Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2018

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2018 [1].

Rhine Campaign of 1796[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Rhine Campaign of 1796, an important campaign year for the French revolutionary wars against the European coalitions. Four armies worked their way back and forth across southern and central German states in the course of a few months. At the end, the armies ended up where they had begun, but French successes in Northern Italy (where the French army was led by Napoleon), forced the Austrians into an armistice and then a peace treaty. ... auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I was a part of the MILHIST A-class review, and I can find no further improvements to be made. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.
I wasn't sure what to replace frin with in " Jean Hardy's division frin the west side of Mainz retreated to the Nahe river," could it be from? ϢereSpielChequers 23:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is "from" I'm trying to find it.... thanks for your edits, they are fine! auntieruth (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another excellent article by Auntieruth. –Vami_IV✠ 11:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit: Using harv/sfnref to link a citation directly to its source for convenience would be a suggestion from me, but I still support this bid for FA. –Vami_IV✠ 11:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tintor2[edit]

Comments by Tintor2

  • The lead feels a bit unbalanced. I would advise trimming some of the last paragraphs and increasing the top one.
I've trimmed the last paragraph.
  • The caption of Rhine River feels too big. Since it's a free image, I would avise you to remove to trim to as everybody can click on the image.
the caption was expanded based on previous reviews, then trimmed some. I don't understand how clicking on it would provide the material included in the caption....

Other than that, I see no further issues. Ping me or mention me when you think you are done so I'll support it. Also if possible, a fellow user and I are doing this FAC and would appreciate feedback. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your comments! Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Tintor2:. Would you take a look and see if this is clearer? auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: will you take a look to see if I've addressed your concerns? auntieruth (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

Support Sourcing review by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Why are some books given as full title cites in the citations and not listed in the Resources section? Strange name that, but no matter.
  • fixed. changed name to sources
  • Better, but not quite what I meant. Why do you have full information for some books like Cuccia in 83, but often use name, page # for other refs? Please standardize on name, page # for all cites. For the web sources, just use name, title, not website name or retrieval date, since those last two are provided in the full reference in the sources section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean: all citations first mentioned have name, text, pub date pages, or, for web, basic info on website, author, article, date retrieved. Subsequent mentions of the same source are shortened. The complete bibliographic info is listed in the Sources section, including OCLC, ISBN, or whatever # is listed on worldcat. auntieruth (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but no bibliographic info is provided in the citations for Smith or Lefebvre on first mention.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oops missed those. Got them now. I thought Ihad fixed Lefbvre before. I also combined another cite although I don't like doing it when they are so far apart. Seems to interrupt stuff. auntieruth (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some cites need periods after p or pp. Notably 38 and 49
  • combined
  • Some cites need to be combined. #39, 49 and 52; 72 and 74
  • combined
  • Cite 36 needs a space between p. and the page number
  • fixed
  • Retrieved date format is not consistent
  • fixed
  • Rothenburg, Volk, and Whaley lack publisher locations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Volk is in a journal. There is implied publishing location in Freiburg, but it's not listed in the OCLC citation
  • Rothenburg: Indiana University Press.....? Ummm, Indiana? I've added them...
  • I expect that it's Bloomington, Indiana, but best to check for yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whaley:Oxford University Press, ummmm Oxford? I've added them.
  • Missed this on the first 2 readings, journal articles need the ISSN of the journal. At least if they're less than 50 years old or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't make any difference. Just give the first one a name, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturm, can I double-check: are you signing off on reliability of sources as well as formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just formatting for the nonce. Gimme a day or so and I'll do some spot checks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Cuccia, Napoleon in Italy: The Sieges of Mantua, 1796–1799, pp. 87–93 Does not contain anything relevant to the information cited in #81. Smith, which I could not get access to, may have all the relevant information.
  • In #84, p. 279 of Philippart only references 40 battalions in the defending force, does not give manpower total.
  • In #31 Graham doesn't mention anything relevant to Ferino's attack, but covers Moreau's attack, dealt with in the preceding paragraph.
  • The most heavily referenced books lacked previews in Google Books, but the others that I checked were fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Jackdude101[edit]

  1. It is—
    1. well-written: The prose is satisfactory overall, but some things that need correcting. Political terrain section: The predominantly German-speaking states on the east bank of the Rhine were part of the vast complex of territories in central Europe called the Holy Roman Empire, of which the Archduchy of Austria was a principal polity and its archduke typically the Holy Roman Emperor: the French government considered the Holy Roman Empire as its principal continental enemy.[4] This sentence should be split up and that colon should be removed. Geography section: The Rhine River formed the boundary between the German states of the Holy Roman Empire and its neighbors, and was especially effective in separating the German states and France; any attack by either party required control of the crossings. This sentence should be split up, also. War plans section: Before the campaign in the Rhineland even started, though, Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser went to Italy with 25,000 reinforcements after news arrived of Bonaparte's early successes. This should be changed to "Before the campaign in the Rhineland started, Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser went to Italy with 25,000 reinforcements after news arrived of Bonaparte's early successes".
    2. comprehensive: The article appears to address everything notable about the topic.
    3. well-researched: The article appears to be well-researched with 95 separate references cited.
    4. neutral: Neutrality is satisfactory.
    5. stable: No edit wars, and the majority of edits over the past six months have been from the nominator.
  2. Style guidelines
    1. a lead: Lead has no problems.
    2. appropriate structure: Structure is appropriate.
    3. consistent citations: Citations are good overall and are present in every section.
  3. Media: The number of pictures in the article is just right and they are spread throughout the article appropriately. The caption in the image of Jean Moreau seems to contradict what's in the lead, though. It claims he had overall command of all French forces, but in the lead it says that his army and the army commanded by Jean Jourdan operated independently. This should be addressed.
  4. Length: Length is satisfactory.

This article is in pretty good shape overall. Fix the issues above and I'll support it. Jackdude101 talk cont 16:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Auntieruth55: You made most of the corrections, but you missed the sentence listed above that mentions Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser. That one still needs fixing. Jackdude101 talk cont 17:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: We have three supports here but I'm not convinced that we have had the depth of review needed against the FAC criteria. I'd like a few more eyes on it first; there's not necessarily anything wrong with it but I'd just like more review. I wonder if Ian Rose or HJ Mitchell could have a look? Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

Some comments from me, having reviewed some of the related articles:

  • Bonaparte is mentioned in the second para of the lead, then also seemingly re-introduced at the end of the fourth para of the lead. This seems contradictory. He either was approaching Vienna from Italy before the fighting in Germany, or he did so during or after. My understanding is that this occurred at the same time, so introducing him as a new French army commander in the fourth para seems weird. Some explanation needed?
  • there is an unnecessary space between fn 5 and Note 1
  • Where is says "In the 1790s, the river was wild and unpredictable and armies crossed at their peril." is this in reference to the whole river, or just the Upper Rhine? If the latter, perhaps specify?
  • all, but particularly important was between Basel and Bingen.auntieruth (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the War plans section, should there be a see also template for the Rhine campaign of 1795?
  • who was Lazare Carnot?
  • when Archduke Charles is introduced, he isn't linked, although the archduchy is mentioned earlier. Perhaps mention Charles was the archduke and link earlier?
  • he was Archduke of Teschen and Brother of the Holy Roman Emperor
  • When the Army of the Lower Rhine is introduced, perhaps explain what the Lower Rhine was (or explain it further up).
  • link von Wurmser at first mention
  • Bonaparte is also introduced without linking or context
  • sometimes Imperial and other times imperial. Suggest consistency per MOS:CAPS
  • In many ways, the geopolitical/military antebellum situation is introduced too late. Particularly WRT the Habsburg and Imperial arrangements
  • but the "thin white line"[15] but?
  • move Note 3 next to fn 15
  • Wurmser taking 25K reinforcements to Italy is mentioned twice, perhaps restrict it to the chronological point it happened?
  • more to come... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • thank you@Peacemaker67:. I think I've got everything you mentioned so far. The problem with Upper Rhine, Lower Rhine, etc., had been taken out during a previous review, but I think I've modified it enough to clarify. auntieruth (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • suggest moving the sentence beginning "Charles was 25 years old..." up to immediately after the sentence that introduces Charles. consolidated
  • there is some repetition between the War plans section and the Habsburg and Imperial organisation section, around Wurmser's transfer of the 25K trops, the instructions of the Aulic Council, and the strategy chosen. This needs to be consolidated.
  • how do the figures of 125,000 and 90,000 troops inter-relate? consolidated
  • link Upper Swabia done
  • link Rastatt at first mention done
  • link Freiburg im Breisgau at first mention done
  • at the beginning of French organization, drop Lazare from Carnot per MOS:SURNAME
  • link Mainz at first mention done
  • the following are duplicate linked: Württemberg, Rhine campaign of 1795, Kehl, French Directory, Aulic Council, North Sea, Hüningen, Nahe river, Duchy of Baden, Switzerland, Neuf-Brisach done
  • principle responsibility → principal responsibility done
  • after being introduced, Wartensleben should just be Wartensleben per MOS:SURNAME done
  • whack in a comma after "to join Kléber"
  • link Desaix in full at first mention, just Desaix thereafter done
  • unclear what is meant by "Most of the Imperial Army of the Rhine was stationed too far away to support the smaller force, by Mannheim to the north, where the river was easier to cross." Does this mean most of the Imperial Army of the Rhine was stationed at Mannheim, or elsewhere? Clarify. done
  • "the Prince Condé" should just be the Condé or Condé after introduction done
  • Saint-Cyr? Link? --he is linked on first mention.
  • who are the Kreistruppen? Explain and link at first mention. done
  • The Austrian brought 6,000 men. Should it be Austrians? no, he (the Austrian) brought 6,000 men.
  • Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg should just be Fürstenberg after introduction according to MOS surnames,yes, but he was not the title holder, and there were two of them. so to distinguish....
  • and would need reinforcements from Charles, should this be "and needed reinforcements"
  • linking is not really needed in the tables, as pretty much all are linked elsewhere in the article, there are also quite a few examples of people whose names should just be trimmed to surnames the tables, I thought, were supposed to stand on their own?
  • Archduke Charles should just be Charles or the Archduke after introduction, as there are no other Charles' done
  • more to come... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continually clashed with Charles' retreating army" seems an odd description if it happened on one day at one place? sort of a moving battle
  • suggest "The historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge" done
  • suggest "Despite their French losses"
  • perhaps Marceau should be Marceau-Desgraviers, I didn't immediately make the connection and had to search for the name.fixed
  • whack in another comma after "By no later than the 20th"done
  • Jean Castelbert de Castelverd should just be Castelverd at second mention
  • Poncet? Link in the body at first mention yes
  • link Freiburg im Breisgau at first mention done
  • Delmas? Link in the body at first mention done

That's pretty much it. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I think I've got them all, unless you want me to take the links out of the tables...that wasn't clear. auntieruth (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, is there anything more you'd care to add? I'd like to wrap this up if we can. Sarastro (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Sarastro1. I haven't had a chance to go through Ruth's changes and see if there is anything outstanding as yet. Should be able to do that in the next day or so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Sarastro1. All good. Supporting now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support from Cas Liber[edit]

looking now....

.. forcing the Holy Roman Emperor into a surrender and acceptance of French Revolutionary territorial integrity. - why not, " forcing the Holy Roman Emperor to surrender and accept French Revolutionary territorial integrity."? "force...into a surrender" sounds odd to me..

Rest of it looks ok - will go over it again soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the changed, but I cannot even find it. auntieruth (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, anything further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
hang on, will look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nothing further is jumping out at me prose-wise, and it looks comprehensive, so a cautious support...but I am a neophyte in the area...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Sorry for the delay on this one. I think we're good to go now. I'd recommend someone having a look at the duplinks as there are one or two showing up that may not be needed, but I don't think we need to hold this up any longer. Sarastro (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2018 (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) 01:33, 29 April 2018 [2].

The Boat Race 2018[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last few years of Boat Race articles have made it to FA (and every single one of the others are GAs) so I'm following in that tradition and nominating this year's which was the greatest sporting triumph in modern history. Well, Cambridge won all four races... Thanks in advance for anyone who has the time and energy to provide any comments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Sources are all good quality. Several archived are still available, but fn 48 didn't load for me.
  • 63 is an official Facebook page. -okay

Support All looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added an archive link to ref 48. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Three points come to mind having only read the lead and background. Firstly, what do you make of the inconsistency in the naming conventions of these? List of The Boat Race results links to four others that are called "The Boat Races [year]", which makes sense given that more than one race occurred on the same day in each of those, yet this article uses the singular. Are you happy with the title as-is? Secondly, is this article in potential contravention of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license? The article is modeled on the previous Boat Race articles, and it clearly began life as a paste of the relevant information from the 2017 edition, yet there is no attribution in the article history. The 'finished' product we see here has even more similarities to previous years' articles, structurally and with whole swathes of text incorporated unchanged. Now, that's not necessarily a problem; I just wonder if by a strict interpretation of the licence we're not dotting every 'i' here (and I realise that a complicating factor may be that you were likely the original author of much of that text). Thirdly, does the recency of this event give you pause? I mean, it felt like I was in London just yesterday hearing about this ... wait, I literally was in London yesterday hearing about this :-) Is that enough time to ensure 1b is met? The last few articles at least had six months before they reached FA. Do you expect nothing else of note to be written? Steve T • C 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve (a) it's named for its common name, there's no inconsistency, just an adherence to WP:COMMONNAME. (b) Happy to add attribution of the background to the talk page, not a problem at all, although I wrote virtually every character, so it's not really an issue. But for dotting i's and crossing t's I'll do that. (c) No, there's no pause for me right now. As a counterpoint, what do you think is missing? What part of the coverage of this event will percolate in the next week, month, year? Let me know, as I'm keen to keep the article as comprehensive as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve oh, and given you've made fewer than 250 edits in the last two years, are you actually going to come back here and respond to any comments made or is this just a hit-and-run? Just checking, have you given pause to that? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. There'll be no 'hit-and-run'; I'll keep this watchlisted for the duration. Thanks for clarifying the first two points. On the third, to answer your question: I don't know what might be missing, which is why I'm not opposing on that point; I've just never seen anything based on a recent event come to FAC this quickly and wanted your take on it. However, I think it should be something that other reviewers with more familiarity with the topic (and what is likely to be written about it) should consider. Steve T • C 23:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. My advice to you is to look back over the last few Boat Race articles, The Boat Races 2017, The Boat Races 2016 etc which are already featured, and see if you can find anything fundamental missing from the articles. They all conclude pretty much on the day of the races themselves. If something's missing, please let me know. If not, then your concern is not actionable. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve P.S. It may be helpful to understand that I generally used to take these articles to GAN first, but since that process can take an eternity, and since I know how good the articles I write are, I decided to bypass that dreadful wait and go straight to FAC. Perhaps, as an additional aid, you could look at the article histories of the FAs I've noted and see how much changed from the date of the race of the date of FA promotion. And I mean fundamentally changed or where fundamental information was missing, not just tweaks as a result of the review process. Please let me know if you spot anything I haven't. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The GAN queue for sports articles is currently a year long, and the half-life of sports references is notoriously short, so immediate FAC nomination makes a good deal of sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on 1b, further to my comments above and below. I've reviewed a couple of the previous Boat Race FAs and can see that, for example, The Boat Races 2017, though promoted in October 2017, does not contain anything new written more than three days after the event at the beginning of April 2017. Assuming 1b was met in that FAC, this backs up the claim that nothing new of substance is likely to be written on the subject of this race. However, a simple 30-second search reveals evidence of at least some potentially-useful content written well after the 2017 date that may have been relevant there, for example this pair of articles written on April 6 and May 2, respectively. Or this, from July 2, which provides the sorely-missing UK viewing figure data (which, incidentally, won't even have been compiled/released yet by BARB for the 2018 race). My point is, even though I might buy that you've deemed those examples (and that's all they are) irrelevant from an editorial point of view, and while I agree that sporting events such as this leave such a fleeting footprint on the news cycle that we can likely be assured of comprehensiveness after a relatively short period of time (unlike an article on a popular book, perhaps, which likely needs a few years), I don't think two days is enough time to know what might come out about the 2018 race, and possibly means that encyclopedic data (such as viewing figures) is not going to be available. To be clear: I do not believe that GA is a prerequisite for FA but the rush to FAC here is I think unprecedented, and it absolutely gives me pause. Steve T • C 22:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two links are trivia. The third is useful and can be incorporated. But I'm not hanging around for months for the possibility of other news relating to the topic to arise. That's just daft. Thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, the 2017 article went to GAN on or about the day of the race itself and was reviewed four months later, passing with basically no changes. The FAC immediately followed and passed within around a month with basically no changes. This oppose is basically unactionable without withdrawing the nomination and waiting for, how long? Six months? Sorry, but I think that's bordering on nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other, minor point I wanted to ask you about without cluttering the above: do you think it's a little odd that—owing to the fact that much of this article has been taken from the previous years'—there are a bunch of citations with 'retrieved by' dates that pre-date this article's creation? The accessdate parameter is supposed to be the date when the content pointed to by the url was last verified to support the text in the article. Some of these still say 2014. Is that really the last time some of these sources were verified? Steve T • C 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As predicted, this commentary from Steve is a hit-and-run. What a shame we couldn't actually work on making the article better, but apparently it's nothing to do with that, it's about the fact that the event itself took place a week or so ago, despite the prelude starting months and months ago, and nothing realistic being offered in favour of the "1b" oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I have this watchlisted, and have checked in every day. If I have not responded, it is 1) because I have spent actual hours researching this race, much of which I was witness to, 2) because I have gone back and forth about six times on whether I should strike my 'oppose', 3) because an article at FAC is likely to stay in the list for several weeks, and 4) because I have spent most of my free time these last few days with my family, owing to the fact that this is Easter weekend. I do not appreciate the bad-faith assumption of a hit-and-run review. As anyone who remembers my contributions here will attest, I am and always have been a conscientious FAC reviewer. I am not surprised that FAC reviews have dried up the last few years when at every turn my concerns about this article have been minimised and treated with condescension. Your first reply, before my 'oppose' and when I was simply raising a concern, was to make immediate reference to the fact that I had only made 250 edits in two years, despite the fact that most of those were major rewrites as a result of weeks of research—and actual money spent—to save someone else's Featured Article that had been listed at FAR. Your combative attitude is one which I imagine most editors will find off-putting to a degree where they will opt to avoid reviewing articles for fear of having their contributions scrutinised and used against them, rather than as an opportunity to improve the article in question. To address the substance of your complaint, 1) the FAC coordinators will make their own decision on whether or not my 'oppose' (should I decide not to strike it) is actionable, and 2) I understand that the article was started months ago, but to give you an insight into my viewpoint, over at WP:FILM we start film articles when principal photography begins, but there is often—always even—major content written months or years after the film's release; we would never dream of listing a film at FAC that had been released only a few days beforehand. I see that Boat Race articles are almost certainly different owing to the news cycle, but it's that potential for extra content that gives me pause. It may be that your stance is correct, but I urge you not to immediately confront reviewers who disagree with that viewpoint. I will be back this way to reassess, but at my own pace and backgrounded by my extensive experience with FAC reviews. Good day. Steve T • C 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so you're sticking with an inactionable oppose. You've yet to offer any substantive content that is missing from any Boat Race article, so this is all very unhelpful, despite your self-proclaimed "extensive experience", how do you think that benefits anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm considering it and reconsidering it; as explained above, I've gone back and forth several times on whether to strike my oppose, and have attempted at every turn to ignore the condescending tone of your responses (even before my 'oppose') and focus instead on their substance. I have already conceded that this may well be an unusual circumstance in which nothing new of note is ever written about an event mere days after it occurs; films, elections, TV, literature, meteorology, music and most other sporting events require much longer to percolate through the cultural consciousness. I am unaware of any other article on Wikipedia that has been seriously considered for promotion to FA only days after the event they are about has occurred; even if I strike my oppose and this is promoted uncontested, this will still be precedent-setting, and that reason alone should justify some hesitation in reaching a decision. Steve T • C 09:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you've made your point but there's no actual evidence to support your position, or at least none that you've provided. And that's a shame because it just means that you're providing an oppose that can't be actioned apart from withdrawing the nomination and waiting some arbitrary time during which nothing will happen. This isn't "precedent-setting", this is approaching a very stable topic with the application of common sense. What is unusual is that I produce such high quality material so rapidly after an event has taken place. I have very extensive experience in this field, as evidenced by the 150+ GAs and half a dozen FAs on this very topic. And mark my words, if I discovered something vital was missing from any one of the 164 articles, I'd be the first person to add it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose struck. If I get the opportunity, I'll read through again to see if I have any suggestions. If not, good luck. Steve T • C 20:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am very familiar with The Rambling Man's Boat Race articles, and this one is well up to his customary high standard. Meets all FA criteria in my view. Glad to add my support. (And extra points for being so quick off the mark. V. impressive.) Tim riley talk 11:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MWright96
  • Alt text for all images would be of benefit to those who have image dsscriptions turned on
  • "including SuperSport across Africa and EBU across Europe." - If I'm mistaken, EBU is referred to as "the EBU"
  • "The Championship Course along which, for the third time in the history of the event, the men's, women's and both reserves' races will be conducted on the same day" - was conducted
  • "led by their chief coach Steve Trapmore. Trapmore, a gold medal-winning member of the men's eight at the 2000 Summer Olympics," - Try not to have the last word of a sentence start the next one like this.
  • "Both CUWBC president Daphne Martschenko and rower Paula Wesselmann were unavailable " - Why were Martschenko and Wesselman absent?
  • "The Dark Blues feature one returning crew member" - featured
  • "The Light Blues also feature the 2015 World Rowing Championships quad sculls gold medallist Olivia Coffey." - same as above.
  • "The Cambridge crew includes a number of experienced Boat Race rowers:" - included
  • "will be the tallest individual ever to have competed in The Boat Race." - was the tallest individual to have competed in the history of The Boat Race.
  • "Cambridge's crew contains four individuals who have featured in the Boat Race:" - contained

Apart from the issues raised above, I believe this piece of work to be quite neatly put together by TRM. MWright96 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MWright96 thanks for your comments. I've addressed them all, the only one which wasn't simple was the absence of Martschenko and Wesselmann. I know the former was ill, there's no information on the latter and in other sources Wesselmenn's absence isn't even noted, so I removed that. Hopefully all addressed to your satisfaction, please let me know. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my concerns have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim[edit]

Apart from a couple of infelicities already listed by MWright above, I could see nothing of concern. They appear to be uncontentious and easily fixed, so happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimfbleak. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2018 (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) 02:40, 29 April 2018 [3].

