate it. —Bruce1eetalk 08:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Sources are reliable and correctly formatted. Footnote 36 has "pp. 65". Otherwise everything looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for the review, and for spotting the error – fixed. —Bruce1eetalk 11:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it, I think we still need an image review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarastro1, we are still in need of an image review – I've added it to WT:FAC. Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 22:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • Fair-use book cover for identification - OK.
  • Reviewed frame from YouTube video under CC license - OK (the channel is the institute's official channel, per their official website). GermanJoe (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! Thank you very much GermanJoe. —Bruce1eetalk 22:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2017 [42].

The Founding Ceremony of the Nation[edit]

Nominator(s): 如沐西风(RúMùXīFēng) (talk) , Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a very well known painting (in certain parts of the world) with a fascinating history. Few paintings have been buffeted so often or so dramatically by the winds of political change while in the final analysis, remaining more or less the same.Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly has a fascinating history, and am delighted to see this here, both from an art historical and social political point of view. I met this at PR, need to read through again before casting a vote. In terms of the former bent, I don't like kitsch or cheap sentimentality, which aesthetically is what this amounts to, but have a long interest in Mao's bleak approach to the arts, which this page details and services very well. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from RL0919[edit]

An interesting subject both artistically and historically. I made some edits (revert or modify as appropriate), and have just a few comments/questions:

  • Since Mao, etc., were leaders of the Communist Party of China, and the painting concerns an event of special meaning to the Party (not just any ideological communists), shouldn't 'communist' be 'Communist' in most/all cases in this article?
  • "Dong was commissioned to present a visual representation ..." The use of 'present' and 'representation' give this a repetitive air. Perhaps an alternative could be used for 'present', such as 'create' or 'paint'.
  • "Although Dong later complained that never in his career had he been allowed to create the painting that was uppermost in his mind ..." I'm not sure I understand what this means. Is this in reference to the changes to this painting suggested by other artists, as mentioned later in the article? Or did he desire to paint some other subject that was forbidden? Or some other meaning?
  • The fact that the new flag flies over the people is mentioned twice under "Subject and composition" (in the first and third paragraphs). It seems redundant; similar elements, such as the lanterns, are mentioned once.
  • The quote, "seeing it as a testament to the young nation's evolving identity and growing confidence", is given a refnote, but not attributed to anyone in the main text.
  • Alt text for images would be helpful.

Overall this is looking really good. --RL0919 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All done except the alt text. Due to past experience, I don't think I do alt text well and prefer to leave that for others.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. The alt text is desirable, but not a content guideline, so not a reason by itself to oppose. I may take a crack at adding it later. --RL0919 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, and thank you for your understanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Brianboulton)[edit]

I've been looking for a suitable vehicle for a limited return to FAC reviewing after months of enforced absence, and this looks just the ticket – short(ish), historically and artistically significant, and well-prepared. I am confining my comments to where I feel competent – questions of style, clarity and MoS observance etc. Nothing major, I'm sure.

  • Lead and Background
  • I am dubious about the hyphen in "most-reproduced"
  • There is a question of inconsistency of style when you refer to "the Chinese artist Dong Xiwen.." but later, in the Background section, to "arts official Wang Yeqiu" and later to "Deputy Minister of Culture Zhou Yang" before returning again to "the art critic and official Jiang Feng". With or without the is equally acceptable, but I think we should be consistent in what form we use.
  • Note: this issue has not been addressed – what have you decided to do? Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry, thought I had.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject and techniques
  • "...and in the distance is represented the nation of China...": It is not clear to me from this, how the nation of China is being represented in the painting.
The green belt you see, I imagine. The source is not specific, but what else could it be?
  • OK, but you could elaborate the text slightly: ""...and in the distance is represented the nation of China in the form of a green and fertile plain..." or some such wording. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can go as far as green, even though it's not stated explicitly in the source, it's what surrounds the city walls, which is what is being talked about.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise when I read: "Mao ... faces Qianmen, aligning himself along Beijing's North-South Axis, symbolizing his authority" I am not clear why this alignment is thought to symbolise Mao's authority.
That's a bit more difficult. We don't seem to have good coverage on that. I've added "old imperial" but beyond that I'd have to add a footnote as the explanation would slow down the prose.
  • Composition
  • "He used sawdust..." – pronoun requires defining. I'd probably combine these two short sentences into: "Dong used sawdust to enhance the texture of the carpet on which Mao stands,[11] and painted the marble railing..." etc
  • Reception and prominence
  • "about it" in first line is redundant
  • Later history
  • "given its popularity" → "given the painting's popularity"
  • What is the nature of a "rural cadre school"?
  • A redundant "as well" occurs towards the end of the fifth paragraph.