The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9)[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a half-hour (very, very black) comedy about cryptic crosswords. I've never attempted a cryptic crossword, and I didn't find the episode particularly funny. Nonetheless, I think it might be my favourite ever episode of my favourite ever TV programme. It is brilliant, and I spot something new every time I rewatch it. I hope this article is a worthy one for such a great piece of television. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bilorv[edit]

  • "A second was introduced accidentally, and then incorporated into the episode. This second nina was interpreted by some viewers as having a political meaning, but Pemberton, Shearsmith, and the BBC have denied that this is the case." – The second sentence is just confusing without being told the nina is "RIPNHS". I think it's also undue weight anyway; just the first sentence would suffice.
    • Yes, that's fair. Removed. I try to avoid anything too spoiler-y in the lead. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""The Riddle of the Sphinx" was the third episode of the series, after the Christmas special "The Devil of Christmas" (December 2016) and "The Bill" (February 2017), the latter of which was the first of a run of five episodes." – This seems like a weird order to write things in. I would say that "The Devil of Christmas" was a 2016 Christmas special, and then the rest of the series aired in a run from February 2017, of which "The Riddle of the Sphinx" was the second of five (or third in the series).
  • Can the running time be added as a parameter to the infobox? (It might also be worth a mention in the production section – was the final cut exactly 33 minutes long?)
    • Indicated based on claims from BBFC. That doesn't quite match up with losing five minutes, so I've rephrased slightly. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "civilisation was then "stripped away"" – I don't understand the "then". Does it refer to a change in the writing process or the chronology of the episode? I also don't understand how this links to the previous "very English" clause.
    • I've rephrased: "The first half of the episode, for the executive producer Jon Plowman, played out like a radio play. The word-play and tea-drinking in this part of the episode were, for the writers, very English; the episode then changes character. Civilisation is "stripped away", resulting in the episode having the elements of a Greek tragedy." Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elsewhere, Pemberton explained that" – The "Elsewhere" is unnecessary as the sources for the previous sentences were not mentioned in the prose.
  • "On a stormy Cambridge night" – Surely this should be "On a stormy night at the University of Cambridge".
  • "predicting that a DOWNANDOUT will find Charlotte WRAPped in her UNDERSLIP in SWAMPLANDS" – As well as looking messy, these clues have already been revealed: I think it would be better to write "predicting via reference to solved clues that a down-and-out will find Charlotte wrapped in her underslip in swamplands (references to previous clues)".
  • "Shearsmith denied that the nina RIPNHS (("Rest In Peace National Health Service") was a political message" – It seems misleading to me to give the 'explanation' in brackets when Shearsmith is saying that is not what the nina refers to. The clause could be rephrased to "Shearsmith denied that the nina RIPNHS stood for "Rest In Peace National Health Service"" or something similar.
  • "ironic" does not need a link to irony.
  • The blockquote from the Den of Geek review probably belongs under Analysis rather than Reception.
    • I've sympathy with that idea, but I'm inclined to think that it belongs in the reception section as a demonstration of the (highly praised) attention to detail. I'm inclined to think it's a little laudatory to be framed as dispassionate academic-style analysis. I can look into moving it if you/others strongly disagree with me, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these 1(a) concerns, I think the article meets the FA criteria. It is very comprehensive in coverage and an excellent article on what is also my favourite Inside No. 9 episode. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to have a look; it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I've made one uncontroversial edit, and all my comments have been addressed. I would still prefer the Den of Geek quote to go in the Analysis section but I am not particularly bothered about this and I can see the case for it to belong under Reception. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks! I have changed 31 minutes to 32 minutes, as the 35 seconds would presumably round up, rather than down! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edwininlondon[edit]

I'm not familiar with the subject but found this an interesting read. The article looks worthy of FA status but a few comments:

  • all FA articles I checked all started with the plot as first section. Is there a reason to deviate?
    • I followed the production-plot-analysis-reception structure in my other film/TV FAs. It just makes more sense to me; it feels chronological! It's (roughly) "Here's what happened before it was shown, here's what happened in the thing, here's what was really going on in the thing, here's what people said about the thing after the fact." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Summer 2015 --> I found this odd, why not describe everything chronologically?
    • The paragraphs are thematic, rather than chronological; I can move things around if you think it doesn't currently make sense. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Summer 2015 --> I'm not a native speaker, but just checking if this should not just simply be lowercase "in the summer of"?
  • was originally Morales's --> just checking the need of originally here: am I right to infer that there is some dispute about whose idea this was? If uncontroversial it's probably better to drop originally
  • play Sleuth,[12] Shearsmith --> should that comma be a full stop?
    • No, it's part of a list; Pemberton said this, Shearsmith said this, and BBC producers said this. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption: He selected the episode as one of his favourites from the third series.--> I don't think this is needed in the caption, it makes it unnecessarily long
  • Pemberton also noted that not everyone enjoys crosswords, ... Tyler. --> this sentence would fit better in the next section
  • Pemberton explained that he and Shearsmith relish the challenge set by writing limitations, such as basing an episode around a crossword: these challenges, he explained, would lead to the writers producing their best work. --> doesn't really flow for me. Two times explained, mix of tenses. Perhaps a rephrase?
    • "Pemberton explained that he and Shearsmith relish the challenge set by writing limitations, such as basing an episode around a crossword. Such constraints, he felt, encourage them to produce their best work." Is that better? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode's second nina --> which is what?
    • I would rather avoid specifying it here to avoid spoilers. My understanding is that it is acceptable to avoid "springing" a spoiler on someone (such as in the lead or a production section). Spoilers are naturally going to be present in (for example) the plot and analysis sections. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two of them, Pemberton explained, --> I don't think that "Pemberton explained" is needed
  • Suddenly spluttering, .... She suddenly --> repetition
  • predicting that a predicting --> ?
  • Nina, as well as being the name --> this has already been explained in an earlier section
    • The article is yet to tie together the name of the character with the crosswording term. I know it might sound obvious given what's already said in the article, but I have no doubt that a lot of viewers will have missed the reference, and it's something that several sources point to, so I think there's a good case for leaving it in. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the references later. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to have a look, and thanks for your edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image. The same comment applies for the images in the body of the article.
  • For this part (but particular inspiration came from Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword by Alan Connor.), I would make it clear in the prose that Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword is a book as it was not immediately clear to me.
  • Please link Inside No. 9 on its first appearance in the body of the article.
  • For this part (at the end of the episode, Squires faces a situation that mirrors a situation faced by Michael Gambon's Albert Spica), I would avoid the repetition of the word “situation” in such close proximity.
  • The references for this sentence (Pemberton had long been a fan of cryptic crosswords, and he was inspired to develop the episode by reading Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword by Alan Connor.) are out of order. The same comment applies to this sentence (Reading Two Girls, One on Each Knee led Pemberton to ask whether one could "dramatize doing a crossword, which is so un-dramatic?”).
  • Just a clarification question, but is the word “nina” something that was already associated with crossword puzzles or did the writers of the show invent it for the episode? Is it at all related to the character Nina?
    • It's a word used by crossworders, but probably not well-known outside of that world. The character was named Nina (at least in part) because of this fact. @Edwininlondon: This is perhaps a demonstration of why I want to keep the explicit mention in the analysis section! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian is linked twice in the body of the article.
  • I am a little confused by this part (she was "devious and deadly”) for the use of the quote. Is this quote from the episode? If so, do you think you should attribute who said it in the prose?
  • I am a little confused by the Charlotte/Nina parts. Is Charlotte Nina’s real name? Do you think more context would be helpful here?
    • Yes. I have few words to play with in this section, so I'm nervous about adding much more explanation. I thought that was clear from this: "He tells Charlotte—"Nina"—to". Do you think more is needed? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense. I just wanted to make sure that I was following it correctly. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused by this part (Tyler hands Squires the flesh, and he eats, fearing Charlotte will die.). I was under the impression from the previous paragraph that Tyler was one that proposed that Squires should eat Charlotte, which by extension I had assumed that he wanted her to die. In the above sentence, he does not appear to want Charlotte to be dead or eaten so I am a little lost here. I apologize if this is very obvious.
    • It's Squires who's scared; he fears for her life, and so eats in the hope that once that's out of the way, something can be done to save Charlotte. I've rephrased slightly to make this clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused by this part (Squires confirms that his middle name is Hector as he weeps over Charlotte). Was there a particular reason that Squire mourns Charlotte’s death? Was it because of the reveal that she is Tyler’s daughter?
    • She's his daughter! "However, Simon's autopsy—Tyler explains—revealed that Simon and Charlotte were actually Squires's children". (Not to mention the fact that there's a dead student on the floor of his office and he's published a crossword that basically says he killed her. Everything has come crashing down around him.) It's a hugely twisty-turny plot... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referenes are out of order for these parts (drawing upon gothic themes) and (A number of critics identified Sleuth—"a grandfather of sorts" to Inside No. 9—as a key influence.).
  • The citations for this part (The episode was widely noted as both very dark) are out of order. It also borders on citation overkill (as there are six citations here). Maybe bundle them together to avoid this?
    • I can't bundle them together without changing my whole citation style, sadly. I've trimmed two of the less useful references and reordered the others. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations for this part (with particular praise for Roach,) are out of order.
  • For this part (Patrick Mulkern, writing for RadioTimes.com,), do you think it should be Radio Times instead of RadioTimes.com?
    • I don't honestly know if it was published in the print version, so I'd rather specify just the website. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with this. Once my comments and questions are addessed, I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my current FAC? Either way, have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a look; it's appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant[edit]

One of the first articles that I reviewed at GA! I'd love to take a look. VedantTalk 13:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some comments:

  • Why italicise "Sphinx"?
  • I know that this might complicate the sentence, but the mention of Shearsmith as Dr Jacob Tyler, another Cambridge academic at the end is a little odd. Why not have it as right next to mention of the other two?
  • The article also seems​ to not italicise "Sphinx" and put it in quotes later in the lead.
  • I've been told that the among others bit can be WAFFLE.
I've been told that if the details of the "among others" is worth mentioning you should spell it out or drop the "among others" altogether.
  • Why not mention the year of the play as the article does for the film?
  • "clashing with first episode of the third series of Catastrophe, the acclaimed Channel 4 comedy" - Is this really important? I mean I would get it if it affected the ratings and stuff, but did it?
    • I couldn't say for sure, but it was picked up on by at least one critic. It certainly seemed to affect the number of reviews published. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "filmed in December of that year" - Isn't filmed in December that year just fine too?
  • You could replace onr of the "filmed" with "shot" in the following sentence.
    • I already use the word "shot" in the sentence, and I worry it's a bit of an Americanism, so I'd rather not! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this is an awfully long sentence. One might loose track of all the details. It might just be me though.
  • I do not get this bit: "as well as the house of Oscar Lomax in the Shearsmith and Pemberton collaboration Psychoville".
    • Shearsmith and Pemberton previously did a programme called Psychoville. On Psychoville, there was a character called Oscar Lomax, and Langleybury was used as the character's house. I've rephrased this slightly but I'm not quite sure what isn't clear! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, idk Oscar Lomax somehow didn't strike me as a character name, Apologies!
  • "The script was 32 pages in length, resulting in a first cut that was 38 minutes in length." - 38 minutes long? to avoid repetition?
  • "the production team still needed to lose several minutes in the edit" - too wordy for me, can't we just say had to shorten it? a more suitable one word verb?
    • I am not sure it would be clear what the it referred to if I was to say that. " The BBC permitted the final version to be a little longer than the half hour typical of Inside No. 9, but the production team still needed to shorten it." I could say "shorten the first cut", but then that's not very interesting; I think first cuts basically always need to be shortened. Having to lose several minutes in the edit for a 30 minute episode is (I think) quite significant. I'm definitely open to suggestions, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's alright the way it is.
  • Is there a reason why the article uses such long sentences. the opening one of the second paragraph of the Production section is real long (almost ahlf the paragraph).
    • Probably bad writing on my part! I have reworded this (I assume you meant "third paragraph"), as you aren't the first person to pick up on that sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say that, it reads almost brilliantly! xD
  • Release years could be added for the films and publications used.
  • The article mentions that "Sleuth" is a play, but doesn't do the same off any of the other plays/movies/books/TV shows?
    • Yes, that's fair. I've expanded a little; I think I got everything. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through the rest soon. VedantTalk 14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not see any more obvious changes that need to be made, the analysis and reception section are really well written. I think you might have missed a couple of release years here and there and another reading might help fix that, but other than that I can support this for promotion on the prose standards. Good luck! P.S. I really have to watch this episode now. VedantTalk 07:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks a lot for your comments! Point taken on "among others". I'll have a think about it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I don't see television much, haven't heard of the series in question, and thought Rees Shearsmith was an actress, but the words "cryptic crossword" caught my eye. A few minor comments, which I hope will be of use:

  • Production
    • "The first half of the episode, for the executive producer Jon Plowman, plays out like a radio play. The word-play and tea-drinking in this part of the episode are, for the writers, very English" – I don't quite understand what this is trying to get across. Why is the first half for the producer and the other part for the writers? Or does it perhaps mean "in the opinion of the producer" etc?
      • Yes, sorry; I suppose that "for the" construction is a little odd. I've removed it. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "keeping the cast small, meanwhile, kept production costs low" – the import of the "meanwhile" isn't clear.
      • I was meaning to suggest that the smaller cast wasn't solely for financial purposes. I've gone with "keeping the cast small also served to keep production costs relatively low". Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crossword setting
    • "Such constraints, he felt, encourage them" – is there a clash of tenses here?
      • In the past he made a general claim about what is the case. It'd be like saying "Nietzsche claimed that God is dead." Do you think the current wording is problematic? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "prior to working" – I'm with Fowler: why use "prior to" in preference to a plain "before"? Here and in the next paragraph.
  • Plot
    • Caption: In what way does the picture show an adaptation of My Fair Lady? It looks exactly like the familiar My Fair Lady.
  • Analysis
    • "cruciverbalists" – could do with a link to Wiktionary or somewhere. Not a word many readers will know.
    • "George Bernard Shaw" – it would be a courtesy, as well as following general scholarly practice, to pipe this to "Bernard Shaw", which is how Shaw insisted on being known and is how most leading Shaw scholars term him. See here. (Not a chance of amending the title of the WP article on him, for obvious reasons, without wishing to be rude about our American cousins. Palliative measures are the best we can get away with.)
    • "Higgins's line "By Jove, I think she's got it!"" – Higgins has no such line in the musical. Best not to misquote.
      • I blame my source for that. There're definitely allusions, so I've changed the sentence to "while Squires's language echoes that of Higgins in My Fair Lady, the musical adaptation of the play". Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. An unpleasant subject, but the main author has dealt with it commendably. Tim riley talk 19:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a read through. Watching the episode has made me think about giving a crossword a try, but I'm yet to pick one up... I should probably start with some novice puzzles and work my way up... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to add my support. I'll drop you a line on your talk page about ways into cryptic crosswords for those who are so inclined. Tim riley talk 08:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/Spot check from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Refs formatted consistently
  • FN 24 - used 6 times. material faithful to source
  • FN 29 - used 2 times. material faithful to source
  • FN 30 - used once. material faithful to source
  • Earwigs has inflated score due to (attributed) direct quotes - copyvio clear.
Thanks, appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, can I check whether you're signing off on source reliability as well as formatting and spotchecks? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. looks ok to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

  • There are a few of duplinks that you could review but I won't hold up promotion over them (ping me if you need a link to the checker).
  • I also notice a few instances where citations are not in chronological order -- if this is deliberate because you want them in order of how they support the preceding text, fair enough, but thought I'd mention it in case.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2018 (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) 03:12, 29 April 2018 [4].

WestJet Encore[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanguard10 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the WestJet regional airline. WestJet is the second largest Canadian airline brand. Airline articles are reasonably popular, based on edits. This article is particularly compliant with guidelines, unlike some other airline articles. As such, it could be a model of how to improve other airline articles if it is a FA. Thank you for your kind consideration and comments... Vanguard10 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EricEnfermero[edit]

I think it's evident that a lot of work has been done on this entry's references, but I don't think that the prose is up to FA standards and I'm wondering if a GOCE copyedit might help. Here are a few examples:

  • In the History section, the "Lack of turboprop aircraft..." sentence is written in passive voice and it reads a little rough.
  • "The ATR-72-600 had been considered, being offered at a lower..." - I think you're saying that this one was less expensive but it's wordy.
  • "WestJet Encore was to start separate routes..." - I think this one needs to be broken into two sentences.
  • "In 2015, WestJet Encore was the fastest-growing..." - You have two verb tenses (was/is) in this sentence. Does the first part refer to 2015 while the second part refers to the present?
  • "teal-and blue-geometric" - If I understand correctly, there should be a hyphen after and and not after blue.
  • "the management initiated WestJet Pilots Association, a subgroup of the WestJet Proactive Management Team, ratified contracts..." - I feel like there is a missing word here.
  • You mention Jazz in this paragraph, but unless the reader checks the cited source, it's unclear what that is. There's a grammar error as well ("unlike Jazz, who do not...)
  • "being characterized by the Calgary Airport Authority CEO as 'the new terminal is long on aesthetics and short on functionality'" - this leaves a sentence fragment by itself after a semicolon.
  • "from 2016-2019" - generally we use "from... to" and don't mix from with a dash.
  • There are a few missing hyphens - i.e., two kilometer walk.
  • "WestJet Encore services two destinations outside of Canada, Boston and Nashville." - At first I read this as meaning that they go Canada, Boston, Nashville and two other destinations.
  • "WestJet Encore aircraft has a Plus section, which consists no change fees..." - consists of

I think there's probably more, which is why I wonder if GOCE might be helpful. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed comments. I have made corrections to address all of the above issues as well as improved the prose in many other areas. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would add ALT text for the logo in the infobox.
  • For this sentence (It is owned by WestJet Airlines, Ltd. which also owns WestJet Airlines.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “own”.
  • Make sure all of the images in the body of the article have ALT text.
  • In the “History” section, I would move the image down to be by the second paragraph. That paragraph is the one that really talks about that particular type of plane, and it would avoid having the infobox push the image down in an awkward way.
  • I am not familiar with this subject matter at all so I apologize in advance, but I am a little confused by the structure of the “History” section, particularly the opening two paragraphs. It is not until the third paragraph that you mention WestJet Encore by name, and I was lost when reading the first two paragraph. I understand that these paragraphs are important, but is there a way to make it clearer that these paragraphs are about the conditions that set up the creation of this airline? I hope that makes sense.
  • For this sentence (Nashville was added the following year.), do you think that you should put the airport in Nashville rather than just the city (only if it is included in the source cited of course).
  • For this part (a $2 billion, 2 million square foot international terminal), 2 should be spelled out as “two”.
  • I would add a citation for this part of the sentence (for U.S. cross border and international flights opened at Calgary International Airport, the largest hub of WestJet Encore and its affiliate WestJet. Despite consultation with the airlines, the terminal design proved problematic.) to make it clear what reference is being used to support this information.
  • The lead seems rather short, and does not appear to include much information from the “History” section.
  • This ( or, until July 31, 2018, American Airlines AAdvantage.) needs to be cited.
  • In the “Cabins and services” section, I am confused about the Plus section. You say that it “does not have increased legroom or space”. Is the plus section then just a portion of the seating that is closer to the cabin? Are there any advantages/reasons to book a seat in the Plus section?
  • I would revise this sentence (In 2017, McDonald's McCafe coffee service was announced.) to (In 2017, flights began to offer McDonald's McCafe coffee service). The “was announced” structure of the original sentence is slightly awkward and opens the question of who announced this in particular?
  • I would simplify this (altering taste bud sensation) down to (altering taste buds).
  • Something seems to be wrong with Reference 39. The bare URL is showing up in the “References” section.

Good work with this article. I admit that I am not familiar at all with the subject matter, and I have never worked on this type of article before so I apologize if I miss anything. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive comments. I have addressed every point noted. I have also made some improvements, small in byte size, but to improve the flow, make it understandable to both the airline enthusiast and general public. I have also tried to meet the definition of FA, which is the finest work in Wikipedia. In comparison to some airline articles, I have tried to avoid making the WestJet Encore article an advertisement.Vanguard10 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Comments from the first 25 references:

  • Ref 4: I think "ATW" means "Air Transport World", not "Air Transport Weekly"
  • Ref 5: Reuters should not be italicised. Use "publisher=" not "work="
  • Ref 6: Conversley, The Globe and Mail should be italicised, and needs "work="
  • Ref 13: Same point re Mississauga News
  • Ref 14: Same point re Financial Post
  • Ref 21: ...and re Toronto Star
  • Ref 24: ...and re Calgary Herald

As you can see, there are recurring errors over the question of italicisation, and I'd be graeful if you would work through the rest and make any necessary adjustments. Call me when you've done, preferably by a brief talkpage message, as my ping messages tend to disappear and then I told I'm rude for ignoring them! Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. This was a systems problem from using the citations template. I did not know that "The Globe and Mail" was a work and not a publisher. When entered as a publisher, there are no italics. When entered as a work, there are italics. It should be The Globe and Mail. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it's quite common with well-known publications to treat the title as the publisher and use the work field to ensure italicisation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've completed my review:

  • There are still a couple of print sources not italicised: see refs 21, 25.
  • There are quite a lot of italicised non-print sources. The ones that concern me are refs 28, 31, 33, 34, 42, 45, 49, 50, 54, 59, 60, 61, 64, 66, 67, 70. I believe that in these instances you are using either work= or website= when you should be using publisher=. The website= field should not be used without also publisher=, because the website is the thing being published, not the publisher. My advice is to change all of these to publisher= and forget about website=.
  • In ref 41 the publisher is WestJet, not WestJet.com; likewise, in 52 the publisher is MRO Network.
  • There are a few nomenclature inconsistencies: you have "Global News" and "Global News (Canada)"; WestJet" and "Westjet"; "Cision" and "Cision PR Newswire" (there is actually a WP article for Cision that you can link to).
  • Ref 65 is confusingly presented. American Airlines is the publisher, the correct title seems to be "WestJet partnership ending". You don't need aa.com, but you do need a retrieval date.

I'm sorry to be asking you weed the garden again, but try and think of it as a hot day with a beer waiting in the fridge. Let me know when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. Especially helpful is your explanation that "publisher= " in the citation template should used rather than "website= " in order not to get improper use of italics. One reference I did not change is 34, which is a name of a small town newspaper, Powell River Peak. It should be in italics, just like the Calgary Herald or New York Times. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

  • Wikilink both "McDonalds" and "McCafe" in the lead.
  • "Having more flights on a route than a competitor is a competitive advantage." — According to who? and how so? elaborate on this.
  • "The WestJet Encore fleet of Q400s expanded to 18 aircrafts by March 2015, and later to 34 aircraft by December 2016 and to 43 aircraft by December 2017." — You can reword this like "The WestJet Encore fleet of Q400s was expanded to 18 aircrafts by March 2015, and later to 34 and 43 aircrafts by December 2016 and December 2017 respectively."

That's about it from me, Vanguard10. Quite an offbeat article from those I usually work on. A keener pair of eyes can go through more than what I have. Address these comments and you have my support.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. 1. I have made the correction. 2. Having more flights being a competitive advantage is a well known principle and not disputed. I have added another reference, a book, so that the sentence has two citations. 3. You kindly made the third suggestion and edited the article - thank you. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Acefitt[edit]

How necessary is the paragraph about the new terminal? Not once has an Encore plane bridged over there, nor has WestJet announced any plan to fly Encore from there. It really has nothing to do with Encore. -- Acefitt 03:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I have done some original research and have been told that WestJet Encore was and is considering cross-border flights but is discouraged by the international terminal. To comply with Wikipedia's original research prohibition, I cannot write about things that I know but are not in print. The international terminal mention is not critical to the Wikipedia article but is there for this reason. There are reliable sources attesting that Calgary is a WestJet Encore hub and pilot base.
I might also add that 50% of WestJet Encore traffic is connecting traffic (mentioned in the Wikipedia article along with a citation) of which some, mostly WestJet flights, are international flights. This causes a problem for WestJet Encore. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Is "transborder" to be hyphenated? I have never seen that word hyphenated before. -- Acefitt 14:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a hyphen according to the Calgary Herald. See http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/westjet-ceo-blasts-new-terminal-at-yyc-says-airport-authority-hasnt-listened-to-concerns (6th paragraph). If you support this FAC, thank you. If not, I am happy to strongly consider your suggestions and implement them, if possible. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She uses it, but Air Canada doesn't, WestJet (subject of the article) doesn't, YYC doesn't, YVR doesn't, and other Canadian journalists appear to not be using it. Not a big deal, I support the article. -- Acefitt 04:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

OKish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The logo is used by both WestJet and WestJet Encore. It may be somewhat similar to the logo of Royal Dutch Shell plc (incorporated in the UK, headquartered in the Netherlands) and the logo of Shell Oil Company (headquartered in Houston, TX, USA). However, I like the purity of an article with no fair use and only free use so I am removing the logo image. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

I expressed concerns that the fact used in this article's recent DYK was misleading at WP:ERRORS during its run, so would like to take the opportunity to review the whole article. As a starting comment, the thought of flying Canadian distances in a Bombardier Q400 is horrifying - I've endured these planes many times on relatively short flights by Australian standards (with Australian planes being pretty comfortable compared to North American planes), and longer trips with worse service sound awful!

  • "The airline was formed to allow increased frequency of flights by using smaller aircraft as well as start service to routes with less traffic." - this makes it sound like it was established as a public service: presumably WestJet saw this as a market opportunity.
  • "The airline is a low cost carrier." - already stated. I'd suggest dropping the first mention as this is then discussed throughout this para
  • "it was operated with non-union employees but union drives began starting with the pilots joining a labour union." - repeditive
  • "An airline variant of McDonald's McCafé was later introduced" - what it is 'later' after isn't clear
  • I'd suggest providing some background in the 'Market conditions leading to the formation of WestJet Encore (2005-2013)' section on why WestJet was at the point of saturating the market (assume that readers, such as me, have only barely heard of WestJet!)
  • "WestJet Encore's service was initially limited to Western Canada, but it opened service in the eastern part of the country in June 2014 with a route from Toronto to Thunder Bay, Ontario" - is this when it also established the pilot base in Toronto?
  • "WestJet Encore moved into the international market in 2016, with flights serving Boston Logan Airport;[21][22] Nashville International Airport was added the following year" - where do these flights originate from? (Toronto I presume?)
  • "WestJet Encore flies Q400 NextGen on regional flights up to 700 nautical miles, including both direct regional flights and connecting flights" - this seems a bit out of place given that the airline's fleet and routes are described in the earlier paras. The limitation on how far it takes these planes seems worth noting.
  • "In 2015, WestJet Encore was the fastest-growing operator of Q400 aircraft" - is this really very significant? It just means that it had a lot of the things scheduled for delivery that year.
  • "Pilots are guaranteed an eventual higher paying position flying larger jets at WestJet" - presumably this is dependent on satisfactory service, as well as time served?
  • " WestJet Encore and its flight attendants reached an agreement " - was this also a union agreement? - it's unclear from the next sentence (which implies it was not)
  • "The first president of WestJet Encore was Ferio Pugliese, who retained his title of Executive Vice President at WestJet Airlines, Ltd. He was hired in November 2012 coming from WestJet, " - this is confusing and repetitive: was he or was he not still a WestJet employee?
  • I note that the current president also holds a position at WestJet: presumably this is a standing arrangement?
  • "He left to become an Executive Vice President at Hydro One Ltd" - when did he leave?
  • "Some routes are increased frequencies on existing routes, such as between Calgary and Saskatoon." - also unclear (were these increased frequencies on existing WestJet routes?)
  • " To prevent freezing of water lines during overnight stays at airports with cold weather, the airline rendered the water flow to the lavatory basins inoperative in 2013" - the issue I raised at WP:ERRORS was whether this fault has since been fixed (noting that the 2013 reference said that work was underway to fix it)
  • "EFB and ICAS could determine whether or not objective thresholds were exceeded resulting four hours of maintenance and inspection instead of previously having pilots subjectively characterize the level of turbulence, which would automatically result in maintenance and inspection" - complex and unclear (and the grammar looks a bit off?)
  • What does a WestJet Dollar buy you? Is this a 1-for-1 discount on future flights? - or the usual airline arrangement where you need several zillion points to get anything useful?
  • "WestJet also participates in WestJet Rewards" - seems a bit obvious? I'd suggest tweaking this para to state that this company doesn't have its own rewards scheme, but uses that of its parent company.
  • "WestJet Encore flights are ground loaded" - I'm not sure what this means.
  • "The Q400 NextGen aircraft have large overhead lockers in the cabin allowing for larger luggage to be brought aboard." - larger than what? (the usual carry on bag size allowed on aircraft?)
  • "Food is available for purchase but beverages are served free" - the bit about beverages being free doesn't seem to be referenced in the body of the article?
  • What kind of assessments has this airline attracted from professional reviewers and the various airline ratings?
  • Has the airline been involved in any noteworthy operational incidents? Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - -

Thank you for your comments, which are of a different type than other comments. This is useful and not a criticism. I have addressed and modified the article for most of the points raised and have further explanations below.
  • "WestJet Encore's service was initially limited to Western Canada, but it opened service in the eastern part of the country in June 2014 with a route from Toronto to Thunder Bay, Ontario" - is this when it also established the pilot base in Toronto?
I cannot confirm nor deny that the Toronto pilot base was established when the first Toronto flight started. With the mainline WestJet Airlines, they started Toronto flights while they only had a Calgary pilot base, which was very awkward from an operational standpoint.
  • "WestJet Encore moved into the international market in 2016, with flights serving Boston Logan Airport;[21][22] Nashville International Airport was added the following year" - where do these flights originate from? (Toronto I presume?)
WikiProject Airlines discourages listing too many routes. Nashville-Toronto is the only WestJet Encore route but there are several routes from Boston.
Seems like something worth noting to me. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2015, WestJet Encore was the fastest-growing operator of Q400 aircraft" - is this really very significant? It just means that it had a lot of the things scheduled for delivery that year.
This appears to be significant enough to be cited by the manufacturer.
The source seems to be a press release from the airline. I'd suggest removing this. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pilots are guaranteed an eventual higher paying position flying larger jets at WestJet" - presumably this is dependent on satisfactory service, as well as time served?
I cannot find any references about the promotion criteria. Looking at a random selection of 27 airline articles, I find none of them describe the promotion criteria for pilots.
I'm not asking for the promotion criteria. It's unlikely that pilots are "guaranteed" promotions as long as they don't quit (especially by an anti-union employer). Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the current president also holds a position at WestJet: presumably this is a standing arrangement?
I cannot confirm or deny that it is a standing agreement nor have I seen their employment contracts. There have been two WestJet Encore Presidents. Both have concurrently been Vice Presidents at WestJet.
I'd suggest noting that both presidents held the role then. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " To prevent freezing of water lines during overnight stays at airports with cold weather, the airline rendered the water flow to the lavatory basins inoperative in 2013" - the issue I raised at WP:ERRORS was whether this fault has since been fixed (noting that the 2013 reference said that work was underway to fix it)
From original research, I have information that there is no running water as of December 2017.
OK Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of assessments has this airline attracted from professional reviewers and the various airline ratings?
Many, including me, do not believe in airline ratings. The best and middle of the pack are often similar. That said, WestJet Encore does not have a reputation as a bad airline for passengers nor does it have a famous reputation, like Singapore Airlines. Skytrax, a common rater, does not rate WestJet Encore.
No professional reviews at all? Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the airline been involved in any noteworthy operational incidents?
Yes, two flight attendants were injured due to turbulence. This was not included because of guidelines from WikiProject Airlines, which emphasize severe damage (hull loss) of aircraft or deaths. Another flight had visible smoke in the cabin.

Vanguard10 (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some extra comments:

  • " Plus section seating and frequent flyer programme participation is offered." - many readers won't know what "plus section seating" is, and does the existence of a frequent flyer program need to be noted in the lead given that this is standard for airlines?
  • " After internal marketing studies about future growth were initiated, WestJet Encore was formed..." - unclear. Presumably it was formed as a result of the results of this analysis.
  • "If such thresholds were not exceeded, four hours of maintenance and inspection would be prevented compared to previously having pilots subjectively characterize the level of turbulence." - still unclear and a bit wordy
  • "The Q400 NextGen aircraft have larger overhead lockers in the cabin than previous versions of the Q400 allowing for larger luggage to be brought aboard" - but the airline hasn't used other versions of the Q400? I'd suggest deleting this.
  • A map showing the locations served by the airline would be useful, and fairly easy to create (the map at [5] could easily be adapted). This would help to give the article a bit of the 'wow' factor expected for FAs. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your additional comments. I have made corrections to all, except the last suggestion. For the first comment, I've removed mention of the Plus Section seating in the lede because the Plus Section is really a joke airline tactic. The seat is the same. The leg room is the same. There are just some relaxed ticketing rules. The frequent flyer mention is, however, even more noteworthy than I originally thought and revised it. Most airlines require a zillion points for a free ticket. WestJet Rewards is different. You can redeem an award for as little as $15 off. That might mean that you can redeem an award after as little as two round trip flights, albeit $15 off being a small discount. As far as the map, I am uncertain whether creating such a map exceeds the original research prohibition in Wikipedia. The link provided is helpful but it is outdated. Nashville-Toronto is still operated, according to Expedia.com booking tool, but Nashville isn't shown on that WestJet link. If I try to create some lines indicating routes, I would not be using any published source but rather creating it from looking up Expedia or Orbitz or Travelocity websites used for buying airplane tickets. Seems like original research to me.
Most routes are those that include the hubs, such as Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, and Halifax as either the origin or destination. However, there are a few thin (low traffic) routes such as Fort McMurray, Alberta to Kelowna, British Columbia that don't seem to make any sense except that WestJet Encore probably discovered that there are people that want to travel between those cities. Not enough for a Boeing 737 but enough for a Bombardier Q400 NextGen. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking it up, I see that the Kelowna-Fort McMurray flight was discontinued after two years of operation. I did add the fact to the destinations section due to the oddity of the route. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a map referenced to the company's website and other reliable sources (the major booking websites seem great sources for what airline flies where) would be original research. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done and not a non-free use image! Vanguard10 (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest swapping to either a map of North America, or leaving the US cities out and noting them in the caption. The red dots in the caption aren't a good look ;) Given that this will change regularly, having an 'As of' date would also be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that map isn't rendering properly at all. I question why it's even necessary... -- Acefitt 14:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map is for, as Nick-D put it, for the wow factor! Another user took out the red dots for Nashville, TN, USA and Myrtle Beach, SC, USA. Those were the two dots in the captions. I considered a North American map but the problem is there is no USA+Canada map. If the whole of North America is used, all the dots in British Columbia and Alberta are squished together. The map is good to show that there aren't too many destinations in the middle of Canada (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, most of Ontario). Let's keep the map unless there is a desire to remove it. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think that my comments are now sufficiently addressed - nice work. I'd encourage you to keep an eye out for opportunities to expand and deepen the article as new sources become available. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2018 (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) 02:56, 29 April 2018 [6].

Buckton Castle[edit]

Nominator(s): Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buckton Castle isn't the kind of historic site that interests most people as there are no ruins to explore or inspire the imagination. The view over the east of Greater Manchester is impressive it you catch the weather on a good day. But as one of the earliest stone castles in the region, and one of the few that have been excavated, it is an important site and one that interests me at least since I excavated there for two (I think) seasons.

The article is based largely on the book published in 2012 about the excavations as it is the most recent comprehensive source available (worth noting that I'm one of the authors). Fieldwork finished in 2010, and interpretation of the site is unlikely to change in the near future. I've tried to ensure a good level of detail without putting the reader off, but in a nutshell there isn't a whole lot know about Buckton Castle so there are quite a few ifs and maybes. All feedback is gratefully received! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SN54129[edit]

Nice little article, Richard Nevell; I for one wouldn't criticise ifs and maybes, as working on any period such as this, that is precisely the language the RSs take—and for good reason. Couple of minor points to kick off with.

  • You use "gatepassage"; I think separate words are favoured?
  • But mainly, images. You've a MOS:SANDWICHING issue in the Construction and use section, and I wonder if they could generally be tidied up a little? It's quite image heavy (don't think that's a problem in itself), so their (dis?)arrangement stands out all the more. I'd favour a more symmetric approach, and perhaps something can be done to tighten the prose around those landscape pictures; what do you think?
  • Also, for acreage and distances, convert them.
    —SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Having 'gate passage' as two separate words is pretty widely done, so I've changed that. I've added an extra conversion to the text. Hopefully that's all of them – the layout section is strewn with them. I've removed the image of pottery for now (though the licence might get sorted) which helps a bit. I put an image gallery at the end of the layout section to avoid having the images run into the next section. I've tried the same with the location section which seems to work ok. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Eric Corbett[edit]

I've yet to check through the article in any great detail, but one point sticks out for me. A small one, but nevertheless ...

  • The lead states without qualification that the castle site was used as a beacon during the Pilmigrage of Grace, but the Later history and investigation section is a little more circumspect, stating that "The site of the castle may have been used as a beacon in the 16th century, first during the Pilgrimage of Grace ...", my bold. Eric Corbett 19:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, the lead should have been less definite on that point; I'll keep an eye out for similar inconsistencies. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The {{citation}} template you've used – which I like as well – automatically generates links between the citations and the sources, but you have to create those links in the text by using either {{Harvnb}} or {{sfnp}}. I prefer {{sfnp}}, to which I've converted most of your citations. But creating those links has exposed an otherwise difficult to spot error; is it "Harley & Newman" or "Hartley & Newman"?
That's a handy spot; I'll double check the spelling – probably tomorrow night. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to double check and it is Hartley rather than Harley, which the article now reflects. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Medieval_body_sherd_of_an_unglazed_Pennine_(or_Northern)_gritty_ware_(FindID_564839).jpg: the Photographer section on the image description states this is all rights reserved?
  • File:Plan_of_Buckton_Castle_by_George_Ormerod.JPG is missing a source and US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the source to the Ormerod plan. I'm not sure what's up with the image from the Portable Antiquities Scheme; a lot of their images are under an open licence but as you say that one has 'all rights reserved' on it for some reason. I'll try to get to the bottom of it, but until it's sorted I've removed the image from the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tim riley[edit]

This is an excellent and enjoyable article, and I look forward to supporting its promotion to FA. A few small drafting points first:

  • Location
    • "Cheshire has far fewer castles per square kilometre" – by coincidence I have just quoted Fowler on "per" at another FAC: "It is affected to use Latin when English will serve as well; so much a year is better than per annum and much better than per year", but I think your "per" here is justified because I can't think of as concise an alternative way of saying what you have to say.
    • "Most of the county's castles are close to the western border, and the eastern parts of Cheshire were amongst the poorest." – I don't follow this. The two halves of the sentence don't seem to relate to each other. It isn't clear to the lay person how the wealth or poverty of an area affects the number of castles built there.
    • Third paragraph: I don't know if others would disagree or agree with me, but an unattributed quotation such as the one you end the para with seems to me pointless unless you tell us in the text that this is what the such-and-such expert So-and-So says. Here, I think the sentence would have much more impact if you put the quote in context by attributing it inline to "the archaeologist [or historian, whichever is appropriate] Rachel Swallow".
  • History
    • "It is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county." – I think I know what this is supposed to convey, but it isn't what you have actually said. The cost and the palatinate relate to the likelihood, not to the earls. Just shifting the end of the sentence to the middle will do the trick: "It is likely, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county, that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester". Or "Partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county, it is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester".
    • "it and much of northern England come under Scottish control" – either "came" or "had come", I imagine?
    • "finished, however" – if you must have "however" here you need a stronger punctuation mark than a comma. I'd go a plain "but", which is both shorter and OK after a comma.
  • Later history and investigation
    • "an Iron Age hillfort, however a study" – another however with a comma.
    • "However, this was before" – this "however" seems to serve no purpose at all.
  • Layout
    • "There are six stone gatehouses in the region which were built in the 12th or 13th centuries" – it isn't immediately clear whether this is a restrictive (defining) clause or a non-restrictive (describing) one. In short, are there six stone gatehouses in the region, all of which were built in the 12th or 13th centuries or more than six, of which these six were built in the 12th or 13th centuries? If the former, I'd add a comma before the clause: "There are six stone gatehouses in the region, which were built…" If the latter a comma-less "that" is wanted: "There are six stone gatehouses in the region that were built…"
    • "Trenches in the castle's interior did not find the structures" – do trenches find things? Might "reveal" be bettter here?
    • "robbing activity" – a strange phrase. Does it differ from theft?
    • "There is a spoil heap-like feature" – hyphens can cause all sorts of tangles, and the one here can be avoided by juggling the words about: "There is a feature like a spoil-heap", or, perhaps better, "There is a feature resembling a spoil heap".