Those are my meagre offerings. I look forward to adding support later. Brianboulton (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've done or responded to all those things. I is a delight to see you back. FAC is not the same without you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy with the minor prose changes you've made at my request and see no reason for withholding support. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your review and support. Very grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:PRCFounding.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Founding_Ceremony_original.jpeg is missing a copyright tag
  • File:Tiananmen_beijing_Panorama.jpg: what is the PRC tag meant to apply to? The image is claimed as own work and China has freedom of panorama
  • There are four different images with FURs that state "To show the reader the subject of the article (one of two versions of the painting)" (my emphasis). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed or in one case deleted. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

I haven't spot-checked. All ext links are working, all formating seems to be consistent and correct, and the sources themselves appear to be of the required quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Will come, in steps. First just a question: does the painter have an article in Chinese? Then you could link per {{ill}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "as those it depicted fell from power" - at this early stage in the article better say what "those" are. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" It depicts Mao Zedong and other Communist leaders ... as those it depicted fell from power" I think it's pretty clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a sentence in between. It's clear, but I had to think ;)
I've played with it some.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • How about some year or range of years for the US and French similar efforts?
Done.

Subject ...

  • "techniques from Dunhuang murals of the Tang Dynasty, Ming Dynasty" - any chance to show samples of those?
A nice one added, that I think looks plausibly related to the painting.

Later history ...

  • "Dong had died in 1973" - could that come in chronology, not en passant after 1976?
I think it fits better where it is, it is the painting's story, not Dong's, and Dong's death should only be mentioned when it becomes a part of the painting's story.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General: Are there any additional sources? An article on the painter would be even more desirable than an ill. - Readable informative article, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone to some trouble to find sources on this. I assume that scholars of recent publication may be in a better position than me to assess the literature on this painting, and we have such, several. I assume that they have written of the significant points about the painting. We cover things in more detail than a lot of the art articles, even FAs, I've looked through that have been around a lot longer than this painting. There was one source, an undergraduate publication at Yale, that I did not use because I felt it did not satisfy WP:RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the painter, I may at some point, but really all I've seen is fairly brief biographical sketches. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, happy! - A stub on the painter would probably still be better than a link to Chinese, but is not related to this FAC yes or no ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2017 [43].

HMS Levant (1758)[edit]

Nominator(s): Euryalus (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An eighteenth century Royal Navy frigate with a solid record as a hunter of French, Spanish and American privateers. Launched in 1758 and in service during both the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War, defeating a total of 24 enemy vessels. This article passed GA and MILHIST A-class review last year, and received an FAC mentor review from Nick-D a few weeks ago. After extensive recent tweaking I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. However it's been 71⁄2 years since my last FAC, so I apologise in advance for any obvious errors. Comments, suggestions or criticisms welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks

Image review

  • captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Thanks, done.
  • File:USS_Revenge_(1777).jpg: I'm not seeing any evidence that Benson was a Navy employee? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed. Will restore if verified or replace if possible, but it's largely decorative so am also happy to leave it out.
      • Question: since John Prentiss Benson died in 1947, shouldn't the painting enter the public domain sometime this year? Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point. I think he died in November 1947; absent any other PD reason I'll add this image back in then.

Comments by Ykraps

Just started looking at the sources.Shouldn't the citation for first sentence in the construction section (Levant was an oak-built 28-gun sixth-rate, one of 18 vessels...) be pp.227-231? The oak reference appears on p.229 and the other pages are needed to confirm there were 18 ships.

  • Done. Also added a ref to the table in Gardiner 1992, which handily lists all 18 on the same page.

I can't see where Dull indicates, "Despite the Treaty, Spain delayed the issue of a formal declaration of war" (pp.102-103)

  • Yeah, Dull kind of talks around it by flagging the date of the treaty but not the date of the declaration. I've added a better reference (Hunt 1905), which reads in part: After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on April 12 ... She did not declare war until June 16 in order that the two fleets might have time to prepare for united action." For verification there's an online version of Hunt here - search function doesn't seem to work but the reference is near the top of page 196.
  • I was going to suggest this [[44]] but I think yours is better.--Ykraps (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an issue, just wondering why the table for captures during the Seven Years' War gives the day and the table for captures during the American Revolutionary War, doesn't.--Ykraps (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have started to add them in, for consistency if nothing else. Will finish this up shortly.

The sentence "Her erstwhile captain, George Murray, was assigned to command the 30-gun fifth rate frigate HMS Cleopatra; he was promoted to the rank of admiral in 1794, and died in 1796" has been referenced using the ODNB but the version I'm looking at [[45]] says he suffered two strokes in 1796 but didn't die until 17 October 1797 (at the home of his nephew). Can you check your source again?--Ykraps (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't access odnb from where I am at present, but I checked the University of Michigan ref used elsewhere in the article and it confirms the 1797 death date (also made admiral in 1795, not 1794), as you indicate. Have fixed the date and added UMich as a reference - sorry, I would have used your odnb reference link instead but I cannot open it.
    I didn't mention the promotion because ODNB says he was promoted to rear admiral in 1794 and vice admiral in 1795, so I thought, "promoted to admiral in 1794" was okay. If you want to use it, the citation is - Lester, Malcom (2008). "Murray, George (1741–1797)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. I think you need a subscription or a UK library card to access so that's probably why the link didn't work. Or use the sources you have. Whatever you think best.--Ykraps (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - I re-added the ODNB ref per the above, for the date of appointment as rear-admiral in 1794, and also kept UMich as a slightly more accessible source for date of death in 1797.

Source review - Sources appear reliable and of suitable quality. I have checked all those available to me for accuracy and copyright violation. Where I have been unable to access the source, I have tried to corroborate using my own (with varying degrees of success). With references I couldn't check I've AGF, having been satisfied with everything else I have seen. Some examples below:

Text in article: Captain Murray's orders were to join a Mediterranean squadron under the overall command of Captain Robert Mann, which was tasked with intercepting merchant vessels suspected of supplying American rebels. While at sea, Murray also took the opportunity to train his crew in seamanship and battle techniques, in preparation for future enemy engagement.

Text in source: ... the ship travelled as part of the Mediterranean fleet under the command of Rear Admiral Robert Mann...Early entries of the log book contain some description of pursuing and halting ships from England and America (one from Pennsylvania and one from Maryland). Other ships encountered by the Levant hailed from Amsterdam, Genoa, Martinique, Cádiz, Jamaica, and Antigua. The author also described exercising the ship's guns and practicing tactical fleet formations (forming a line of battle abreast, a line of battle ahead, and the bow and quarter).

Text in article: In March 1776 she anchored in the Bay of Algiers where the Dey received her warmly and provided the crew with supplies including bread, vegetables, and three live sheep.

Text in source: The crew of the Levant also encountered the Dey of Algiers who "sent onboard as a Present 3 live Bullocks of sheep with bread & Vegetables to the ship comp'y." (March 7, 1776)

Text in article: Her erstwhile captain, George Murray, was assigned to command the 30-gun fifth rate frigate HMS Cleopatra; he was promoted to the rank of admiral in 1795, and died in 1797.

Text in source: He later served as captain of the Levant from 1774-1779. In 1780, he was appointed to the frigate Cleopatra……He obtained a promotion to Vice Admiral in 1795……He died on October 17, 1797.

Text in article: On 12 April 1779 Spain signed the Treaty of Aranjuez with France, setting terms for a joint military alliance against Britain. Despite the Treaty Spain delayed the formal declaration of war until June, to give time for better co-ordination of its battle fleet.

Text in sources: .....by the 12 April 1779 Convention of Aranjuez, Spain and France became allies. (Dull) After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on April 12. The treaty, which did not include the Americans, provided that Spain should recognise their independence and that the two contracting powers should invade England ; and the reconquest of Gibraltar and Minorca, the acquisition of the coast of Florida, and the expulsion of the English from Honduras were mentioned among the objects which Spain desired to effect. She did not declare war until June 16, in order that the two fleets might have time to prepare for united action. (Hunt)

Text in article: Levant was returned to Portsmouth in early 1775, but put to sea again on 22 June amid the early stages of the American Revolutionary War.

Text in source: Ord: 6.5.1757. K: 6.1757. L: 6.7.1758. C: 17.7.1758-16.6.1759 at Portsmouth............In 1774 under Capt. George Murray; home in 1775, then returned to the Mediterranean 22.6.1775.......

Earwig's Copvio tool returns 36.7% violation unlikely [[46]] The inclusion of this quote increases the count considerably [[47]] --Ykraps (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ykraps: Thanks for the source review, apologies that so many sources are offline, though I find the British Newspaper Archive is well worth the subscription. I do quite like the Gower quote at the end, as the only first-hand perspective on the vessel's career. But if you think it too long please let me know and I will either shorten or remove. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In passing, have removed the quotebox from the final section.
  • Support - Nicely detailed and well written article. Just to say, I didn't have a problem with the quote, merely pointing out how it affected the results of the copyvio tool.--Ykraps (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Don't think that a detailed breakdown of the crew is appropriate for the infobox. Remember that it's supposed to be a summary of the basic stats/career of the ship.
    • Done.
  • 18 vessels forming part of the Coventry-class part? Class article says 19 completed, not 18, although the last ships was considerably later than the earlier ones.
    • Done.
  • En-dash is used between ranges of numbers, like page numbers, etc.
    • Done.
  • Link launched, tons burthen (and keel, gun deck and quarterdeck in the infobox)
    • Done except tons burthen which I'm seeing as already linked in the second par of the construction section?
  • she was relocated to Deptford How about returned?
    • Done.
  • Levant was returned to Portsmouth in early 1775 why "was"?
    • Removed.
  • France entered the War why is war capitalized?
    • Fixed.
  • four assistant carpenters an assistant sailmaker comma after carpenters
    • Done.
  • Royal Navy vessels of equivalent size and design to Levant were also capable of carrying up to 20 tons of powder and shot, compared with a standard French capacity of around 10 tons. Royal Navy vessels Don't use "Royal Navy" in close conjunction.
    • Reworded.
  • Be consistent with spacing between p. and page numbers
    • Done.
      • Sadly, the cite newspaper template generates a space between p. and the page numbers. So I think that you're going to have to go back in and add a space for all your other cites to maintain consistency.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, done.
  • Be consistent about using title case for all books and articles in the citations
    • A quick question re this: I've used title case for all the books, and for the names of the newspaper articles, but I've left the capitalization in the individual newspaper stories as they are in the original (for example Ref 48: "Extract of a letter from Gibraltar .." is the way it is capitalized in the actual newspaper) Should I change these article titles to titlecase as well for consistency?
      • Yes. Newspapers are notoriously inconsistent about capitalization in the article titles. Best to impose consistency on them one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problems, done (I think).
          • I only caught one word that needed to be capitalized and I went ahead and did for you.--Sturmvogel 66
            • Thanks.