I hope these few minor comments are of use. – Tim riley talk 11:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks for the comments.
  • Location
  • I can't think of an alternative to 'per square kilometre' so I'll leave there where it is.
  • With this sentence I was trying to show that it's less common for there to be a castle in this part of the county, but tried to do too much at once. It it just says 'most of the castles are near the border with Wales' the reader will conclude that it's all about warfare which is true to an extent but there were economic factors as well which is what I tried to include. But that sentence just wasn't working as it seemed like two separate ideas. Hopefully by inverting the second half it now gels together.
  • I was mulling over the attribution the other day, and I think it does make sense to give some context to the quote so I've mentioned who said it.
  • History
  • I see what you mean. I think it's worth explaining why the bit about Cheshire being a palatine county is relevant, so I've tried "Partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county in which the earl had authority over who was permitted to build castles, it is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester."
  • Oops, I probably had 'had come' and then decided 'came' was preferable and didn't quite manage the change. Thanks for spotting that.
  • I've swapped 'however' for 'but'.
  • Later history and investigation
  • I've swapped 'however' again to avoid repetition as there's a sentence later in the paragraph which starts with 'however'.
  • However seems to be one of those words I've not quite got the hang of! I've removed it.

That's it for now, but I will of course come back to this and the comments by others later. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Layout
  • That's absolutely right, I hadn't spotted that it could be read two ways. I've amended as suggested.
  • Good point, 'reveal' makes more sense than 'find'.
  • It's a bit of jargon really (archaeologists often refer to walls which have been removed as 'robbed out'), but theft doesn't quite cover it so I've tweaked the sentence.
  • That's a much tidier way of putting it, so I've used your phrasing. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Factotem[edit]

  • Lead
  • Given that nothing remains, is it correct to refer to the castle in the present tense; "Buckton Castle is..." (lead), "Buckton Castle lies..." (Location), etc.? The tense gets mixed up a little in the Layout section; the first two paras start with "Buckton is...", the third with "Buckton Castle was...". Compare Buckton is a small highland enclosure castle with a 2.8-metre (9 ft 2 in) thick sandstone curtain wall. in the "Layout" section with It was surrounded by a 2.8-metre (9 ft) wide stone curtain wall in the lead.
  • I'm not sure you've used the convert template adjective parameter quite correctly. {{convert|2.8|m|ft|0|adj=mid|-wide}} will get you "2.8-metre-wide (9 ft)", which I believe is the correct way to represent the size of the curtain wall in that sentence. Similar issue with the convert template used in the "Layout" section.
  • "...and a ditch 10 metres (3 ft) wide by 6 metres (20 ft) deep" would eliminate the slightly inelegant "and...and".
  • Between 1996 and 2010 Buckton Castle was investigated by archaeologists as part of the Tameside Archaeology Survey, first the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit then the University of Salford's Centre for Applied Archaeology. The use of "investigated" seems wrong to me, and the second clause seems to miss a "by" or two. Maybe "Between 1996 and 2010 Buckton Castle was the subject of two archaeological excavations, first by the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit and then by the University of Salford's Centre for Applied Archaeology."?
  • Location
  • During the Middle Ages, Buckton Castle was at the eastern end of Cheshire. The county shared its western border with Wales. -> "During the Middle Ages, Buckton Castle was at the eastern end of Cheshire, a county which shared (shares?) its western border with Wales."? Starting that sentence with a statement of time made me wonder. I understand from the Tintwistle article that the area now lies in Derbyshire, so Both castle and valley were in the medieval manor of Tintwistle. might be better written "Both castle and valley were in the medieval manor of Tintwistle, now a parish in Derbyshire." I'm assuming here that Tintwistle is a parish and no longer a manor.
  • A manor was a division of land and administered by... I don't think that "and" should be in there.
  • Cheshire is a mostly lowland area, and Beeston is the only other castle as pronounced in the surrounding landscape -> "The county is mostly lowland, and Beeston is the only other castle in the area that rises as prominently above the surrounding landscape."?
  • History
  • The earliest castles in England typically used timber... -> "The earliest castles in England were typically constructed from timber...", and do you think this sentence would go better as the first sentence in this paragraph?
  • ...during which the ditch was created... "dug" instead of "created"?
  • My first thought was that "sherd" was a typo for "shard", so a link to sherds would be helpful.
  • The castle is first mentioned in 1360... This information is repeated in the "Later history" section, where I think it's better placed. And again, it indicates tense confusion - here you use the present tense, the second time the past tense.
  • It is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county and the earl had authority over who was permitted to build castles. The last part of the sentence suggests an earl could grant castle-building authority to someone else, and therefore does not support the statement at the beginning of the sentence that the castle was likely built by an earl. Was it the case that the earl had an authority to build castles on his own initiative that nobles in non-palatine counties did not? If so, then maybe "...Cheshire was a palatine county, giving earls the authority to build castles" would be better, at least in eliminating another "and...and" construction?
  • The earls were involved in the civil war of King Stephen’s reign in the middle of the 12th century commonly known as the Anarchy and the revolt against Henry II in 1173–74, both of which may have prompted castle building. -> "The construction of the castle may have been prompted by the earls' involvement in the the Anarchy, a civil war during King Stephen’s reign in the middle of the 12th century, or the Revolt of 1173–74 against Henry II"?
  • Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester wanted control of the earldom of Carlisle but during the Anarchy it and much of northern England come under Scottish control. The construction of Buckton Castle may have been to safeguard Cheshire. It's not clear why Carlisle is relevant. Maybe "Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester, may have built Buckton Castle to safeguard Cheshire during the Anarchy, when much of northern England had come under Scottish control"? Even if not, "4th Earl of Chester" needs a comma after it.
  • The dearth of artefacts recovered from Buckton Castle, and the lack of finely finished stonework, might indicate that the site was never finished, however the re-cutting of the ditch suggests either an extended period of occupancy or abandonment followed by repairs to the fortifications. The dearth either indicates or it does not, surely? Not sure you need that "might" there. I would also start a separate sentence with "However, the re-cutting...".
  • Later history and investigation
  • In the 18th century, people began treasure hunting at Buckton Castle, and in 1767 there were reports that one such venture had discovered a gold necklace and a silver vessel, though these artefacts have since been lost. I'd be tempted to split this sentence, "...at Buckton Castle. In 1767..."
  • In the 20th century it was suggested that Buckton Castle may have been an Iron Age hillfort, however... Either break this sentence into two, starting the second with "However...", or keep as one but replace "however" with "though"?
  • Since 1924, the castle has been designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument[23] which is intended to protect important archaeological sites from change. -> "In 1924, the castle was designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, a program designed to protect important archaeological sites from change."?
  • ...examine a possible outer bailey. As a result, the possible outer bailey was revealed to be a 20th-century feature and was probably related to nearby mining activity. Repetition of "possible outer bailey". Maybe "The latter was revealed to be a 20th-century feature, probably related to nearby mining activity."?
  • On two occasions (1999 and 2002) illegal digging by unknown parties... -> "Illegal digging by unknown parties in 1999 and 2002..."
  • More than 60 volunteers were involved in the excavations between 2007 and 2010, including the Tameside Archaeological Society, the South Trafford Archaeological Group, and the South Manchester Archaeological Research Team as well as university students. The "as well as university students" reads as if something is missing. Is it possible to name the university and amend the sentence to "More than 60 volunteers were involved in the excavations between 2007 and 2010, including teams from the Tameside Archaeological Society, the South Trafford Archaeological Group, and the South Manchester Archaeological Research Team, supported by students from ??? university."?
  • Layout
  • Buckton Castle was entered through a gatehouse in the north-west. It is 9.3 metres (31 ft) wide and 7.5 metres (25 ft) deep. -> "Buckton Castle was entered from the north-west through a 9.3-metre-wide (31 ft) by 7.5-metre-deep (25 ft) gatehouse.
  • The east side was occupied by the gate passage and the west a chamber. by a chamber?
  • ...until the late 20th century the overgrowth disguised the fact that it was a stone structure. -> "...until the late 20th century, vegetation obscured the existence of a stone structure."?

Hope this helps. Factotem (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factotem, thanks for taking the time to go through the article. I've replied to your comments below.
  • Lead
  • Nothing survives above ground, but there are the remains of a castle just beneath the surface so I think it makes sense to say 'Buckton Castle is'. Past tense is used when describing the ditch because the measurement refers to the original measurements rather than the current depth.
  • That's a good trick, I've used that in the article.
  • That would help with avoiding repetition so I've made the change.
  • 'Investigated' is pretty nebulous but used by the likes of [https://www.mola.org.uk/olympic-park-archaeological-investigations Museum of London Archaeology. I chose it because it covers topographical survey as well as excavation. I've added 'by' as suggested, but wonder if you would be happy sticking with 'investigated'?
  • Location
  • Thanks for the suggestions, that short sentence had been bugging me a little. I used past tense because the site is now in Greater Manchester, but that's only since 1974 so I've not dwelt on it.
  • Agreed and removed.
  • That's clearer, so I've changed it.
  • History
  • I hadn't considered that. I had been arranging it chronologically and then explained why the paleoenvironmental evidence was relevant, but re-ordering it makes sense and means it starts a bit less abruptly.
  • Changed to 'ditch was dug'.
  • Of course, that really should be linked.
  • That's fair I don't think the first mention needs to be in that section especially since the same point opens the next section.
That's as far as I've got tonight, more anon. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I adjusted this sentence based on some feedback above and have added more detail so it's clearer why the earl's authority over castle building is relevant. Hopefully that clears it up, but let me know if it needs more work.
  • Re-ordering the sentence makes it clearer so I've shifted it around as suggested.
  • To be fair, Carlisle isn't directly relevant to the point that Buckton may have been built to protect Cheshire so I've removed that bit and explained that a lot of northern England was under Scottish control.
  • Maybe you could be right about that one, so I've removed the hedging. As noted above I'm not the best judge of when to use 'however' – I tend to overuse it, not just here! – so I'm going to err on the side of sticking with 'but' as the contrast is still clear.
  • Later history and investigation
  • Those sentences stand on their own so I've split them as suggested.
  • This sentence was changed after some feedback above.
  • Being a scheduled ancient monument isn't a programme as such, so I'll stick with the current wording.
  • That's much better, thanks for that.
  • Done.
  • I've tried some different wording to see if that works.
  • Layout
  • I've merged the two sentences but removed 'wide' and 'deep' because the latter sounded a bit odd, as if the foundations go down a long way.
  • Done.
@Factotem: Thanks again for going through the article, those changes helped iron out a few points which I hadn't picked up on myself. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with the above, but:
  • I still find it odd that you write about the castle in the present tense when there is no castle visible, not even ruins. Those first three words set up an expectation of a structure, and it was discordant to see none in the lead image, and a bit of a surprise to later learn that there is nothing left above ground.
  • You've kept the phrase "used timber" in the "Construction and use" section. "The earliest castles were constructed from timber..." is, I think, more the level of concision that FAC tends to demand.
  • In the 4th para of that section, ...Cheshire has fewer per square kilometre... Might be worth explicitly stating that Chester has fewer castles per square kilometre, just to make it clear that you're not referring to the earls, which is where the sentence immediately preceding ended up on. Also, your edits have broken the end of the last sentence in that section (Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester wanted control of the earldom of Carlisle but d), and however it ends, "4th Earl of Chester" is parenthetical and still needs a comma after it.
  • There's another instance of ditches being created instead of dug in the first sentence of the "Layout" section. Factotem (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: In the end I've gone with the past tense for the lead to describe the castle; it's a steep walk uphill if you're expecting there to be walls. I've also swapped 'used timber' for 'constructed from timber', I think I just missed that one. And added in 'fewer castles' to make it clear what I'm walking about. And finally, I ditched 'created' and swapped it for 'dug'. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009[edit]

An interesting site. In terms of FA standards, I think that the text needs a little bit of work; in places it feels stylistically like an archaeological report rather than an encyclopaedia article, and there's a little bit of repetition.

  • "first the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit" - "first by"? Feels like there's a word missing
  • "The castle was probably built in the 12th century, but fell out of use soon after." - I didn't think this matched up with the main text, which says "The dearth of artefacts recovered from Buckton Castle, and the lack of finely finished stonework, might indicate that the site was never finished, however the re-cutting of the ditch suggests either an extended period of occupancy or abandonment followed by repairs to the fortifications." - if it may have been occupied for an "extended period", it didn't necessarily fall of out use quickly, surely?
  • The location and history sections cut backwards and forwards somewhat; I found it odd to be talking about a garrison and a surrounding manor, for example, before we've established when the castle was built.
  • "in Tintwistle's case it was part of the larger lordship of Longdendale." seems to lack a citation
  • "Compared to Herefordshire and Shropshire, which were also on the Anglo-Welsh border, Cheshire has far fewer castles per square kilometre. Most of the county's castles are close to the western border, and the eastern parts of Cheshire were amongst the poorest. " - I wasn't sure what this was trying to tell the reader about Buckton Castle - is there any way to rephrase it to focus back on the subject of the article?
  • "Construction and use" - this section doesn't actually say clearly that the castle was probably built in the 12th century; it might be worth spelling it out, as per the lead.
  • "but during the Anarchy it and much of northern England come under Scottish control" - "came"?
  • "Pennine Gritty Ware" - any way of linking this, or covering off in a footnote what it is? (or, if it's just a kind of pottery, it might worth simplifying the language a bit)
  • "the re-cutting of the ditch" - is there dating for this? I note that the infobox suggests that the castle was completed by the "late 12th century".
  • "and finally deliberate demolition" - I thought this needed explaining a bit further. If we're saying that the castle was deliberately pulled down, it needs highlighting in the lead and in the history. At the moment, we say that it was demolished, but only say that "These conflicts would also have provided a context for the deliberate destruction of the castle" - why, how, etc.?
  • "This usage may have been reprised in 1803 when a beacon hut is recorded near Mossley" - is Mossley near the castle? We haven't mentioned it previously.
  • "and later in the 1580s when the country was under threat of invasion" - worth noting who would have been invading?
  • "and in 1767 there were reports that one such venture had discovered a gold necklace and a silver vessel, though these artefacts have since been lost." - the first half implies that the discoveries might not be entirely true (otherwise, why mention "reports"?); the second half seems more definite that they *were* found and are known to have been lost.
  • "In the 20th century it was suggested that Buckton Castle may have been an Iron Age hillfort, however a study of hillforts in Cheshire and Lancashire found that Buckton was topographically different from these sites and therefore unlikely to have been built in the Iron Age.[21] Excavation in the 1990s demonstrated that the site was medieval, with no sign of earlier activity" - this feels out of sequence, since you then have a major section on modern archaeology two para's later. Also unclear if the 1990s archaeology is the same as that mentioned later, or something different. "it was suggested" - by who?
  • "It had also been suggested that the castle was a ringwork – a type of fortification where earthworks formed an integral part of the defence." - ditto, who did the suggesting?
  • "Buckton is a small highland enclosure castle with a 2.8-metre (9 ft 2 in) thick sandstone curtain wall." - unsure from the lead if the wall is still there or not...? Ditto tense of other remains.
  • "Constructed in the mid to late 12th century, Buckton’s gatehouse is the earliest in North West England" - the dating here seems expressed differently to the dating before ("probably 12th century", "Completed: Late 12th century" Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article Hchc2009. The style is probably partly due to the source material and partly because I was in the middle of writing a thesis when wrote this draft. There is also more emphasis on the archaeology than most other articles partly because with relatively little known about the site, the investigations actually form a substantial part of the site's 'biography'. Also since the investigations were restricted to just a few years, it's a relatively straightforward story to tell. Hopefully it hasn't gone overboard.
  • 'by' added after feedback above.
  • I was operating on different timescales when I wrote that bit. In the lead 'fell out of use soon after' really means 'wasn't in continuous uses for a couple of centuries' whereas the main text lays out the slightly conflicting evidence. I've simplified it to 'The castle was probably built in the 12th century and was first mentioned in 1360, by which time it was lying derelict.'
  • I see what you mean. My preference is to treat the 'location' as (quite literally) setting and having it early on. I included information on the manor and stuff to give some context to the landscape. Would it be as simple as moving the section after 'history' do you think?
  • I'll root around for the reference and add something for the bit about Tintwistle. Just added the citations for Tintwistle being in the lordship of Longdendale. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take a closer look at this. What I was trying to do with this part was show that Cheshire is a bit unusual compared to Herefordshire and Shropshire without going into the why which is mentioned later in the article. There's a similar issue with the economic aspect, which is explained later on. I'm struggling at the moment to weave this in without sounding repetitive in a short article, but if you think it's worth it I'll keep trying. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...ah. Thanks for spotting that, I've made the construction date more explicit in the body of the article.
  • Mercifully I've sorted this one.
  • We don't have an article sadly and while there's an image on Commons which could help make this bit interesting I've not heard back from the uploader about the licence issue. I was tempted to just say 'pottery' but with only four sherds it seemed a shame not to be specific. I'll have a think about including a footnote. Or perhaps I should see if there's enough to write an article about Pennine Gritty Ware.
  • I don't think so, but I'll double check. Unfortunately, no absolute dating evidence was recovered for the re-cutting of the ditch so we can only put it in a relative sequence. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went light on the details of the slighting since it relates to the topic of my thesis. I'll have a think about how to deal with this and keep my additions to 3,000 words or less. The slighting is now mentioned in the lead, and I've tried to explain the reasons for slighting in the 'construction and use' section. 'These conflicts would also have provided a context for the deliberate destruction of the castle' really was going too light on detail.
  • I've explained that Mossley is a settlement very close to the castle. I've mentioned Carrbrook and Mossley only in passing because they're not important in the medieval landscape but can add more if you think it's useful context for the later history.
That's all for now. I'll try to return to this tomorrow or Wednesday but failing that it'll be next week as I've got my viva coming up on Friday. Some wally thought it would be a good idea to nominate something at FAC at the same time. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009: Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy old week but I'll get round to addressing the rest of your comments soon. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've explained that it was the Spanish who were likely to invade.
  • I've changed the wording to say that while most of the treasure hunting seems not to have uncovered anything of note the 1767 digging did find something.
  • I'm not keen on being vague like this, but it's one of those things which is difficult to attribute. Forde-Johnson discussed Buckton and how topologically it didn't look like a hillfort so dismissed it as such, and was speaking to a standing assumption that it was but I haven't found the initial who. Since the haziness around suggesting it was a ringwork has been resolved below, do you think it would be ok to leave the ambiguity here? I've also moved this part further down, as it didn't quite fit with the chronology and cleared up the year in which the site was established as medieval.
  • I've put that it was King and Alcock.
  • I've swapped to past tense (and have done so in the lead) and explained that the wall isn't still standing.
  • The 'completed' field of the infobox wasn't updated when I refreshed the rest of the article so I've opted for the broader '12th century'. Because dating evidence is so sparse and 'mid to late 12th century' to my mind could run from about 1135 to 1200 it's not a terribly helpful description so I've dropped it. The 'history' section further up should give a better idea of when it is likely the site was in use.
Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Two-thirds of the citations are to a single source, Grimsditch et al 2012, but I expect this reflects its status as the best source on the subject. The sources are impeccably presented and are all of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Johnbod[edit]

Nice work - a couple of additional comments on the start:

  • "Buckton Castle is a medieval enclosure castle near Carrbrook, Stalybridge, England" - county/metro area here please
  • "Buckton is one of the earliest stone castles in North West England" - if none of the stone is now visible, maybe this should be clarified here? Presumably most the stone was removed, which is nowhere said, nor if some remains underground.
  • That's it. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Johnbod. I've added that the site is in Greater Manchester and clarified that nothing survives above ground. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks - now Support Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Great topic, but you may not be surprised to hear that I've never heard of the castle.