(talk) 13:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll start reviewing soon. First thought, could we show an image of a similar ship (Coventry-class frigate?), to give the reader an idea of how this one looked? FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's one of HMS Carysfort, which I've added as a test. I suspect I have cropped it too much from the original, visible at Coventry-class frigate. Views welcome on whether that image in its entirety would be a better fit here.
Either way, I think it's a good move. I'll return with other comments. FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Admiralty Order" What is this?
    • It's the term for a formal Admiralty directive that a thing be done; for example a class of ships be established, a fleet set sail, a commanding officer adopt a certain battle plan. The first Admiralty Order was issued in 1649 (establishing the existence of the Admiralty), and there've been many thousands of them since then. Because most of them have been preserved they've become a standard reference source for the doings of the RN, and were an early foundation for proceedings in RN court martials and UK-related maritime commercial disputes. Which is all very well, but I appreciate this may be needlessly complex terminology, so have rephrased as "Orders from Admiralty" to use the words as they're more commonly applied.
  • Anything on why it was named Levant?
    • I might have something on ship names ... will have a look and come back.
      • Added a few sentences on names, in the "Construction" section.
  • Some words are not linked at first occurrence outside the into, such as Seven Years War, Royal Navy, American Revolutionary War, and privateers.
    • Thanks, wasn't aware of this requirement. Done.
  • Since you link other places perhaps also link Bay of Algiers, Bordeaux, Newfoundland, Philadelphia, Antigua, etc.?
    • Done, also Cádiz and South Carolina.
  • "where the Dey received her" Perhaps make it clear this was the ruler?
    • Done.
  • "Duchess of Grumont" Why would a French ship have an English name, is it a translation? If so, I'm thinking the original name would be more appropriate.
    • Good point, but am reluctant to change this as it is named this way in the source, which specifically translates this name and not adjoining ones: "The Victorieux, [Captain] Valentine, from Isle de Re to Marseilles, and the Duchess of Grumont, [Captain] Paregi, from Toulon, are taken and sent into Gibraltar by the Levant man of war." (Saunders's News Letter, 1/10/1778). On this basis I'd prefer to leave it as is, but happy to discuss further if you if you strongly support a translation.
  • I'm a bit puzzled why much the same text is both quoted in the last section as well as in an adjacent quote-box, but if no one else has brought it up, I guess it's ok.
    • Parsecboy also raised this. Have removed the quotebox and slightly expanded the quote in text.
  • "but played no notable role in the landings or subsequent defeat of French forces at Fort Royal." Not stated explicitly outside the intro, which should not have unique info.
    • Done.
  • Support - looks good to me now, and very nice that there is now some text about the naming of the ship. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

Not much from me, just a few nitpicks:

  • I see a number of duplicate links - there's a handy script here you can use to find them easily.
    • Thanks, that's a very handy tool! Done.
  • I believe ranks ought to be omitted after an individual is introduced
  • "...28-gun Coventry-class frigate sixth-rate frigate..." - two issues here: first, frigate is repeated, and it's also a bit of a sea of blue. I might rephrase it to "a 28-gun sixth-rate frigate of the Coventry class..." to break up the links a bit.
    • Done.
  • I assume no work was done between 1763 and 1766?
    • That's right. The April 1763 holes in the hull were sufficiently repaired that she was able to get to Portsmouth without sinking, but there she was essentially abandoned under the dubious watch of a skeleton crew. The fact of a survey in late 1763 suggests some reason to be concerned about her condition, but a) alas the actual content of the survey is not available, and b) there is no record of any money being spent on her at all in these years. She was probably in a sorry state when Captain Keith took her back to the Caribbean in 1766, and I'm mildly surprised she lasted three years there without falling apart. The oak-built frigates like Levant lasted better than the fir-built ones, but this peacetime period would still have been the low point for her condition. This seems supported by the magnitude of the 1770 repairs, which cost more than her original construction thirteen years earlier.
      • I haven't checked Winfield because I'm not near my books at the moment but the Gazette appears to be saying she captured four vessels in February 1765 [[48]].--Ykraps (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm. Suspect this is a reference to vessels captured before 1763, but only paid out as prizes in 1764. But even then I cannot find any other reference in Winfield, Clowes or the Newspaper Archive to any of these vessels? I can find one reference to Superbe as being captured by Echo (Laforey's ship before Levant), plus a Leeds Intelligencer article of Dec 12 1764 which lists the crews of Levant and Echo together in announcing prize monies. lists the crews of Levant and Echo together for receipt of prize money. Makes me wonder if Laforey brought his crew with him at time of the transfer, hence a payout to Levant's 1764 crew for prizes taken when they were all still in Echo.But that's supposition.
On dates, if these were captured byLevant (ie if this article is accurate) then they weren't in 1765 (gazette is Dec 1764?) and I reckon they were pre-1763 given Winfield puts Levant out of service at that time. Not unusual for prizes to be paid out well after time, as you know. Especially if they were captured in the Caribbean and not home waters. Will have a hunt about for anything that supports the Gazette mention; if I can't find anything will note this single and annoyingly contradictory source in the text. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, my mistake, the Gazette clearly says "That they will be paid their respective shares thereof, at the King's Arms on Tower-Hill, as follows.." so yes, captured before and the date refers to when the prize money was to be given out.--Ykraps (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these, have added them to the article. As a piece of original research I'd be tempted to say the only credible period for their capture is between April 1760 and the end of 1761 - the Caledonian Mercury (ref 18) lists all captures by any vessel as at April 1760 and doesn't mention these; and by January 1762 Levant had been attached to the fleet for Martinique and would not have been out hunting privateers. But as this is speculation, I've simply noted as being post-April 1760 (given Mercury source).
If you're interested, I discovered other captures while cross-referencing sources in the Gazette: The recapture of Nine Colliers (5 August 1779), a French xebec (Eclair ) taken 31 March 1779 and another French ship (Theses) on 14 March 1779. The last two were taken while in the company of Enterprize.[[49]] And what appears to be the capture of Conquerant by Emerald on 19 November 1760 while in the company of Levant.[[50]] Just a suggestion but you could include in a footnote, "The London Gazette reports.....but these captures are not recorded in Winfield, etc.....". But I leave it to you entirely.--Ykraps (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC) (sorry for hijacking your comments section, Parsecboy)[reply]
Thanks also for these. Have added Nine Colliers and Thessee. The xebec Éclair was already there, as the unnamed vessel captured on 1 April, so have just added the name (plus reference).
  • Why is the quotation from Gower repeated in the prose and the box? Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quote seemed a bit long to include in its entirety in the text, but happy to do so to avoid the duplication.
      • 'Further: to avoid the duplication, have removed the quotebox and slightly expanded the quote in text.