  • "It was first mentioned in 1360" Surely that's not true; what you mean is that it appears in the historical record in 1360, or something?
  • I'm not sold on the four short paragraphs for the lead; I'd think about consolidating into two longer paragraphs. Also, I feel "The site is overgrown with heather and peat, and there are no above-ground ruins." probably belongs earlier on; I think some readers might feel a little "cheated" to find out the castle they've been reading about doesn't quite match what they have in their mind's eye!
  • "in Tintwistle's case it was part of the larger lordship of Longdendale." Comma? Ref?
  • "archaeologist Rachel Swallow" As was drilled into me in a previous FAC of my own, false titles are often considered nonstandard/informal in British English.
  • I'm not sure I'm particularly sold on the two "stacked" images. The map is surely going to need to be clicked before it can be seriously perused; I'd drop it to a thumbnail (perhaps after a crop!)
  • "The castle is first mentioned in 1360" As above. I was struck by the lack of dates earlier in that same paragraph- can we be no more specific than "medieval"? Just how long are we talking between construction and slighting?
  • "earldom of Carlisle" Wikilink?
  • "William de Neville" Link? Don't be scared of redlinks if the subjects are notable.
  • "Tameside Council" Wikilink?
  • "antiquarian Thomas Percival" False title again

I like this article (I particularly enjoyed the "Later history and investigation") and commend you for the work you've put into it. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback J Milburn, sorry for the delay in replying – it took me this long to recover from the shock that you hadn't heard of this place. I'm glad you like the article, I hope it makes an interesting read and even pretty obscure sites can have an interesting history particularly into the modern period.
  • On reflection, it does sound a bit like no one so much as has a conversation about the castle before 1360. It's fairly common phrasing, but what it of course means is the earliest surviving record of the site is from 1360 which is what I've now put in the lead.
  • Yes, the lead didn't really need to be split into four like that. That's also a good point about mentioning earlier what people should expect, so I've moved it to the start of the third sentence.
  • Still need to sort this from one of the comments above, but I will get round to it. Now referenced and with a comma.
  • I think it's worth explaining to the reader why this person's opinion is relevant so have gone with 'According to Rachel Swallow, an archaeologist' which seems to work.
  • Yes; what I meant was that you should refer to her as "the archaeologist Rachel Swallow", rather than "archaeologist Rachel Swallow". Josh Milburn (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see, that's a much tidier way of doing it so I've popped that into the article and used the same approach when I mentioned Percival. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of the two images side-by-side, the map is essentially decorative. The article could do without it as there's a modern map further up, and the main reason I've included it is because people like old maps and there are only so many photos you can have of this castle and its landscape before it all starts to blur together. I've given it a slight crop, but you would still need to click on the image to bring out any detail and the castle isn't marked on the map. If you think it's worth getting rid of it, I can happily remove it.
  • I removed the bit about 1360 in the 'construction and use' section since it was sued to open the 'later history and investigation' section. We're sorely lacking firm dating evidence for the few phases at the castle, but I'll add a bit more in to say '12th century' and give some relative idea of when the slighting took place.
  • Factotem pointed out that it wasn't entirely clear how the earldom of Carlisle fitted into the picture, so rather than go off on a tangent I decided to remove that bit.
  • Redlink added for William de Neville.
  • I've also added a link to Tameside council.
  • Like with the one earlier, I've tried to deal with this by rearranging the sentence slightly. So now it reads 'In the 1770s, Thomas Percival, an antiquarian, recorded a well within the castle, close to the south curtain, and walls...'. There are quite a few commas there, so what do you reckon?
Thanks again and I'll put a note here when I've done a bit more as I wasn't able to resolve all your comments in one go. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Just to check status, Richard, it looks to me that you've completed actioning the comments of Tim riley and Hchc2009, and you're still working through Josh Milburn's -- is that correct? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I'd be interested in Josh's thoughts on the map in the 'location' section, but I think I've addressed the rest of the issues (albeit I didn't leave a note on here like I said I would). Richard Nevell (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that it doesn't bother me now; I'm not sure if something's changed or I've just warmed to it! I like the image a lot, so I'm glad it's in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry[edit]

This seems well on its way but I'll offer a few comments:

  • The link on "volunteers" looks like a bit of an Easter egg
  • The castle, close to the Buckton Vale Quarry, is a Scheduled Ancient Monument: is its proximity to the quarry relevant to its scheduled status?
  • I believe we need an inline citation at the end of the paragraph beginning "Partly because of the cost"

I fixed a typo but but that's the extent of the criticisms I can make. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, thanks for the support and fixing the typo.
  • It was a bit Easter eggy so I've changed the sentence to specifically use the phrase 'community archaeology'.
  • The scheduled area runs pretty much up to the edge of the quarry. It's not mentioned in the Historic England scheduled note, just visible on the map. I've explained in the body of the text that scheduling helped protect the site from the expanding quarry in the 1920s, but don't want to go into detail in the lead in case it sounds like the quarry is a threat today.
  • Good spot, I split the paragraph and forgot to copy the reference. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2018 (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) 03:48, 28 April 2018 [7].

André Messager[edit]

Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) and Tim riley talk 09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

André Messager was a French composer and conductor who became the last major exponent of opéra comique and French operetta. His best-known works today are probably the operetta Véronique and the ballet The Two Pigeons, but several of his other stage works enjoyed international success at the turn of the 20th century. He was also a leading conductor, in charge of Paris's top orchestra and both its major opera houses. He was a prominent musical figure not only in Paris but in London, running the Royal Opera House for six years and supplying the West End stage with a succession of his hits (and occasional misses). The article has had a recent peer review by an all-star team of reviewers, and we think it is now ready for FAC. We look forward to your comments. Ssilvers (talk) and Tim riley talk 09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although it wouldn't matter if it became FA, I notice that this article's talk page says that it has passed a Good Article review, but doesn't have the green symbol in the corner of the article! Is there a reason for this? Mojo0306 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly used to be. I wonder if it vanished for some technical reason when the "up for FAC" message appeared on the page. A bit odd if so. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was inadvertently removed with this edit. Fixed now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Lord! Was that me? I oughtn't to be let out. Thank you for rescuing me. Tim riley talk 19:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

  • "Messager's music became known for its melodic and orchestral invention, musical craftsmanship, and characteristically French elegance and grace." I'm not sure how neutral this is.
    • This uncited statement in the lead is backed up in the main text with cited statements. This is how I have habitually interpreted the rules about leads - except for direct quotes, don't usually cite. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • My worry wasn't so much that it was uncited, it was that presenting the claims in Wikipedia's "neutral" voice may not be appropriate. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Josh Milburn, given the material below in the article, can you suggest a more neutral formulation for "characteristically French elegance and grace"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't object to a cited direct quote. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Penguin Opera Guide has this: "Elegance, neatness, tripping melodiousness, orchestral refinement, and a decidedly French grace were the composer's hallmarks". Other quotes are on his "preference for light and airy compositions, on the borderland between comic opera and operetta. His music is always elegant, witty, in the best French style", "Messager’s style is characterized by fine orchestration (evident also in the ballet music), a gift for easy-flowing melody, often in a waltz rhythm, and a skill in writing music of a dance-like character," and "Tuneful it always is; trivial never. Supporting the lilting melodies is some masterly orchestration, rich in design, and typically French, with its emotional use of the woodwind, and its quaintly dramatic modulations". I think our existing sentence encapsulates these pretty faithfully. Tim riley talk 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disastrous stock market speculation" Ditto (also, isn't that a compound adjective? Dash needed!)
    • Hyphens, as Sir Ernest Gowers said, will surely drive you mad if you take them seriously. I think you're right here. The text is a verbatim translation of one of the sources "des spéculations boursières désastreuses ruinent la famille Messager". Sources in English concur. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1876 he won the gold medal of the Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique with a symphony, the work being warmly received when performed by the Concerts Colonne at the Théâtre du Châtelet in January 1878." Did this have a name?
    • The symphony? No. Only a key. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • We note in the list of Works that it was in A major. At one point in the article we call it his "Symphony in A", and I have added "in A" to another mention. Tim, do you now like the way we refer to it in all 4 instances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm rather in two minds about this, but I can think of examples of a composer's only symphony's being generally referred to by its key – Franck's in D minor, for instance, or Bizet's in C – though I can't really think why. Still if it's good enough for Franck and Bizet it's good enough for Messager. Tim riley talk 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cantatas" Link?
  • Are "opéras comique" and "opérette" common enough in English to go unitalicised? It seems our articles on the forms italicise.
    • Tricky. The WP article on the former italicises; the short bit on the latter doesn't. The terms come up a lot in the article, and unless people object to roman I'd rather avoid a sea of italics. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "burlesques motifs" Jargon!
    • I'm surprised at this: both common words, surely, and clear in context?
      • I agree with TR. The use of the word "burlesque" to mean parody is the first meaning given in two dictionaries I just consulted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understood the meaning, so I suppose it can't be specialist. I retract my worry! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Ste Marie-des-Batignolles a small church in the north west of Paris" Are you missing a comma, here? Also, I'd recommend against the piped link to the neighbourhood in place of the church.
  • "He later recalled that he had received by post an unsolicited libretto:" I'm struggling to understand this story. Some unknown person sent him an unfinished work, he finished it, then performed it? Or have I misunderstood?
    • No, that's his story. He found out who wrote it, of course. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason the story is interesting is that, after a series of unsuccessful works, an unsolicited libretto suddenly led to one of Messager's most popular works and the most commercially successful period of his composing career. Any suggestions as to how to make it clearer? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reading back, I understand this much better now. The problem was clearly at my end. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madeleine Hope Andrée" You specify the birth/death dates when you mention his first child- why not do that here?
    • Yes, I think we have her d.o.b. and d.o.d. in the sources. Shall add. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sciatica" Link?
    • Could do. Do you think anyone will click on it? Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd rather no* have people clicking away from our article to explore the unrelated medical topic of sciatica, especially as it did not significantly affect Messager's career and is not mentioned again. If it had been a life-long ailment, I would want to provide a link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again- I suppose I'm not convinced, but I am happy to concede. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Deburau worth linking? Don't be scared of redlinks! (This may apply to other compositions, but I'll not mention it again.)
    • Worth thinking about. It's a strange hybrid, and the redlink title will need to be carefully judged, esp. with the film and straight stage play of the piece to consider.
      • I would only redlink a work that I thought was likely notable. I think the criteria for linking/notability for theatre works should be a balance of the following factors: (1) Did it have a long and successful run? (2) In a major theatre? (3) Did it have a starry cast and/or creative team? (4) Did it receive significant coverage by the major reviewers? (5) Did it have numerous revivals or popular adaptations? (6) Did anything else of historic significance occur during the run? In this case, I assume that it starred Printemps, but was it otherwise an unremarkable, short-lived, rarely revived work, Tim? Were the film and stage play adaptations based on Messager's work or just other people's adaptations of common source material? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • They all revolved around Guitry. I have been toying with writing a brief article about it, but it isn't top of my list. Tim riley talk 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but in London the official censor, the Lord Chamberlain, declared it "unfit for the English public", and banned C. B. Cochran's planned production starring Printemps and Guitry" Why?
    • French. Too sexy. The source doesn't specify, but I get the impression that a middle-aged man posing as his own son for amorous reasons (if I have it right) was too much for the Lord Chamberlain.
      • Tim, should we add that the libretto contained adult situations? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't read the libretto, and I found this delightful gem in the archives of the New York Times. The reported facts are as stated in the present text of the article, and to go any further would be speculative. Tim riley talk 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His "Eh que ne parliez-vous?", from La Basoche was quoted" Curious comma use, and I think quoted is a little jargony.
    • You can quote a tune as well as a line of prose or verse. Seems the right term to me. Punctuation adjusted. Tim riley talk 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commented that from classic opéras comiques, such as" Possibly overlinking?
    • This has come up once before. There has grown up an entirely unofficial, and no doubt ultra vires, practice in musical Life and Works articles that it is helpful to link important terms at first mention in the Works section. The logic, I suppose, is that a Life and Works article is practically two articles in one, and not every reader of one section will want to read both. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments on the list of works: Hélène is incidental music to the play - not any kind of complete operatic work. According to Les Annales 1885 (p355-356) Le Petit Poucet is really a divertisement, with music by Verdi, Offenbach, Audran etc; the 3rd act ballet is original music by Messager - and possibly other bits of incidental music.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth adding a footnote about Le Petit Poucet; I'll knock one up. I think Hélène is adequately covered under "Stage works (except ballets) ... drame lyrique." Tim riley talk 08:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS Sorry another thing - Fortunio is in five acts not four - I think the Erato recording based on the Lyon production is at fault for confusing the issue. You can check the vocal score at IMSLP. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather a mystery. The copy of the libretto (pub. 1907) I am looking at describes the work as "Comedie lyrique en quatre actes et cinq tableux", and a quick flick through the text bears this out. But the vocal score (a better scan than IMSLP's is here), as you say, divides the work into five acts. Logic suggests that the libretto was printed first, and that the vocal score represents the final version. (This certainly applied on this side of la Manche, with the texts and scores of the Savoy Operas.) But this looks like a theatre bill or programme, judging by the header, and has the piece as en quatre actes. I've tried to look at the contemporary reviews via the BNF's online archive, but it's suffering from technical problems today. I'll try again later. Tim riley talk 08:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This may go some way to solving the mystery. The original version is here said to have 5 acts, and the 1910 revival was in a revised 4-act version. (The four-act vocal score is clearly labelled "2ème édition".) Both versions have been given since. I now think I misinterpreted the bibliographic details of the 4-act libretto: the date 1907 was the copyright date, and not necessarily the publication date. So I think what we need here is a footnote saying that the piece was originally in 5 acts, later revised to 4. Tim riley talk 09:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies. I am not sure I can find any more to comment on at this stage, you will be relieved to read. I am quite interested to find more examples of operatic babies swapped at birth (since I suspect the librettists of the P'tites Michus didn't know much about G&S. There must have known Il trovatore, and possibly others; (Vanloo's memoirs simply go on about them living in adjoining appartments). For now though, with thanks for all your work on this article, I will shut up again. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And merci, notre indispensable Général Boum! Tim riley talk 21:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there for a time; a really great read so far. Very engaging, even to someone as ignorant of the topic as I am... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments so far. Looking forward to more, but no rush of course. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Josh Milburn! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continued comments from JM[edit]

  • "one of the most poetic, most expressive works that have been written in France in the last twenty years" Is that quote correct? Shouldn't it be has been?
    • The arithmetic wouldn't work if you tried it the way you suggest: it is one of "the works that have been written". One of "the works that has been written" won't do. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that this is a difference between US and Brit English. We would certainly write "has", but I rely on Tim's understanding of Brit usage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'd write "the works that has been written"? Surely not. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • In US usage, it is "one ... that has been written." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • After pondering this overnight, I am reversing myself. The clause boils down to: one of [them] that have been written in France." Faure's point is not that it is "one ... that has been written in France", but rather that it is among the most expressive works that have been written. So I think Tim would be right in any case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • As long as the quote's accurate, there's no harm done, I suppose! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the ballet, unencumbered by the portentousness of the libretto which weighs down the rest of the piece, has remained in the repertory". Shouldn't that be that, rather than which? I wonder how accessible this sentence will be to some readers.
    • I don't mind "that" for "which", here, though the supposed distinction is not supported by Fowler and has been ignored by Dickens et al. I think Americans are keener on the distinction than English writers are: Ssilvers, any comments? Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be ", which" to complete the parenthetical phrase. Now fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The decade began well" Perhaps you could specify the decade?
    • Doesn't the heading "1890s" immediately above suffice? I'm surprised. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Tim that it is clear from both the heading and the next date given. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wouldn't how I'd do it, but I'm happy to concede the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't close the quote that begins "the influence of Die Meistersinger"
  • "The plot was not strikingly original: critics commented that its story of babies switched at birth was already very familiar from Gilbert and Sullivan operas." It's not clear what your reference for this claim is; is it the references in the footnote? At the moment, they look like references for details about Gilbert and Sullivan operas rather than references for the critical response to Les p'tites Michu.
    • Point taken. Will add a citation for the general comment rather than the particulars. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now done. Tim riley talk 20:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the description of Les p'tites Michu a little tricky to follow; it feels like it assumes that readers are familiar with the musical.
    • Hmm. I'll need to study this further and come back to you. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't attempt to provide plot summaries -- not even for Veronique. So, I think it falls under the heading of, "if you want more info, click on the blue link", doesn't it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action needed, just wanted to comment what a great footnote #20 is!
    • Thank you, but don't get me started on that critic! G W Lyttelton,(Humph's father), once wrote to a friend, "Have you any 'foolometers'—people whose advice you ask, knowing that exactly the opposite to it will be the right course?" Well...
  • "up to the end of his life, too"[155] Like Fauré," Missed full stop?
    • Indeed. Now added. You have a wonderfully eagle eye, and I hope your Wiki-colleagues realise it. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the quote beginning "André Messager is the most French of conductors" perhaps be a blockquote?
  • "Some later additions are listed below." I wonder if this should be avoided?
    • Alternative? Suggestions welcome. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with JM: Let's delete the sentence. I think it is clear enough from context that anything issued after 1991 would be an "addition". Is that ok, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "role creator"?
    • Someone who created the role. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was clear enough to me, when I first read it, but I wonder if a general reader who is not too familiar with theatre articles would understand. Could write something like "those who first played the roles in the original productions", but that seems so blobby. JM, can you suggest anything clear and elegant? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me (and I'm not familiar with theatre!) the role would be "created" by the writer, but I confess I can't think of an easy way of framing this. Is it particularly important that they were role creators? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, because it is a recording by the person who actually introduced the song in the original production. The role creator was the first person to have imbued the song with their own performing style and therefore sets a model for how the song may be interpreted by later performers. For a modern example, a recording of "Let it Go (Disney song)" by Idina Menzel should be identified as a recording by the role creator (sometimes called "role originator"), whereas a recording by, say, Katy Perry, would be a cover version. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as other contemporaries, Aino Ackté,[177] Emma Eames,[178] and John McCormack,[179] whose recordings have been reissued on compact disc" I wonder whether some dashes could help this sentence?
    • Yes, good. The poor old comma does get a bashing. I have often thought we need a super-comma that would subsume minor ones, but parenthetic dashes will do very well here. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All just suggestions! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And mostly exceptionally useful ones: thank you JM! Back anon to round off, and my co-nom will have responses, too. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent comments. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was one of the peer reviewers. Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Wehwalt, for support here and input at PR. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smerus[edit]

Support, certainly, an excellent article. Two minor niggles on a first reading (I might have further niggles on a further reading)

  • Niedermeyer's school. I've always heard of it as the École Choron or (as it was later known) the École Niedermeyer, on which there is an article in fr.wikipedia. According to that article it took the name "École de musique classique" only in 1880, long after Messager's time, and changed back to École Niedermeyer around 1900.
  • I really must get round to writing an En Wikipedia article, given its importance in the lives of two (and I hope three) composers I have successfully taken through FAC. I'll make sure the nomenclature here is right for its period. (Very well spotted, if I may say so.) Tim riley talk 15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Later: now attended to. Tim riley talk 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Les p'tites Michu - you mention that he received the libretto without solicitation, but as it was a such a success I think you might reasonably name the librettists.
  • Point taken, though we name all Messager's librettists in the table below. M. Ssilvers, what think you? Tim riley talk 15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is potentially a Pandora's Box in 2 ways. First, we do not mention the names of librettists, throughout the article, except in the table at the bottom and in footnote 18. If we mention the names for Michu, should we mention the names of the librettists of Veronique, Beaucaire and the others? Or, should we name the librettists for only the 4, 6 or 8 (or 10?) most popular/successful ones? Second, if we mention the French librettists, then, when we talk about the extraordinary London success of several of the pieces, which were considerably adapted for the London stage, should we name the English librettists? As it is, we appear to discriminate equally against all librettists.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've subsequently concentrated all the info about librettists and translators in the table in the works section, with mentions in passing in the text only where it seemed particularly apropos. Tim riley talk 17:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Smerus (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this, Smerus. And further niggles will be most welcome. Tim riley talk 15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments and support! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

  • Support. Another happy camper at PR, further read-throughs show this to have been improved from that high standard. Meets the FA criteria, and an interesting and engaging read. - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, SchroCat, for input at PR and your support here. Most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 15:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SchroCat! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Support with a few suggestions for consideration:

  • "the first complete French performance of Così fan tutte". Does this mean the first performance in French, or the first performance in France?
  • The latter, I think, but I'll check and clarify. Tim riley talk 11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kaminski in his Mille et Un Opéras states that the Théâtre-Italien in Paris performed it from 1809-1862 (there is also a mention of it on this page https://www.operadeparis.fr/en/visits/exhibitions/mozart/mozart-adapted-to-french-taste-1793-1830). In TJ Walsh's Second Empire Opera he describes a Carvalho production which changes the plot to that of Love's Labour Lost by Barbier and Carré (Peines d'amour perdues) - although apparently the music remained intact. The 1920 Cosi at the OC was (naturally) in French according to Kaminski. I hope this helps, perhaps not. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. That's presumably why the source particularly mentions the first complete Così in France. I am tempted to point out that Così didn't make it to America till 1922, but will resist the temptation. Tim riley talk 17:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC) OK - I imagine we'll never know how complete the Théâtre-Italien production was; let's give AM credit for this one.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " elder contemporaries" → " older contemporaries"?
  • "elder" gets the thumbs-up from Fowler, but I don't feel strongly about it, and would not be desolate if we changed it to "older". Tim riley talk 11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BB. Elder in America is now only used for siblings and statesmen. It looks antiquated to me. I'd vote "older contemporaries" if it is also correct in Brit. English. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Antiquated? My prose? Unthinkable. You have the casting vote, Ss, so by all means change. Tim riley talk 17:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Not antiquated, I meant "too elegant". -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it failed again, but the ballet, unencumbered by the portentousness of the libretto, which weighs down the rest of the piece...etc" Is this a WP judgement, or does the source say it?
  • "may be partly due to the effectiveness of their respective libretti" – I think "the relative" effectiveness of their respective libretti" makes the required point.
  • Recordings section: I would have preferred a brief summary, with a link to a subarticle detailing the various recordings. The present format is unrewarding to the general reader, and rather dense for someone seeking specific information.
  • I wouldn't violently object to that. Ssilvers, what think you? Not a difficult task if we agree with BB's suggestion. Tim riley talk 11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think the recordings section should get its own article. Someone just added a completely redundant "List of works" sub-article that doesn't help our readers at all and, if anything, will likely introduce a divergence of information about Messager's works that will distract readers in the future. We, the editors of the main article, will not maintain that article, so it may attract errors and cruft in the future. Let's just make sure that the first paragraph of the recordings section is a good summary, and then if people want to skip the next three more detailed paragraphs, let them do so. I've re-organized slightly to make the first paragraph a more "general" paragraph, followed by the details, and having just re-read the section, I don't think it's that much of a slog to get through. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ss: let us have a word about this by email rather than taking up space here. I don't see any problem in rejigging to meet BB's point but keeping the details on the main AM page. Tim riley talk 19:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a credit to both main editors. Brianboulton (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BB, for input at PR and your suggestions and support, above. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 11:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BB, but almost all of the hard work is Tim's! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from KJP1[edit]

Nothing to add to the, as usually, excellent prose and certainly nothing to contribute to the musical content. Would it help if I attempted a sources review? I've not done one previously but very happy to give it a go, following BB's essay as guidance. My only caveats - it may take a little while, as a consequence of my inexperience and your multiplicity of sources, and someone else may make a better job of it. KJP1 (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As we lack both an image and a source review your kind offer of the latter is most gratefully received. Time is not of the essence, and I think I speak for both nominators when I say we shall happily wait as long as it takes for your review. Tim riley talk 13:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine - shall set to. It'll be in batches, I'm afraid. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re images - If you wished to kill two birds with one stone, you could change the present photo of Mary Garden to one of her as Mélisande: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melisande.jpg or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melisande.jpg, but you may have a good reason to keep the current lower-resolution photo. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and here is the Mary Garden category at the Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mary_Garden. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, but the image is too long and would not fit easily. Tim, perhaps one of the other Commons images from a role was conducted by Messager? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We used to have a photo of M Garden as Mélisande, but if memory serves it was voted down. The existing one is conveniently small. Tim riley talk 19:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Garden as Mélisande has been rejected because the photographer of the cover of the magazine is potentially not dead enough (ie 1948?)... pity. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - batch 1[edit]

Batch 1 - Published sources given in the sources section are all of high-quality and the ISBNs/OCLCs all check out on Worldcat. A few queries:

  • Book 2: Bradley, Ian - Worldcat lists G, S and Bradley as the authors, while Googlebooks gives G&S as the authors and Bradley as the editor?
  • If one were, perish the thought, being pedantic, neither WorldCat nor our article is strictly correct. The book consists of Gilbert's libretti on the right-hand pages and Bradley's explanations, glosses, notes and anecdotes on the left-hand ones. Sullivan's music is not reproduced. I can change the author to WSG and make Bradley the editor if you wish, but I think the import is clear from the title of the book, and it's Bradley rather than Gilbert we're referring to here. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely get the point. Leave as is. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Bradley is the author of all the analysis and commentary. It's his book. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book 7: Franceschina, John - oddly, Google books is giving me a publication date of December 2017, rather than 2018, although the snippet does have 2018. And I think the publisher is a single word BearManor, or actually BearManor Media.
  • Happy to change the spacing, damnedsillyspelling notwithstanding, but not sure what to do about the year. Your call. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the damnedsillyspacing should change as it's their damnedsillyspacing but the book clearly has 2018 on the frontispiece so I'd leave that! KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 19:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 12: Holoman, D. Kern - there's no consistency at all in the Worldcat listings but, for internal consistency per your listing, I wonder if Concerts du Conservatoire should be capitalised?
    • French capitalisation is an arcane mystery to the Anglo-Saxon. Our MoS says one thing and general French usage says the opposite, and both are right, or at least not wrong. There is no firm rule as there is in English or German. Consistency is desirable, but not, in my view, at the expense of going against an author's preferred version. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to play Devil's Advocate, since we are following the MOS rule on capitalization of the opera names, now, and since English readers expect caps, why not go with the caps in the book list? I think the book authors will be very happy that we are bringing attention to their works. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that if you care to do the honours, Ss. Tim riley talk 19:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book 19: Morrison, Richard - the full title is Orchestra: The LSO - a Century of Triumph and Turbulence. Would it help the reader to know its focus is the LSO?
    • On the copy on my shelves the only title on the spine is Orchestra, with the other six words appearing in smaller print on the title page. But no harm in adding the subtitle if wanted. Yours to command. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As above, let's have it as the actual book has it, i.e. the single word. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't feel strongly, but I think KJP1's first instinct is right: The subtitle gives essential information to our users. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll add. Tim riley talk 19:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book 20: Rollo Myers - again there's no consistency, but he appears more commonly to publish as Rollo H. Myers.
    • I noticed that when I was looking him up, but again, I feel we should abide by the author's preference even if he changed it later or earlier. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book 25 - Pearson, Hesketh - perhaps Harmondsworth, UK, as I don't think it's a commonly known place? Also, I wonder if it's worth noting it's a 1954 reprint of a 1935 original. In other instances, you list the edition.
    • I think this is indeed a straight reprint rather than a new edition, so I wouldn't mention that. Good idea about the location. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And understood again. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book 28: Rosenthal, Harold - You'll know better than I but Worldcat is giving the Earl of Harewood as co-author, although Googlebooks doesn't. Did Lascelles write a foreword?

End of Batch 1. KJP1 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly cut out for this. Taking to it like a duck to orange. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - batch 2[edit]

Batch 2 - inline sources not to the main published books. I'll list them all to check they're working but will embolden any comments, queries.

  • Sources 3/5/19/71 - can't access them as I don't have Grove Online but they work;
  • Sources 6/27 - work fine. Support the contents, as far as my French allows me to check;
  • Source 8 - can't access as subscription site;
  • Source 23 - works fine but does it need an "=" in the title?
Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 30 - fine and supports the content;
  • Source 41 - supports the content. I do like "Messager's music has not pleased the public";
  • Source 46 - supports the content;
  • Source 53 - supports the content;
  • Source 55 - can't access this subscription site but it works;
  • Source 57 - another subscription site and in French. But it works;
  • Source 70 - due no doubt to my very poor French, I am not seeing the quote on the linked page. Are we linked to the right page?
  • This is a bit of a pain. Owing to the construction of the site the page you have reached is the nearest you can get by url link to the actual page, which doesn't have its own url and is linked to from this one. I thought of explaining this in the citation, but a concise way of explaining it eluded me and still does. If you go back to the page you will see on the left a little below the middle "Articles de presse" and the first of those links is the one in question. There's another such one to a different page of the same site later with the same problem. Tim riley talk 15:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see the problem and can't see a solution either. Lets leave it. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh... Since there are two links with the same date, I think we should say that the quote is contained in the first one listed below "Articles de presse". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a slight throbbing about the temples as my brain overheats. Ss, I have every confidence, without fully understanding it, that what you suggest is a good idea, and I suggest you implement it. Tim riley talk 17:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See if you like it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That will do nicely. Much more concise than I had managed to conceive. Tim riley talk 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 83/88 - can't access this subscription site but it works;
  • Source 91 - Is the wrong program listed here? Programs: 90e année: 1916–17 shows me a Swiss tour and a, cancelled, Spanish tour. I think the French provincial tours are earlier?
  • Source 95 - can't access the relevant page but the link works;
  • Source 96 - can't access this subscription site, at least not without parting with $22, but it works;
  • Source 101 - supports the content;
  • Source 111 - supports the content;
  • Source 113 - supports the content;
  • Source 121 - can't access either but they both work;
  • Source 129 - can't access it but it works;
  • Source 130 - can't access it but it works and it's certainly about two pigeons;
  • Source 153 - supports the content;
  • Source 159 - can't access but it works;
  • Source 166 - Isn't the Discography Appendix 5 rather than Appendix 4?
  • Fixed. I genuinely wonder if the linked site has been rejigged since we linked to it. Two egregious errors in relation to it would seem strange. Tim riley talk 19:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 168-193 inclusive - all present and correct;
  • Source 205 - well, I didn't see 'em in the intro, but I did skip the 175 pages of reproduced score!
  • Source 207 - supports the content;
  • Source 208 - I think you've an unnecessary closing bracket ] at the end of The Little Michus instead of a ";
  • Source 209 - supports the content.

Source review - batch 3[edit]

Batch 3 - FAC source criteria

1c - well-researched
  • The sources are all of high quality, the article is thoroughly researched and, as far as my meagre knowledge of Mr. Messager goes, appears to cover the relevant literature. The article is very well supported by a depth of inline citations. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2c - Consistent citations
  • The citing is consistent throughout. One quick query - Source 151, The Guardian, 2001, has "p. H17". Is the H a section of the paper? KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - batch 4, and final[edit]

Batch 4 - spot-checks against non-online sources

Looking at some other source reviews from the Riley FA stable, and at Brian's very helpful essay, I'm not at all sure spot-checks of content against sources are really necessary. You're both hardly first-time nominees! And I have done a fair few with the online sources. That said, I'm very happy to stroll over to the University of Manchester Library where I'm certain they'll have some of the offline sources. But it'll be the early part of next week before I can get there. KJP1 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
T. Riley of Liverpool comments: Good Lord! They have libraries in Manchester? Your call, of course, but I doubt if the coordinators will wish you to go to that trouble for two serial offenders such as Ssilvers and Tim riley. I shall now get back to following up the outstanding points in your review. If I may say so, the review is a splendid job for a first attempt, and has properly put the nominators on their mettle. Tim riley talk 18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your checks above are superb, and your sharp eye has helped us to improve the article. It is up to you as to whether you wish to be so generous as to check the offline sources, but everything you have done already has been exceedingly helpful! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think – mind I say I think – we have dealt with all your points, KJP. Over to you. Tim riley talk 19:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have indeed. And from my perspective you are fine on the sources. I'm very confident that a spot-check of those offline isn't necessary. It's been a pleasure. As Tim knows, I'm a musical illiterate, but I now feel I know Messager like a brother. It's a superb article and I'd happily Support, except I don't think one does after a source review. But you're there without, for which many congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Well, warmest thanks for your scrupulous review. I echo Ssilvers in thanking you for helping us to improve the article. Tim riley talk 20:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, for future reference, it's true that most source reviewers don't state "support" on the basis of that alone -- if they declare they're satisfied with the results of the inspection then that's what matters -- but if a source reviewer also happens to look at other key elements such as prose and comprehensiveness and are happy with those, there's no reason they shouldn't declare their support outright. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose - Ian, many thanks. I enjoyed it but Brian's not wrong, it's time-consuming! KJP1 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up all three posters
    • Done, I think. Glad if you (and any other interested editor) will check they now look OK, and perhaps tweak if not. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:André-Messager-c1888.jpg: where is that publication date coming from?
    • The publication date given by the Bibliothèque nationale de France is "18..". Our man is still youngish, and hasn't yet lost his hair, but the date is evidently after 1886 as the picture was published with a few bars from Le Deux pigeons (1886) printed below it over the composer's signature. 1888-ish seemed a fair guess, but I now see The Association l'Art Lyrique Français says 1890, and I have amended our date to match. Details on the image page adjusted accordingly. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Melisande.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't of course. (I sometimes wonder if anyone has ever posted a picture to Commons with reliable information.) Now replaced with a {PD-US-1923-abroad} image. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thank you very much for the review. I hope the replies above are satisfactory. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

This has not been open too long but has attracted in-depth commentary and has been stable for several days, so I think we can safely close. A couple of minor stylistic points when you have a minute:

  • I see a fair few duplinks using the checker; I think in most cases the links occur once in Life and career and once in the Music section, in which case fair enough but pls review in case there are genuine redundancies.
  • Under Recordings we'd probably prefer the subsections with L4 headings rather than bolded, unless MOS explicitly supports the latter.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! I don't see any that occur in the text more than once in "Life and career" and once in "Music". -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2018 (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) 04:38, 28 April 2018 [8].

Porlock Stone Circle[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of two surviving stone circles dating from the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age that are located in Exmoor, southwestern England. The other, Withypool Stone Circle, is already rated as an FA, and this short article is presently a GA. Those with an interest in archaeology and/or the West Country might like to give it a read. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Factotem[edit]

  • Lead
  • Porlock Stone Circle is a stone circle located near to the village of Porlock in the south-western English county of Somerset. It is found within Exmoor. -> Porlock Stone Circle is a stone circle located on Exmoor, near to the village of Porlock in the south-western English county of Somerset."?
  • ...with the stones perhaps having supernatural associations for those who built the circles. -> "...and the stones perhaps had supernatural associations for those who built the circles."?
  • The term "religion" isn't really used in some of the RS, so I've changed this prose to "The purpose of such monuments is unknown, although archaeologists speculate that the stones represented supernatural entities for the circle's builders." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...possibly indicates... Never sure about this. It either indicates or it doesn't, surely? Maybe replacing both with "suggests" is better?
  • Location
  • I'm not sure why the lead gives more details about the location than this section does. The lead summarises the main body, so I think the details should be repeated here. Also, Porlock should be linked.
  • Three of the four sentences in the 1st para begin "The circle...". Any way of mixing it up a little to avoid the repetition?
  • Context
  • They are most densely concentrated in south-western Britain... Is there any reason why you use "Britain" here, when generally you've used "England"?
  • There's no particular reason. I suspect that I just followed what term that the original RS used (although I could be wrong about that). Happy to change the language if you think it necessary; "Britain" is perhaps a more neutral term given that it has a pan-historical geographical, as opposed to purely national (and more temporally restricted) meaning - plus there are always the Cornish nationalists who insist that Cornwall is not (or at least should not) be considered part of England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair enough to say that "Stone circles are found in most areas of Britain...", as you do. It does seem a little odd to then say "They are most densely concentrated in south-western Britain...", given that, a) you've generally used "England" up to that point, and b) you finish that sentence with a specific mention for Scotland. Notwithstanding the sensibilities of the Cornish nationalists, that region is nevertheless officially part of England, but at the end of the day, this is just a nitpicky point concerning consistency. Not a huge issue, and not something I'd oppose on. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "south-western Britain" to "south-western England" here, as you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description
  • ...a strong chthonic element... "Chthonic" is a great word that I've never heard of before. It definitely needs to be linked. Maybe you could add an explanation, but that's a little awkward to do elegantly when its part of a quote.
  • I've added a Wiktionary link to the word. Hopefully that should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archaeologist Mark Gillings... in the 2nd para. He's already been introduced, so you can simply write "Gillings...".
  • 57 metres (187 feet) to the southeast of the circle's edge is a linear setting of small stones. is a MOS:NUMNOTES no-no. "There is a linear setting of small stones 57 metres (187 feet) to the southeast of the circle's edge." would fix it.
  • ... it would suggest that Porlock stone circle... Missing a "the" before Porlock.
  • ...carried out by the archaeologists Mark Gillings and Jeremy Taylor of the University of Leicester Again, Gillings is already introduced as an archaeologist. My feeling is that you could just leave it up to the reader to divine that Taylor is also an archaeologist, but if you want to be explicit, maybe "...Gillings and fellow archaeologist, Jeremy Taylor of the University..."?
Did you miss this? Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I must have done, my apologies. I have gone with your proposed wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which Gilling's team... "Gillings's" per MOS:POSS.
  • Stones have also been added to the circle in recent years; thus heritage managers face a question as to whether they should remove the more recently-added stones or to accept these as part of the circle's on-going biography. Not sure that that's a correct use of hyphenation in "recently-added". I would be tempted to simplify this sentence as "Stones have also been added to the circle in recent years, and heritage managers face the question as to whether they should be removed or accepted as part of the circle's on-going biography."
  • Sources
  • I don't see any problems with the quality of the sources, and all books are from reputable publishers.
  • I checked a random set of seven refs across four different sources that could be viewed online, mostly in GBooks previews – Burl 2000 (ref #16), Gray 1950 (#19 & #24), Gillings & Taylor (#37 & #38), Hutton (#6 & #9) – and found only one niggle: the source for the statement ...in 1950 Gray could identify 21 stones as part of the circle... does not make clear in which year, 1928 or 1950, Gray identified the 21 stones; not something that leads me to doubt the veracity of sourcing.
  • You've dated Excavation and Survey at Porlock Stone Circle and Row, Exmoor to 2015, but the SANH index dates it to 2014
  • The journal in question is printed with the year "2015"; it may be that it was actually released in 2014, but "2015" is the number on the front cover, so I think it would cause confusion to go with "2014". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've dated Geophysical Survey at Porlock Stone Circle to 2012, but the linked document and the SANH index dates it to 2011.
  • I believe it's preferred to use consistent ISBN formats for all books. The ISBN-13 for Riley and Wilson-North's The Field Archaeology of Exmoor is 9781873592588, according to the Worldcat listing.
  • They should all be consistent now (someone else is responsible for that, so my thanks go to them). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if this worldcat record provides a valid oclc number for the Proceedings of the SANH Vol 74 listed in the bibliography? I couldn't find any such records for volumes 155 and 158, though I must confess the search was becoming a tad boring and I abandoned it before completion.
  • I'm facing the same issue. I can't find OCLC numbers for the specific volumes being cited. Given that they are journals rather than books, maybe they don't have any? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps Factotem (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few more comments:

  • The lead is quite short. I wonder if a bit more of the description can be summarised there?
  • You're right, it is. I've added a few sentences mentioning the dimensions of the circle, the nature of the stones, and the adjacent cairn. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead gives a date range of 3,300 to 900 BCE, but in the main body, the only figure mentioned is the slightly different 3,000 BCE, and 900 is not mentioned at all.
  • I've added mention of the 3,300 to 900 BCE date to the article, using Burl as a reference. I've also made sure that it's added to all the other GA and FA rated stone circle articles I've worked on too (so well spotted!). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burl gives us the broadest date range in which stone circles were erected (which has been ascertained by looking at absolute dating evidence from a variety of different sites). Obviously, it did not take over two thousand years to build the Porlock ring (or did it....?) so it has been produced at one particular date within that range. Given that archaeological excavation has not revealed any charcoal or anything else that could be used to ascertain absolute dates for the construction of the circle, archaeologists are relying on educated guesswork as to when it was built. Gillings for instance thought it might be Middle Bronze Age, which would put it nearer to the latter end of Burl's wider date range. I'll try and incorporate some additional prose making it clearer when the circle was likely erected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've double-checked Gillings' write up of his excavation and it does not give proposed dates for the monument (merely a reference to the circle perhaps being middle Bronze Age). I'm not sure that the ENP booklet is particularly reliable in this context, so I'd rather just leave the nature of precise dates absent. Hopefully—and this is a point Gillings makes in his article—more targeted excavation can be carried out in future which will provide good evidence for the date of construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Happy with that. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fuller archaeological investigation in 2013 revealed eighteen stones, eleven of which are upright and eight of which are fallen Doesn't add up.
  • You're right, but this is exactly what the source says: "This exercise succeeded in identifying 18 stones - 11 upright and 8 fallen - as well as relocating Stone B through excavation." Perhaps it's a typo in the original? I don't really know what course of action to take here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest ignoring the total and simply state that the exercise revealed eleven upright and eight fallen stones. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it slightly odd that a 2009 survey found 10 stones, and the dig only four years later found 18 (or 19). Maybe a brief statement explaining the discrepancy, if possible (are the additional stones those that have been recently added, or did the dig unearth buried stones)?
  • The article doesn't explicitly say, but it would seem that these are mostly stones that have been added in the interim. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I googled porlock stone circle, but other than the ENP booklet (which, aside from the date question, is not a significant source), could find nothing to suggest that the article is not comprehensive or is not a full survey of the sources.