Closing comment: This has had substantial commentary now and at the A-Class review. I get the impression that Parsecboy is finished, but if there are any further points, they can be raised on the talk page, as there is no real need to keep this open any longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2017 [51].

Cape sparrow[edit]

Nominator(s): —innotata 16:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is a comprehensive resource on the species that meets all the featured article criteria. —innotata 16:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's support[edit]

A few now, more to come when I get back from work.

  • For a sparrow, the Cape sparrow is brightly coloured and distinctive, I would suggest it is striking rather than colourfull
  • In behaviour; Away from humans it is nomadic, and forms flocks of up to 200 birds. Away from settled areas perhaps?

I'll have a more comprehensive read through later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done —innotata
  • Do you want to include the weight range? 17-38g according to HBW.
  • Maybe calls instead of vocalisations?
  • Loxia or Fringilla, - might it be helpful for casual readers if we had common names, crossbills and finches, after the genus names?
    • When the Cape sparrow was classified in Loxia, that genus name didn't exclusively refer to crossbills, so I think that would be more confusing. —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • as a member of the genus Passer. and also to make it clear that by being in this genus it's in the old world sparrow family? It's family is mentioned in the lead but should be mentioned here too
  • and the Sudan golden sparrow have been reported how on Earth did they meet?
    • Sudan golden sparrows are fairly popular pets. —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • including holes as well as open locations. seems redundant, just put a semicolon and jump to trees.
  • Cape sparrows are among the main hosts of brood parasitism by the dideric cuckoo,[15] and have been recorded parasitising others of the same species.[28] I think the cuckoo needs to be qualified that it's the main within the sparrow's range (it probably isn't the main host in Kenya) and the second part could make it clearer that it's referring to intraspecific parasitism.
  • Not an actionable comment, but why on Earth is it on a CAR stamp?
    • Presumably it's one of those countries that puts random stuff on their stamps to sell to collectors. Done all the rest so far. —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this is all good. Fix the above (or explain why you won't) and we're done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Since I GA reviewed this, I may return later if the FAC stalls, to give a new opinion. Until then, I can say the images look fine, all are user-made or from Flickr, with appropriate licences. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one suggestion, the image under Relationships with humans seems rather bland, and it even seems to be slightly out of focus. Why not use a more interesting image, such as one of these?[52][53][54]
    • Done, moved it up though. —innotata 21:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I thought this looked like FA quality when I GA reviewed it, so I have little more to add. But there was one issue where you said details were in a paper you couldn't access, perhaps it would be worth getting those papers now? To answer why it "has a low reproductive success in more built-up areas". FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure it didn't drown in other comments, did you see the point above, Innotata? FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main paper in question is from the proceedings of the 19th IOC in 1988; if I remember right, my school's library doesn't have the complete proceedings. Now, I'd say it's not absolutely needed, though, since Summers-Smith covers its findings well: it found later breeding times, smaller clutch sizes, and consequently lower overall reproductive success in more urban/built-up areas, and attributes this to "suboptimum habitat" insufficiently similar to its wild, grassland habitat. It doesn't seem that this or any other sources have gotten any deeper into the weeds about why this difference was seen. —innotata 00:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley[edit]

I will start with some quick comments, like I usually do:

  • In the lead, the term "granivorous" should be explained.
    • changed to eats seeds —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a nomadic flock? Please explain the term, again in the lead.
  • Probably should add a comma after "breeding" in the sentence "A typical clutch contains three or four eggs, and both parents are involved in breeding from nest building to feeding young."
  • It might be good to add a comma after "plumage" in the sentence "A medium-sized sparrow at 14–16 centimetres (5.5–6.3 in), it has distinctive plumage including large pale head stripes."
  • In the last sentence, it would be good to add how it is categorized as least concern, instead of just "not threatened". Also, it would be good to split the sentence into two parts, one about its IUCN status, and one about how the population isn't decreasing significantly.
    • Removed IUCN status from the lead —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you re-add the IUCN status? It is pretty standard (as in really standard) to have the IUCN status in the lead, at least for bird FAs. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care either way for LC species; added it. —innotata 18:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:ACRO, IUCN should be expanded at its first occurrence.