Factotem (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all your comments, Factotem. I think that I have responded to all those requiring a response, although in some cases you may have a follow up question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more, very minor points that need responses, either here or in the article, inserted above. I would also add that I'm not too keen on using the dashes where an author is repeated in the bibliography. If someone carelessly inserts a new source by a different author between the two, then it will get messed up. That's a personal view, and a somewhat nitpicky one at that. I don't believe there's any policy that says you can't do this, so it's not going to affect the support I will be happy to give once the last minor points are addressed. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have now covered everything, Factotem. Again, thanks very much for your time and attention on this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

  • "although more recent assessments regard it as a different form of monument, known as "stone settings"" I wonder if there's a singular/plural problem here? I.e., should this be "although more recent assessments regard it as a different form of monument, known as a "stone setting""? Maybe not. Also, I wonder if it's worth linking "stone setting" and creating a stub? I've never heard of this, and I'd be interested to know the difference between a stone circle and a stone setting(s).
  • I've created a page—Stone settings (Exmoor)—through which to expand a little more on this particular monument type. As for the singular/plural issue, I've altered the prose to the following to deal with the issue: "although more recent assessments regard it one of the stone settings, a different form of monument which is more common across Exmoor." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "standing stones, and linear stone settings" This could also be interpreted as unexplained jargon
  • I've linked "standing stones" to Menhir and will see what I can do with "linear stone settings"; it may entail creating another page anew. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made the distinction clear between "stone settings" and "linear stone rows"; and linked the latter to Stone row. I hope that that cleans up that problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "micaceous sandstone"
  • "into the article" is an odd construction. Also, I'd imagine "chthonic" isn't going to be familiar to many readers (but I may be wrong).
  • I've changed "article" to "circle"; that may have just been a silly error. As for chthonic, I'm just not sure if there are any alternative terms or synonyms that could be used. Perhaps I could wikilink it to the Wiktionary entry? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel we never really got to the addition of the stones. Do we know anything more about this? Why were they added? Which stones are new? When were they added? Who added them? (I'm guessing we really don't know!)
  • Unfortunately, I don't think that the RS really delved into this at all - it remains a bit of a mystery. I don't imagine that the site attracts a great deal of visitors, and of those it receives I can't imagine many of the 'archaeology' lot being interested in adding stones; indeed, they'd probably regard it as desecration! My suggestion would be that the stones have been added by those with Earth mysteries interests (some of whom regard it as appropriate to alter, or in their eyes 'correct', such monuments), or those who see the circle largely as a marker in the landscape rather than a site with specifically archaeological value (must as how walkers add stones to cairns in various hiking areas). This, of course, purely my own conjecture and could not be put into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A very strong article. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Josh. They proved useful in improving the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two other quick comments:

  • The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany is apparently The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland, and Brittany. Does your copy look different to that?
  • I've just looked at my hard copy of the book; it definitely lacks that Oxford comma. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have you italicised "National Heritage List for England"?
  • It's not intentional, it's just that I included it in the "website" part of the citation, and that automatically italicised it. I shall change it to "publisher"; that should convert it into a non-italicised situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Whats with the formatting of the sources? Its ok to repeat source names, rather than type ------- Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me Ceoil, but I don't quite understand the above comment. Could you elucidate further? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means repetition of the author names, replacing them with that rather strange horizontal line. Eric Corbett 10:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well, we have the dash to avoid repetition in several other FAs, including the thematically linked Withypool Stone Circle (which is the TFA of the day, if anyone's interested). So it's just about keeping a level of standardisation to articles on the same broad topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eric Corbett[edit]

  • You've got "south-west" in the Location section but "northeast" in the Description section. Eric Corbett 10:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Richard Nevell[edit]

First of all, good work on an interesting article. I like the approach taken to giving broader context to understand the site, particularly where there are holes in our knowledge. I also like the amount of detail on the investigation of the site as that shapes our understanding and is part of its later biography.

The lead gives a proper summary of the subject and I think it’s a sensible move to state early on that we’re not entirely sure of their purpose. I like the way the ‘location’ section mentions other Bronze Age monuments visible from Porlock Stone Circle. Is there any chance of a map to go with it? The Environment Agency have made their LIDAR data available under an open licence, and the area around the circle has resolution of 0.5m which might show off the landscape quite nicely, perhaps with markers for key features. I think it would be worth saying how close Berry Castle is, because the phrasing in this section makes it sounds like they’re adjacent. The article on Berry Castle indicates it’s an Iron Age or Roman site rather than Bronze Age, so it might be worth noting that. It’s possible a publication somewhere may have commented on the visibility between the two sites.

The ‘context’ section does a very good job of giving background information for this type of site and Exmoor generally. The one thing I’d change is that here you have ‘Mike Parker Pearson suggests that’ whereas later on you have ‘Leslie Grinsell suggested that’ and ‘Gillings suggested that’ so it would be worth double checking the tenses. The ‘description’ section notes that some stones were removed for road metalling, do we know roughly when that was? Would it be possible to comment on the significance of the ‘inversion of the upright stone ideal’ and what Gillings thinks this may have been meant to convey? In the ‘investigation’ section, for the 1928 digging it’s mentioned that no charcoal was found but it’s not immediately clear why this is mentioned. Would it be worth mentioning in the lead that despite excavations no dating evidence has been recovered for when the circle was built? I see Josh asked about the added stones; it’s a shame we don’t more but of course we have to work within the constraints of the available sources. The discovery of the wheel seems significant and while the uncertainty over the dating is tricky to tackle in the lead where you want to be clear and concise, but I think it would be worth trying.

It’s a small world, the 2009 survey in Exmoor was one of the fieldwork options when I was doing my undergrad degree at Leicester. It’s interesting to see the site written up for the public. Would it be worth contacting Mark Gillings to cast an eye over the article? Richard Nevell (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard and thanks for taking the time to offer your comments. As per your suggestion, I have changed "Mike Parker Pearson suggests that" to "suggested that" to ensure consistency. As for a map of the landscape, I'd certainly be interested in seeing such an addition made (although I'm not sure if there is much room), however I'm not in the position to spend time making such a map at present. Your other comments require a little more thought and investigation so I will have to get back to you on those. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the mention of no charcoal being found in the 1928 excavation, Gray does not explain the relevance of this absence; he simple states that "no 'relics' were found nor any charcoal". Presumably he said this because charcoal was known to be something found at other stone circles and prehistoric sites. Obviously, these days charcoal is exciting for archaeologists because it can be used in radiocarbon dating, but this was not he case in Gray's day so it could not have been this which he was referring to in his article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with your suggestion, I have made mention that no absolute dating evidence has been found to the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments, Richard. Was there anything else that you wanted to add; any follow up questions or the like? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly happy with the article and have no further questions so have moved to support. If Gray thought it was worth mentioning that there was no charcoal, it's worth including in the article - it's just a shame he didn't explain why he thought it was important as it leaves us with OR to fill in the gaps. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clear, well written, evidently comprehensive, widely and well referenced, with good images. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. And is a jolly good read too. Tim riley talk 10:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Like Withypool, an interesting read, clearly well-researched, and does a good job of putting together what is known and identifying holes in current knowledge. A few comments, but just nit-picking, not anything that should hold up promotion (assuming Richard is happy above):

  • about forty-three stones in the circle about seems an odd preposition to a precise figure.
  • Here I followed Gray's words exactly; he estimated that it would have included "about forty-three stones". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The year it was scheduled might be worth including.
  • I couldn't find the exact year, but I have included the law under which it was scheduled (the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, you might consider a very brief definition of scheduling for the uninitiated.
  • I've added "giving it a level of legal protection from alteration." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • heritage managers face the question as to whether they should be removed Is there any clear consensus on this? Or a notable controversy that could be mentioned?
  • Unfortunately not; if was pretty much just a passing comment in one of Gillings' articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have five statements of support and the images and sources have checked out okay. Unless there's anything else that anyone wishes to add, it might be time for promotion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2018 (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) 05:40, 28 April 2018 [9].

Borodino-class battlecruiser[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Construction of the Borodino-class battlecruisers by the Imperial Russian Navy began before World War I, but the war prevented delivery of components ordered from abroad and construction was abandoned. After the Russian Civil War was over in 1922, one ship was considered for conversion into an aircraft carrier, but this was rejected and all four ships were scrapped. The article failed a FAC back in '10, but it's been recently reworked by me and kindly copyedited by John (talk · contribs) to bring it up to standard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi[edit]

  • All clear here. You don't need to see his identification. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking. I gather that your sourcing tool is working well?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you know, the script is completely irrelevant and useless for articles which do not employ templates. I have already opened up a can of Lingzhi rant on Tim riley this week; don't make me come back there! ... oh wait, yours has cite templates in the bibliography but no sfn.. yeas, the script says your bibliography is ok and my MSWord sort plus eyeballing each item one by one says your references are ok too. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gathering that this check is on source formatting alone, in which case we'll still need a check for reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have consensus to promote so I've checked the sources myself and see no prima facie issues with reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:NEP5224Izmail.JPG: what was the date of the original publication?
    • 2003 or there abouts. Deleted. Pity, though, that I can't find any out-of-copyright line drawings to substitute for this.
  • File:IzmailConstruction.jpg: the FUR for this image is not very strong, the fair-use tag is incorrect ('unique historic images' is intended primarily for cases where the image itself, not just the thing pictured, is historic), and is any further information available about its provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a plethora of these images all over the net, but I've been unable to determine the provenance of any of them. But I'd suspect that most of them came from Russian-language books. Which, of course, does nothing to to prove publication before 1917. So what FUR tag would you suggest? I haven't worked with any of them for a half-decade or more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just a few comments

  • The link from the article talk page to the FAC nom doesn't seem to be working right.
  • "with orders and some components had to be ordered from abroad" order/ordered
  • I'm not sure what you mean here.
  • Perhaps find another word to avoid the close near-repetition.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "increasing the calibre of their guns in their battleships.[3]" I would change the first "their" to "the".
  • Agreed.
  • "The design of the Borodinos armour was similar in construction to that of the Ganguts" I am thinking there needs to be an apostrophe somewhere.
  • Concur.
Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I spy a few duplicate links
  • I made a few tweaks - see if they suit. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • They look fine. And I could've sworn that I'd cleaned up all the dup links before the nom! Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – note that you may not have answers to all of these, as they might just not be in the sources.

  • Is there a reason that you've written the specifications in a tense that sounds like the ships were completed? :-)
    • Two reasons, they were built, albeit not finished, and that's the tense that McLaughlin uses.
      • Hmm. I'm looking at lines like "The ships' primary armament consisted of ...", even though the turrets (and rangefinders!) were never actually fitted.
  • Where are you drawing the line between design and development vs. construction? Some overlap there.
    • That's a fair cop, so I've moved the bit about the foreign delivery problem to the construction section.
  • Do you have any information on the rejected designs?
    • Only a little.
  • Why did it take so long for Izmail to be scrapped?
    • Probably because she was the one nearest to completion and thus would have been the cheapest to finish, but that's not stated anywhere.
  • "The additional gun turret and consequent increase in the size of the ships raised their estimated cost by 7 million rubles each ..." – was this before or after the appropriation? I'm assuming after, given the need to raid money intended for the cruisers, but you should make this more clear.
    • The preceding sentence says that the Duma approved the budget before the design was finalized, so that seems clear enough.
  • "... mostly because the turrets were seriously delayed." – were aforementioned foreign components the only reason for the delay in the guns?
    • McLaughlin says that many parts for the turrets were foreign, including some of the guns, but also mentions shortages of steel for the armour.
  • "Various plans were made for the post-war completion ..." – when was this? Post-war completion plans made during the war?
    • Clarified, but they knew by 1915 that they couldn't be finished during the war.
  • "The Soviets considered finishing Kinburn and Navarin ..." – when?
    • Clarified.
  • "... and they were not able to purchase the guns from any foreign company." – was this because of the communist revolution? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably, but not stated. Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good, Sturm. I made a few more copyedits and am now happy to support this, my one remaining minor grammatical point above notwithstanding. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Looking back on the first FAC, the two editors who opposed are still active. I wonder if anyone has asked Laser brain or Eric Corbett to have a look? I think it's only fair that they are given a chance to look. Sarastro (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doing that now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose from Eric Corbett. Much better than the first version I reviewed. I remain surprised that such a lot can be written about a class of ships that were never built, but there are still some things that need to be sorted out.

  • " The Naval General Staff issued a new specification on 1 July 1911 by the Naval General Staff ..." What on earth does that mean?
    • Heh, makes two of us.
  • "The beginning of World War I in 1914 caused further delays ..." We were told in the the previous sentence that World War I broke out in August 1914, so why the repetition?
    • Good point.
  • "The design of the Borodinos' armour was similar in construction to that of the Ganguts and therefore needed to modified ..."
    • I'm not sure what the problem is here.
  • I'm finding it difficult to reconcile "The main gun turrets had sides 300 millimetres thick with 150-millimetre roofs ..." with "Her turrets were not expected to be completed until 1919 ...", and in fact were never completed.
    • Good point, although I'll point out that they're one of the few things that we specifically know that weren't completed.
  • "Four proposals were made with various changes to the turrets' armour scheme, but none were accepted, not least because the prospects of actually acquiring such guns were minimal." I don't understand the conjunction of the turrets' armour with the availability of guns.
    • Probably too much detail, trimmed.
  • "Domestic industry was incapable of building such large guns and they were not able to purchase the guns from any foreign company." "They" refers in that sentence to domestic industry, which doesn't make sense.
    • Agreed.
  • "For example, the gun turrets rested on 203 mm (8 in) roller bearings made in Germany, but attempts to order replacements ...". Why did they need replacements?
    • Clarified.
  • In the Construction section the first paragraph has "43 percent", but the third paragraph has "65%" and "36%".
    • Good catch.
  • "Various plans were made for the post-war completion of the ships by the Naval General Staff and the Main Administration of Shipbuilding ...". I doubt that either the Naval General Staff or the Main Administration of Shipbuilding were to actually complete the ships, as this sentence is suggesting.
    • Clarified.
  • Overall I have a fundamental problem with this article, which is that I'm never sure whether what's being discussed is what was actually built or what was planned to be built. This is such a fundamental issue that I don't think it can be addressed within the timeframe of this review, hence my opposition to this article's promotion. Eric Corbett 00:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, McLaughlin's chapter, which is the primary source for this article, is almost entirely written in past tense, not conditional, so that's what I generally used, since it's virtually impossible to know what parts of the ships were actually finished. I'm not sure that anything can be done other than to put the few things that we know weren't finished into conditional form as I've already done. Happy to take suggestions though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll buy that. I've now struck my oppose. Eric Corbett 14:34, 25 April 2018 (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) 14:17, 25 April 2018 [10].

Shorwell helmet[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglo-Saxon Shorwell helmet was built for fighting. It is strong, exhibits hardly any decoration, and is so plain that it was at first thought to be a broken pot and was purchased for only £3,800. Yet it is one of only six helmets known to exist from Anglo-Saxon England, a scarcity that—along with other rare objects found with the helmet, such as a pattern-welded sword and hanging bowl—suggests its owner was a high-status warrior. Found on the Isle of Wight in 2004, today it is in the collection of the British Museum.

The article on the helmet is short and complete. It covers all the relevant literature as it chronicles the helmet from its discovery, through its typology, to its significance. Recently returned from good article candidacy with a green circle and subsequently refined, it is ready for a gold star. Usernameunique (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "The recovery of only six Anglo-Saxon helmets among thousands of excavated graves suggests that their owners had some rarefied status": That's my rewording. I think you can say that the helmet conferred status, or that whoever wore the helmet probably had status. But we can't say the wearer definitely had status; for all we know, the helmet was stolen from someone.
  • I removed the link to the French page for Trivières. It's a good idea to have a stub created on the English Wikipedia, but not required for FAC (as long as the number of red links isn't excessive).
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for your careful reading and edits, Dank. I'll turn Trivières into a stub shortly. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • What makes "Thegns of Mercia" a high quality reliable source?
  • Good catch. It was a bare URL when I started working on the article, and then I changed it into proper format but never removed it until you pointed it out.
  • On a point of presentation, I think it would make more sense to have "References" (citations) and "Bibliography" (sources) under a single level-2 heading, rather than as separate level-2 headings, but this may be just a personal preference.
  • I'd rather keep it as is, to maintain consistency with other related articles. Also, that change would make "associated objects" a level-3 heading, which presentation-wise would be a little clunky.

Subject to the above, sources and citations are in good order, and appear to be of the required standard of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

Seems pretty thorough, but I have some comments:

  • The "typology" section seems too low down. Shorn of some repetition, it could go in or after the "Description" section (which could be renamed), or even in the lead.
  • Reordered. What's the repetition you're seeing?
  • If supported by the sources, one might mention the possibility that any cuir bouilli or leather areas were decorated by stamping or moulding, which might have been very cheap to do. "Very few decorative elements adorned the Shorwell helmet" might be qualified, as we can't be sure this was originally the case - far from it, some might say.
  • I couldn't find much specific to helmets, but added some information relevant to scabbards, and qualified the points about decoration. The literature on the Frankish Trivières helmet that I looked at only mentioned the possible leather covering in passing, and there's not much literature to begin with, probably because with no Anglo-Saxon leather helmets having yet been found, nobody has written about how they could have been decorated. Evidence of contemporary scabbards does show decoration similar to that you describe, and I added a line mentioning it. We might not wish to stress the point, however; I think the takeaway here is that this helmet was probably made for someone who would need it in battle, unlike examples such as the Benty Grange helmet or the Sutton Hoo helmet, which, while they could have been worn (particularly the latter), may have been intended to evoke status rather than deflect swords.
  • Again, subject to sources, it seems that the often-repeated rarity of AS helmets is somewhat undercut by the difficulty excavators had in recognising those that did turn up before very modern methods arrived.
  • Added a slight qualification, although this possibility isn't much mentioned; ironically, the source that Brianboulton (rightfully) questioned is one of the only that makes this point ("It makes one wonder, though, how many more historically important fragmentary iron Anglo-Saxon military artefacts have been misinterpreted by archaeologists!"). Including fragments (some not necessarily from helmets) there are the remains of only 16 A-S and Viking helmets, however, against more than 142 A-S and Viking swords in the British Museum alone. The helmet number may be under-reported, but it's probably not under-reported by more than 90%.
  • I've fiddled with the garnet mount. Presumably the BM have a database page on this - a link would be good.
  • Added it (link). You'd think that they'd have a picture of a gold and garnet item, especially since we can look at some rusted iron, but sadly no.
  • Lead "... was discovered near a copy of a solidus featuring Anastasius I ...." - a bit too compressed. The average reader won't know that a solidus is a Roman gold coin, Anastasius I was a Byzantine emperor, and the coin was probably made in modern France (or close). Not all this is even in the account lower down. Also the coin was, per the BM, found by metal-detector, apparently some years after the 2004 find of the helmet, while the currect wording rather suggests they were found at the same point.
  • All good points. I'm a little nervous of making too great a deal of the coin—it doesn't necessarily help too much with date since as a copy, it could postdate Anastasius I—although never removed that text from the lead, which was added in this edit. Looking now at the treasure report for the coin (page 50 of the pdf), its suggested date, c. 500–580, is even less precise than for the helmet. The greater point is probably, as you suggest, that the coin is a likely continental import, in a grave with a continental-style helmet, bolstering the continental connection. I'm going to think about how to approach this, perhaps by addressing it in your suggested section on the contemporary politics.
  • Took the coin out of the lead, and added more information on it in to the body.
  • Given the very early date, you might give a bit of "political" context re the Isle of Wight at this period.

Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Johnbod, those are all useful suggestions and give good things to think about. Some responses are above, although there are a few that I need to do a bit more research on. Just got the source for the Trivières helmet, so hopefully can address the points about leather decoration soon. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, I think I've worked through most of the issues, and have added three responses above (leather, scarcity, coin). Still need to research the Isle of Wight, but wanted to both make some progress and give you a chance to respond to any of the points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, thanks, all sorted. I'm distrustful of a utilitarian vs display/parade helmet distinction though, as any helmet would have been expensive, and we know the AS, like the Iron Age Celts before them, liked to go into battle fully blinged-up. To my mind the AS mentality would have been that an expensive elite object like a helmet needed decoration, to impress the other side that they were dealing with an important person = a very good warrior. I doubt any AS person had two helmets, one for show and one for use, so they probably always had to fulfill both roles. But of course the evidence on all this is lacking. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eric Corbett[edit]

  • I had the opportunity to take a good look at this article at its recent GA review, so I have no reservations about supporting its promotion. Eric Corbett 15:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Great topic, and I really enjoyed reading about your other helmets.