That's all for now, good luck! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Why is the taxonomy after the description? It is generally standard to have the taxonomy before the description. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either works, since those sections define what the species is; I think it makes more sense to put the description first, since that's a more fundamental definition, and the taxonomy if informed by physical attributes. Bird and other animal articles are pretty mixed on which goes first, and all the other sparrow articles have description first. —innotata 18:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Innotata: Sorry about this, but I will stop the review. If you want an explanation, I made the essay User:RileyBugz/On retirement. The gist of it is if I have too many commitments in an online community, the likelihood of me retiring increases. This, unfortunately, seems to be one to many FAC reviews. Sorry, again. Hopefully you are ok with this. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I remember this, a smart bird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • male Cape sparrow has some bold black— repeat of species name seems unnecessary
  • cheerup, chip cheerup.[7][4]—refs in wrong order
  • transcribed—overworked in the calls paragraph
  • Miocene —time range would be helpful here
  • but these habits are not important sources of food—"habits" seems redundant
  • and the Sudan golden sparrow have been reported—clarify that these are escapes
  • Any known predators, parasites or diseases? There is at least this as a parasite, and you may be able to find something for a local raptor, although that's often tricky to RS, even when it's "obvious".
    • I've done some pretty thorough searches for cites on predators, and didn't find anything specific enough. I'll add something from the source you linked. —innotata 02:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine,changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: I'm fine with your tweaks, you're on the right track. For instance, I changed "when X when Y" (not grammatical) to "when X and Y" ... I wasn't wild about the result, but I'm not trying to get my favorite wording, I'm only trying to make minimal changes to fix things that are problematic or don't have consensus. So, tweak away. - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured; thanks for looking through and noticing these problem phrasings! —innotata 02:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source review I checked book ref 3 and web pages 9,18,27 and 28. In each case the the stated fact was an accurate reflection of the clearly RS source. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Jim, can you also comment on ref reliability and formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (subbing for Jim). All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited except as follows:

  • While most book titles seem to be in title case, not all are. Compare Clement with McCarthy, for example.
  • converted all the books to title case —innotata 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 27, should "Thyme" be capitalized?
  • I note, several times in titles of articles, the capped words "Cape Sparrow". Is this proper? Shouldn't we go by the MOS and lower-case "sparrow"? I'm not sure if this should be done, because my experience with bird articles is limited.
  • Why is ref 28, a journal article, in title case when other journal articles are not?
  • Might it be simpler to convert all journal cites to title case? in all these cases, the citations retain the original formatting… —innotata 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an OCLC number available for Stark? And for the Smithsonian report?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just a few comments.

  • "while not breeding they gather in large nomadic flocks to move around in search of food. " I might say "when not breeding"
  • "most genetically close" genetically closest?
  • "though they may exclude it from nesting in holes." this is a bit unclear to me as a lay person.
  • Where these species coexist, they nest in cavities that the Cape sparrow might use in places without these similar competitors. Such language is used when one isn't sure by which means this exclusion takes place; I'm not quite sure how to clarify this. —innotata 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cape sparrows and a southern masked weaver feeding at a bird feeder in Johannesburg during the winter" maybe cut the word "feeding". I think it is implied and not worth the repetition.
  • " and fly out to nearby countryside" I would expect a "the" before "nearby".

I enjoyed the numismatic bit! Very nice article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2017 [55].

Amargasaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A spectacular dinosaur from Argentina. We feel the article is ready to be nominated now, and are looking forward for comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2

Wow, a dinosaur from my country. Good work with it. I'll give you a quick support but I recommend removing the red link. From my experience, they are not approved by guidelines. Also, if you have the time, could take a look at my own FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/D.Gray-man/archive1, and provide some comments? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I started reading your article, but I have absolutely no idea about the subject, so I have to see if I will have any comments to share. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from RL0919[edit]

Giving this one a non-expert reading.

General:

  • You should provide alt text for the images.
done
  • In the references, some titles use sentence case, while others use title case. This should be consistent.
done
  • I recognize that some scientific terminology is needed to accurately describe the anatomy, especially the names of specific bones. And actually a lot of those terms appear to have lay descriptions provided when they are first used. But there seem to be some cases where untranslated professional terminology is used when there are reasonable substitutes that laypeople are more likely to understand. For example, instead of 'anteriormost' can can we not just say 'front' or 'forward'?
done

Description:

  • Since the function of the spines is not clear, the "Life restoration" image is one particular possibility for how they may have appeared, right? The caption should probably note that.
done

Discovery:

  • For those of us less familiar with Argentine geography, perhaps the sentence explaining the location of discovery could start with something general, like "The discovery site is located in southwestern Argentina, in the La Amarga Arroyo..." I know we can click on the links, but a few extra words makes it a less confusing read.
done
  • As mentioned above, I'm glad to see that most of the anatomical terms have links and/or non-technical descriptions. The term 'sacrum' could stand to have these added.
done

I'm about halfway through and need to step away, so I'm posting the comments I have so far. Will return for the back half. --RL0919 (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments! Yes, non-expert readings is what we need, making it understandable for lay people is always the difficult part. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Finally coming around for that follow-up read. The prose seems more readable, with explanations provided where needed. I made a few copyedits (and as usual please revert if needed). One final thing I think you should look at it is how multi-author papers are mentioned in the body text. One paper with three authors is called "Tschopp et al.", while another with three authors is "Daniela Schwarz and colleagues". I don't have a preference on this, but it should be consistent. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for your all your comments and copyedits. I removed the "at al.", as I think that "and colleagues" is easier to understand. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose; thanks for your follow-ups. --RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Great to finally see this here! I'll add comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!!
  • I see some words are not linked the first time they are mentioned outside the intro (dicraeosaurid, Dicraeosaurus, Brachytrachelopan, etc.)
done
  • On the other hand, there are some words that are linked more than once in the article body, such as transverse processes, tetrapod, etc.
done
  • "the neck corresponds for 136%" Corresponds to?
done
  • Seems like mix past and present tense in the description ("Greatly elongated spines continue along the last two"), perhaps better to make it consistent throughout?
done
  • "In front of the eye socket, the antorbital fenestra would have been located" This seems a bit non-English, I'd switch the parts around, and remove the comma...
done
  • "(MACN-N 15)" I'd add "specimen" in front of the number.
done
  • "from the Dicraeosauridae" Maybe add "a member of the"?
done
  • has been published in 1991" "Was" instead of "has been" would sound like more correct English.
done
  • "and the recently described Brachytrachelopan", " A recent analysis by Tschopp" I think it is discouraged to write "recent", because this article will probably exist for many years to come, and it will mean little...
done
  • You give authorities in-text for some of the hypotheses in the Paleobiology section, but not for others, perhaps give for all? For example "Apart from the possible function in defense, the spines may had been used for display, either for the intimidation of rivaling conspecifics or for courtship".
done This is a hypothesis proposed by various authors, I added a second citation to make this clear.
  • "Other than those of pelycosaurs" Perhaps say "unlike those of".
done
  • The palobiology section also has a mix of past and present tense.
done
  • "Bailey suggests the spines to represent a scaffold" I'd say "suggested the spines represented a".
done
  • "rather than flatted" Flattened?
done
  • "the formation is famous for the cladotherian mammal" Famous seems a little strong here? "Notable" instead?
done
  • "Crocodylomorphs are present with the" Represented by?
done
  • "Within the Sauropoda, Amargasaurus is closely related to" Most closely related to? Closely seems a bit too definite?
done
  • "they could have supported skin sails or stuck out of the body as solitary structures supporting a keratinous sheath" Maybe reverse the mention of the two hypotheses, so the least supported one is last?
done
  • "dorsal vertebra to the foremost tail vertebrae still were strongly elongated" I think this means the elongation continued to this part, but the "still" makes it a little hard to understand?
done
  • That's about it from me. Good to see you back at FAC!
Thanks a lot for the comprehensive review FunkMonk, it has helped a lot! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this looks great to me now. You discuss feeding heights, but perhaps state somewhere that sauropods were herbivorous? Not sure if it's necessary or even stated in the sources, as this is pretty much taken for granted. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I thought I'd have a quick look at the sources - there are a few things that should probably be fixed;

  • novas2009 and wilson2005 - should reference the page numbers using {{rp}} or something similar.
I used rp templates for other articles, but reviewers had reservations, stating that rp templates are "non-standard, and disrupt reading flow". So I stopped using them. There does not seem to be a very good alternative to give page numbers.
  • salgado1992 - has no issue number.
done
  • bonaparte1990 - no page reference
done
  • tschopp2015 - is this not the same reference as TMB2015?
done
  • taylor2005, sereno2007 - blank URL parameter.
done
  • mazzetta1999 - uses both last/first and author parameters.
done

Overall, there is a lack of consistency in the order of parameters used (e.g. ::<ref name="mazzetta1999">{{cite journal|first=|last=|author2=|year=|title=|journal=|volume=|pages=|language=es |issue=}}</ref> vs <ref name="leanza2004">{{Cite journal|doi=|issn=|volume=|issue=|pages=|last1=|first1=|last2=|first2=|last3=|first3=|last4=|first4=|title=|date=|url=}}</ref>) - it would be preferable to use the template parameters in the same order for each template, using, for example, the order given at Template:Cite journal.

This would be quite a nasty thing to do manually. If consistency is desirable here, this could be better implemented in Citation bot or something. I'm not sure if this is issue is urgent for now.
I've standardized all the references Jens Lallensack Yunshui. The only differences now are between the cite book and cite journal formats. IJReid discuss 15:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These minor nitpicks shouldn't detract from the fact that the article as a whole is smashing; a really interesting, well-written article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Yunshui 雲水 13:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While the article generally appears well-developed, without specific page numbers for references WP:V isn't met. It simply isn't practical for readers to follow up on the sources here. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Not providing specific page numbers for journal articles is standard for dinosaur and many other science articles. I am afraid that without a standardized technical implementation of specific page numbers (in addition to the obligatory page range for the whole paper), with which everybody is happy, including my fellow editors in the dinosaur project, I can't do anything here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this needs wider discussion then, I've been told in several other FACs that page numbers were not necessary for journal articles, unless they were really long. An example of how this was done before can be seen in for example Heterodontosaurus and Rodrigues starling. I think recent precedents have to be taken into account. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For journals I reckon the relevant page range is fine; in most cases a journal article is only around ten pages or so - readers could be expected to look through the entire article (or just use Ctrl+F with online versions). For books, the lack of page references is a deal-breaker for me, I'm afraid; Wilson has around 350 page and Novas nearly 500, and that's too large a range to source individual facts in an article. From WP:V: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)" - "somewhere in these 350 pages" is not sufficiently precise. If you aren't a fan of {{rp}}, then {{sfn}} might be a usable alternative. Yunshui 雲水 09:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly possible technically to provide exact page numbers for journal articles using the template - provide the full biographical reference in a 'works consulted' or similar section, and then use {{sfn}} or similar for individual references. Alternately, it can be easily done manually. This is standard (indeed, expected) in humanities FAs. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the books we need precise page numbers, I absolutely agree, I just forgot – they are added now. The problem remains with long journal articles. I personally would prefer {{rp}} since it is easy. Regarding FunkMonk's suggestion: The problem I see is that, as a reader, you will not get the full citation but only something like "Hume, J. P. (2014). pp. 55–58.", and than have to search for the full citation in the references list by yourself. And regarding {{sfn}}: Well, this is quite complex (two separate reference lists, its much more difficult for other editors to make changes to the article), it perhaps makes little sense if you only have very few citations where you need more precise page ranges. I don't know, I haven't seen a very good solution yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such a split between two sections is actually easily manageable, and quite common. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, from a quick sample of some recent science-focused FAs it looks like the practice used in this article is fairly common, so I don't think that my position here is sustainable. This strikes me as a very poor practice given Wikipedia's readership (especially the many students who use it as a starting point for their own research), but I'm being unfair by opposing this individual article. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that this is a problem, but I think we first need to discuss this in the dinosaur project, to find a solution which is fine for everybody, so that we have a common approach at least within the project. I will keep an eye on the issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would need an even wider discussion than that, as it won't only affect dinosaur articles, but everything sent to FAC that uses journal sources... FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the source issues I raised have been fixed, and that the article as a whole is a great read, I am happy to Support this nomination. Yunshui 雲水 10:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Lingzhi[edit]

Oppose per 1c.

  • Page ranges. I don't agree they're OK to skip for journals, unless those journals are perhaps 2 or 3 pages long. Ditto book chapters. I think it was Johnbod who mentioned on WT:FAC that the referencing goals/needs of professional reviewers/publications are different than those of Wikipedia... I listed pages once, and can do so again, but right off the bat I see Upchurch, Barrett, & Dodson (2004) at about 63 or so. Wikipedia's readers are not in the field, and its referencing needs are not the same as readers/authors in the field... I do not think it is unfair to single out one article (see Nick-D, above), because 1) Fixing this is maybe maybe a 2-hour job at most. [NOTE: I gave you a good start here, with all categories and {{good article}} removed because in userspace.]. This is not an undue burden [unless you don't have the sources, at which point it becomes very difficult... do you have all the sources?]. 2) The process needs to start "somewhere".  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added specific page numbers using the rp-template for the longest articles (50+ pages). Would that be a compromise for the time being for this nomination? Let's discuss your suggestion on the FAC discussion page (where you already elaborated on it), I will give an answer there soon.
I replied at length on WT:FAC. Short version, yes of course it would be a compromise, because it does provide page numbers. But I would want to see it applied much more fully. Sources with (arbitrarily choosing a small number) 3 or fewer pages could go without page numbers, as a compromise, but more than (arbitrarily) 3 would need your {{rp}}s. And man, that template output is ugly and confusing. But... it does provide the information in some manner or other. So the answer is "yes, but more often, please."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "weapon both against predators and conspecifics". What does that mean? I went to conspecific and that didn't really clarify the meaning in context, so a wikilink may not be sufficient. Can you please go through and find other obscure or specialized terms like this and amend? You can do it far more readily than I can.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I fixed it. That's why we need reviews: I'm not a native speaker, and sometimes just don't know which terms are daily language and which are more critical for a non-expert audience. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Basal" could use a footnote. But you don't have a footnote section. I think a wikilink would be insufficiently explanatory. Judgment call.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the nice copyedits! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I have missed it in the discussion above, I think we still need an image review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: With five supports, I think we have a consensus to promote. There is one oppose, and some reservations from Nick-D regarding the use of page ranges in citations. There was an inconclusive discussion regarding this issue at WT:FAC, but I'm not sure it is helpful or fair to use this FAC as a "test case". But, neither have I a wish to set a precedent: I would consider an oppose on the grounds of page ranges to be actionable at FAC in future, but there would need to be a clear consensus among reviewers that not having the requested page range did not meet WP:V and therefore criterion 1c. I do not think we have that here or at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2017&oldid=777975972"