  • I am OK with the single non-free lead image (especially given it's its "almost free" license), given the fact that it's not on display, but I'm a little nervous about the use of the diagram. What's to stop someone else creating their own diagram based on published descriptions? If nothing, I'm not sure it's irreplaceable.
  • You have a point, and Ideally I'd like to have a non-free diagram there, if for no other reason than to supersize it. That said, I suspect a new, free image would have to rely on the copyrighted one for some details, such as the slope of nose-to-nap and lateral bands, and the size of the infill plates. Perhaps it makes sense for someone to weigh in during the image review, also; one option would be to ask at the Illustration Workshop whether someone could create a replacement.
  • Two (what look like) quotes without citations in the lead make me a little twitchy.
  • Cited "fragmentary iron vessel". The other, "crested helmets", is really just a term of art in want of a blue link to make the term clearly delineated, at which point the quotation marks could be dispensed with.
  • "sub-triangular infill plate" A bit jargon-y
  • Eliminated the hyphen, since—to my surprise—it turns out "subtriangular" is actually a word with general meaning (OED: "Approaching the form of a triangle; somewhat triangular"). "infill plate" could perhaps be described differently, but, once one conceptualizes what an infill plate is (which, incidentally, is a good reason for a good diagram), it makes it a quick and easy term. ("subtriangular infill plate" is also used in Pioneer helmet and Coppergate helmet.)
  • "but they may also have been intended to serve as "stop-ribs" preventing edged" Comma after the quote, perhaps?
  • Done.
  • "The exact nature of the skin product, let alone purpose" Shouldn't that be its purpose?
  • Done. I think "of the skin product" is implied in a grammatically correct sense (e.g., if the clause followed directly after "nature," it would mean the same thing), but "its purpose" works well.
  • I suspect I know the answer, but do we have any pictures of the discovery site or other finds from the same place? They'd be great for the discovery section.
  • Just emailed one of the authors of the main article about the helmet. Will update accordingly, or reach out to others if I don't hear back.
  • "Burgh helmet" Worth linking?
  • "a bipartite cap rather than four infill plates" A bit jargony, again
  • Reworded to "Their construction includes a continuous lateral band in addition to the continuous nose-to-nape band, however, and a two-piece construction underneath rather than an infill plate for each of the four gaps, potentially an indication of regional variation."
  • You should probably include a location for the Ager source and "Valuations" (shouldn't that go before the authored pieces in the bibliography? I forget...). I wouldn't bother with journal publishers.
  • Done. Guessing a bit with location (London, where the headquarters of the department is), since it isn't explicitly in the report as far as I can tell. Journal publishers is personal preference, since it occasionally provides useful information (e.g., James 1986). Re order, if there isn't an author I order as if the title were the author, since that's how it ultimately shows up in the list; no idea if there's a general convention, however.
  • "Make all sure: The conservation and restoration of arms and armour" Caps? If I was being picky, I'd say you're inconsistent on whether you use Title Case or sentence case for chapter/article titles in the bibliography.
  • You're not wrong; there's consistency in that the convention is to follow the capitalization used in each book/article (e.g., see the cover of Make all sure; the title page is the same), but "consistently follows others' inconsistency" isn't a great argument. Happy to go through and just capitalize the lot of them if you think it makes sense.
  • I would aim for consistency; it's something that sometimes comes up in source reviews. Hardly something to lose sleep over, of course! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really enjoyed this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recognition, and useful feedback on another article, J Milburn. Responded to your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. I do think this is a very good article, but I am going to hold off supporting for now as I muse over the image issue a little. I feel a bit silly given that the image is almost free... Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, J Milburn. Capitalized the titles as suggested. If push comes to shove we can just delete the image; I'll also send an email to someone who produces replicas of the helmet to see if they might license a photo, which would also make the construction a bit more clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. I do think it's worth a punt with the images; some high-quality freely licensed images can make all the difference for an article of this sort! My fingers are crossed for you. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, totally understand if you're waiting for the resolution of the comments below to offer your support, but just letting you know that the images are now all in order with verified licenses. (With thanks to Mz7, who processed the OTRS for the photo of the replica.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I may come back to review the new developments made in discussion with MBO, but, for now, I'm happy to support. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

I'm enjoying seeing these articles on helmets in the collection of the British Museum. I have the following fairly minor comments and suggestions:

  • "The grave was discovered by members of a metal detecting club in 2004, and excavated by archaeologists that November" - Given that the month it was dug up is noted, I'd suggest also adding the month it was found
  • Added May 2004.
  • "suggest that helmets were not solely for the enjoyment of the absolute élite" - "enjoyment" seems an unusual way to describe what's noted to have been a utilitarian fighting helmet. I'd suggest replacing this with "use" or "protection"
  • Changed to use.
  • "Nonetheless, only six helmets have been found" - previously noted in the "Typology" section
  • Reworded.
  • I find this wording a bit confusing (eg, what's being reflected on?). The first half of the sentence repeats material covered earlier in this para and it's all a bit over complex. Could it changed to something direct like "The fact that only a very small number of helmets have been recovered from the thousands of Anglo-Saxon graves excavated in the UK indicates that they were never deposited in large numbers". Splitting it into two sentences might also work. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick-D, fair point. Reworded again; it's simpler now, and I think transitions better from the preceding sentence. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those changes look good to me Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know if the helmet has ever been placed on display? Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your suggestions, Nick-D. I've adopted them all, as noted above. I don't know for certain whether it has ever been placed on display, but nothing I have reads suggests that is has. It's not even fully clear when the helmet was reconstructed—it was published in 2012, but theoretically it could have been put together anytime between 2006 and then. The BM probably takes this to be a fairly minor item that is significant for research, but not for display (after all, they already have the Sutton Hoo helmet). --Usernameunique (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough: given poor state of this item in the BM photos, it's unlikely that it would ever be put on display, except as part of some kind of (very) specialist exhibition. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now all been addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick-D, appreciate the comments and support. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

Unless I've missed something we're waiting on resolution of Johnbod's comments, plus an image review -- you can post a request for the latter at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in, Ian Rose. Still working on one of the points Johnbod raised (just responded to the others), and am waiting on OTRS for a possible replacement image (File:Shorwell_helmet_replica.jpg) for the one J Milburn pointed out, at which point I'll request an image review. (By the way Josh, also added a licensed image of the coin.) --Usernameunique (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: I would fully support the article if the non-free diagram was replaced by a free photograph of the replica. You can tag the image with {{OTRS pending}} if you have sent email permission to OTRS. (If you don't yet have permission, it shouldn't be uploaded!) I love the coin image. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, I have permissible from the copyright holder via email to upload it; I'm just waiting for him to fill out the online OTRS form. I'll follow up on Monday if there hasn't been any movement by then. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, is there any way to expedite the OTRS review of File:Shorwell_helmet_replica.jpg? The copyright holder sent an email 11 days ago, but with the current backlog, it would take more than a month for it to be reviewed. Tried asking on the Commons noticeboard a few days ago, but no luck so far. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't help with that, but I think it would be fair to promote this regardless of whether the image is included or not, provided those images that are in the article are clear. Suggest it'd be better to concentrate on tying up the responses to Johnbod's comments and let the OTRS thing take its course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard that might be useful to get some attention. I'd make the switch in the article now and allow the permission to snail it's its way through in time. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion J Milburn, posted on the WP noticeboard and put the new image in. Hope to have the rest finished in a day or two. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supporting now. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I believe all comments are now addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

In the lede:

  • Definitely worth inserting the word "England" into the lede! Globally, most people will have no idea where the Isle of Wight is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Would CE not be more appropriate than AD? Call it 'political correctness' if you like, but it seems to be the drift of things these days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the contemporaneous Northern "crested helmets"." - Worth defining "Northern" more clearly here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "part of the grave goods" - "one of the grave goods" might work better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • I really would not bother with citations in the lede if the information is already properly cited in the main body of the article. Having a random citation in the lede just looks a bit messy, in my opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is in response to a suggestion made above by J Milburn re: citing of quotations. I don't mind much either way—could just fully cite the lead if that would be better.
  • I think that the first sentence of the second paragraph might be better placed in the top paragraph. It deals with the original context of the artefact, whereas the other sentences in this paragraph deal only with its retrieval and study. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, good point.

In later sections:

  • I wonder if "Description", "Typology", and "Function" might all work well as sub-sections of a single section. They are thematically linked in a way that "Discovery" and "Context" are not. I would also suggest that the material in the "Typology" section might be better located before that in the Description section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
  • "Isle of Wight Metal Detecting Club" - perhaps this should link to metal detectoring?
  • Added the link to the lead. I could also link "Isle of Wight [[Metal detector#Uses|Metal Detecting Club", but didn't for the time being as the descriptive link in the middle of a proper name seems a little odd.

Context:

  • I certainly think that this is located in the wrong place, plonked as it is right at the end of the article. My suggestion would be this: create two sections, one looking at the "Context and burial" in which can be discussed both the Isle of Wight in the Anglo-Saxon period and the grave itself, and then a second section looking at the discovery, excavation and conservation. This would involve a rearrangement from what we have at present but I think it would really improve the flow of the article quite markedly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence—"Two works, supplemented by the finds of archaeologists,[47] are responsible for illuminating the 600 years before the Norman conquest at all: the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a collection of annals recording the history of the Anglo-Saxons, and the Ecclesiastical History of the English People, written by the English monk Bede.["—feels pretty irrelevant. I'd scrap it, to be honest. It's not talking about the Isle of Wight or about Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that could go. Btw, does the article link to Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, the main article on this period? Can't see that it does. A clear link to this would be good. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded this sentence to make clear that the two works are responsible for the genesis stories of the Isle of Wight. The following paragraph is largely a distillation of critical looks at the Chronicle and Bede's Ecclesiastical History, which is where those perhaps fanciful stories of Cerdic, Hengist and Horsa come from. Johnbod, added a link to the article. Speaking of which, do you have any feelings for the links in the "See also" section? Those have been there since 2013, and I'm tempted to remove the entire section.
AS warfare could be linked to "high-status Anglo-Saxon warrior" in the lead maybe. The others can go I'd say. Agree with keeping AD dates - if it's good enough for the BM.... Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for your careful reading and suggestions, Midnightblueowl. I've incorporated most of your suggestions as discussed above. With regards to AD/CE, you're probably right, but as most of the similar articles (e.g., Guilden Morden boar, Pioneer helmet, and Sutton Hoo helmet) currently use AD, I'm going to think on this for a moment and then probably make the switch all at once. Regarding structure, I've changed "Typology" and "Function" to subsections of "Description"; they deal with the analysis of the helmet, whereas "Description" tackles its most basic factual nature, and so I think should go first. I've also put "Context" as a subsection of "Discovery" (as they essentially describe "Where it was found" and "History of where it was found"). The two main goals with structure are to keep it simple and to maintain consistency with the other A-S helmet articles, and hopefully this does both while addressing your comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few more thoughts:

  • I'm worried about the over-reliance on Hodgkin in the "Context" section. The understanding of the Anglo-Saxon period has come a long way since the 1950s. I'm wondering if you could use a more modern source that deals explicitly with the early medieval Isle of Wight. His reliance on the narrative provided in Bede is a bit concerning. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if it is worth including a few sentences about warrior graves in the period. Sam Lucy's book on the subject of Anglo-Saxon burial would have some useful bits, and Hienrich Harke has written some relevant chapters and articles over the years. I think that things like that will just help to provide a more rounded and up-to-date context, as I have tried to do in prehistory-themed articles like Coldrum Long Barrow and Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas. It is time consuming, granted, but I think it greatly improves the end result. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Midnightblueowl, I'll take a look at Lucy and Härke. I had difficulty finding a work specifically on the Isle of Wight when researching the section that uses Hodgkin, probably due to the scant record. Is there anything in that section that strikes you as incorrect, or is the problem more that Hodgkin is writing in 1952? While reading Hodgin I thought he was fairly critical of Bede; only the second and third sentences of the second "Context" paragraph include material derived from Bede, but there the specifics of Bede's assertions are taken lightly. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usernameunique As far as I understand the state of current scholarship, Bede's narrative about the Anglo-Saxon migration (Hengest and Horsa et al) is now usually understood as a reflection of 7th/8th century myths rather than as an accurate description of what was actually going on in the 5th century. So it's that aspect of Hodgkin that concerns me; his text needs to be used judiciously. I'll also take a look through Lucy tonight (if I can) and see if there is anything that I can come up with that is of use here. (Sorry I'm giving you all this extra work at FAC, but I hope that it will help - and you have done a really fantastic job thus far!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense, Midnightblueowl. Which Lucy book are you thinking of? There are several in different non-circulating libraries around here, so I want to prioritize my time accordingly (though can probably find some of Härke's works online). And thanks for approaching this thoroughly! This is an area of weakness for me, so having someone knowledgeable take a critical look is appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her book on The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death is probably the textbook on the subject of early Anglo-Saxon burial customs. If you're interested in the period (which I'm guessing you are from your editing habits!) then I'm definitely recommend giving it a read. I have a tatty old ex-library copy with me at the moment; I'll use it to add some sentences into the article; feel free to reword my contributions as you see fit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information you added is great, Midnightblueowl, thanks for taking the time to do so. The only changes I've made are to order; I placed the paragraph about the other grave goods from Shorwell back in discovery, to keep the account of the excavation complete, and to avoid splitting sections between fact and analysis. Two other ideas would be to put the "Context" section second (ahead of "Discovery"), or to remove the "Context" header and make "Grave goods" and "The Isle of Wight" subsections of "Discovery."
With regards to Hengist and Horsa, I've qualified the language to "according to a legend that is perhaps grounded in rudimentary fact". Hodgkin's point seems to be that while the story of Hengist and Horsa is dubious, it may reflect an actual geopolitical shift from British rule to Kent-centric Germanic rule. (Hodgkin dispenses entirely with the more problematic accounts of Hengist and Horsa, such as that put forward by Nennius.) If you think that too much weight is still being given to fairy tales, one option would be to explicate the language further; another would be to just dispense with the tale entirely and replace it with a sentence suggesting said geopolitical shift. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of edits to this article, so it would probably be inappropriate for me to explicitly offer my "support" for it becoming a Featured Article, although I do believe that it meets the criteria and hope that it is recognised as such. Good work, Usernameunique. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I tried adding the license you suggested for the first image, but it generates the notice that "This file is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years", which seems incorrect. Re: the third image, the CC-BY license can be found here. Re: the second, is there any way to speed up the processing? I've asked on the Commons noticeboard and on the Wikipedia noticeboard, but no luck yet. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That license text issue is simply an artifact, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I could be wrong, but I read it as saying that the photograph itself is in the public domain, not the underlying work. The license also generates a tag saying "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. The subject of this image is still protected by copyright" (emphasis added), which seems to be saying, incorrectly, that the 1,500 year old helmet design is the copyrighted entity here. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. In that case you'll need to add something like on its own. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, done. Is there anything else needed with regards to images? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some confirmation on the license of #3 would be useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, the CC-BY license is found here. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

Just a couple of points re. citation formatting that won't hold up promotion:

  • Under Function you have this series of citations: "[28][16][17]" -- did you intend them to be out of chronological order?
  • Changed. They were ordered in terms of relevance—28 speaks best to that sentence—but it doesn't matter much, and so many people change them into numerical order anyway that I can't really attempt to keep up.
  • Under Restoration you have several sentences in a row cited identically, in which case you could simply have one instance of the citation at the end of all the sentences it supports if you choose.
  • Out of personal preference I like to cite every sentence. Makes it crystal clear where the information came from, and avoids uncertainty if someone ends up adding to the middle of an uncited section.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2018 (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) 13:29, 25 April 2018 [11].

Dilophosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a dinosaur that was made famous by the movie Jurassic Park, and is therefore one of our most popular articles about a dinosaur genus. The movie also took great "artistic" liberties with the dinosaur, so this article is a good place to set the record straight. Most of the other dinosaurs that featured in the movie are already FAs. I think this is a pretty definitive account, which may educate people who come here by way of the movie about what the real animal was like. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Inconsistent use of Location (11 with; 4 without); Holtz, T. R. Jr. (2012); Paul, G. S. (2010); Glut, D. F. (1997); Gay, R. (2005).
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harshbarger, J. W.; Repenning, C. A.; Irwin, J. H. (1957). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
Don't know how to find it, and anyhow, if I add it to one, wouldn't I have to add it to all? FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be kinda nice, but not at all required, to use |display-authors= for cases like "Xing, L.; Bell, P. R.; Rothschild, B. M." [B.M.! What an unfortunate set of initials. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does "display-authors" do? FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The preview says one of the sources has double "pages" fields, but doesn't specify which. Maybe your script could show which sources that have duplicate fields, Lingzhi? FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was just removed with this[12] edit. FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FunkMonk: Duncan, J. (2007). Missing Publisher;
Whoops, added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to see what error msg you were looking at earlier... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, which is excellent here. Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Excellent article, but a few nitpicks to show I've read it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I know, we still expect multiple refs to be in numerical order
Haven't seen it brought up during source reviews before, though? Is there an easy way to do this? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not AFAIK, I always do it because I've been told to before, but not a big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two most complete of these were collected in 1942, with the most complete later made—since it's in the lead, I'd try to avoid the repetition of "most complete"
Said "best preserved" the first time instead, better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • even thermoregulation as well—lose "as well"
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The high degree of pain it must have experienced in multiple locations for long durations—speculative to say the least. Many fractures and other injuries heal without long-term pain
Yeah, the source says this, though: "It is also a testament to the hardiness of an animal that doubtlessly experienced an agonizingly long duration (or durations) of high degrees of pain in multiple locations." I've changed "must" to "might" for now, or what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the author is speculating, rather than you, doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion. Also "might" doesn't justify "shows". I'd be inclined to either lose the sentence altogether or make it clear that it's the authors' speculation rather than a hard fact. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taphonomy—arguably the least inviting heading I've ever seen. Surely there must be something more intelligible?
Hmm, not sure what that would be, it is a very specific term that doesn't translate easily without using a whole sentence. I could also just remove the section header entirely? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on that here[13], maybe say "like what has been proposed/claimed for the Komodo dragon" or something? I've done that for now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dubious nature of that claim, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to even mention the lizard. I'll leave that to you.
I'm not convinced on either the pain or Komodo sentences, but I'll let you decide on those and support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll give attribution for the pain sentence, and maybe wait it out on the Komodo dragon to see if it is brought up again... I would prefer if I could just mention the Gila monster instead, as Crichton actually does in the book, but that's of course not what the geologist does for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

Slender and lightly built - if you're describing something as lightly built...is slender redundant?
Good question, the source (Naish) says "was a lightly built, slender theropod". I'm thinking slender describes the shape, while "lightly built" refers to mass? FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually strike that - my initial thinking was that lightly build would automotically imply slender...but then I thought of hang gliders and Quetzalcoatlus... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Sorry for not stopping by earlier but I'd prefer to see a further comprehensive review here before we promote -- LittleJerry, perhaps you'd take a look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a source and image review in any case, it has been listed[14] for a long time. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: All good. Sorry but I don't do comprehensive reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look tomorrow. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon[edit]

Sorry this is taking longer than expected, but here are some initial comments:

  • Another species from China, D. sinensis, --> Another species, D. sinensis from China,
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • described as a medium-sized theropod --> theropod should be linked here, and delinked in next sentence
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • though small compared to .. compared to --> perhaps rephrase to avoid quick repetition?
Reworded the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • about 6.03 --> that's pretty accurate, no need for "about"
Removed. It's precise, but not necessarily accurate, as such measurements can only ever be estimations. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • pleurocoels (depressions on the sides) and centrocoels --> links?
Nothing on Wikipedia. Would Wiktionary suffice? I've added a couple of links to there for what could be found. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (articular processes) --> that didn't explain enough for me
Explained a bit more. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • prezygapophyses --> which is what?
Explained in the text I mentioned above, if that suffices. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • stout processes for attachment .. stout epipodials, and the ulna (lower arm bone) was stout and straight, with a stout --> stout repetition
That's what the source says, I guess something like "robust" could be used instead, but I'm afraid if any meaning would be lost. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • peduncle --> link or explanation
Explained, if it is any clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • off the ground.[2][12][11] --> I was once told the references should be in order (I've not yet been able to find this rule written down, so I'm ok for you to ignore)
Yeah, I never saw any guidelines for this, so I usually don't mess with it. Would be good if there was some automated tool for it, though... FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • UCMP --> better to introduce acronym at beginning of section
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • seeing most of the material in western Europe --> bit too mysterious for me
Simplified sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • American Paleontologist --> American paleontologist
Ugh, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • described by Welles in 1971 were all on the same level, and were described --> two described close together
Said "reported" the first time. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More later Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see to these shortly. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more:

  • salamanders[64] the frog --> missing comma
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shake N Bake" theropod --> link?
Removed the mention, it has not been named yet. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinnebiton --> just checking: is this perhaps a Dinnebitodon
Yep, same formation, it was old text, so probably an old mistake. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Publishers LTD --> Ltd
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • feathered?-evidence --> feathered? – Evidence
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lockley, M.; Matsukawa, M.; Jianjun, Li --> inconsistent with initials
Abbreviated. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • would be good to have archive links for the web sources
Added to the most important ones. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rothschild, B., Tanke, D. H., and Ford, T. L., 2001 --> publisher needs a location, isbn
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lamanna, M. C.; Holtz, T. R. Jr; P., Dodson --> don't think that 3rd author name is ok
Swapped. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bird-Like Anatomy, Posture, and Behavior Revealed by an Early Jurassic Theropod Dinosaur Resting Trace --> if I'm not mistaken all other journal titles have lowercase instead of camel
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed a few isbn formatting issues
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a source spotcheck next. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check: as a layman I found this too hard to do. For instance the long first paragraph has no references until the end, and then four at once. So concentrating solely on single sentence, single refs: 21 41 52 57 are all fine.

The citations have been grouped near the end because different citations often support different statements within a single sentence. So not sure how else to do this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 47 says "multiple authors". I can't see p.216 unfortunately but from the index I infer it is Paul, which is what you have in your text "Paul also depicted Dilophosaurus bouncing"
It is a weird chapter with no credited author, only images by different artists with captions. Should I infer that the author of these captions is the editor Paul? FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Scholar check reveals key articles have all been used as sources.

Comparing the article's content to other FA dinosaur articles I, as a layman, do not see any holes in coverage. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered more above. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Outriggr[edit]

  • In response to the FAC talk page's desire for source reviews, I thought I'd try to offer something.
    • Two items are sourced to "Lamanna, M. C.; Holtz, T. R. Jr; Dodson, P. (1998)", which is 70+ pages of small-print abstracts. I am not sure it is reasonable to not cite page numbers, given that we are dealing with technical claims; only the entire document is cited.
Not sure what happened there, the source was added before I worked on the article, and since is a conference talk abstract, I assumed the conference posters had been given as the page numbers or something. But I've now added the page numbers from the PDF. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see that "Nash Dinosaur Track Site and Rock Shop" is reliable for the purpose for which it is used.
Removed, it was a remnant from before I worked on the article, and supports some info (now removed too) not stated in the other sources. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not clear from the page itself that Welles is speaking in "Dilophosaurus, the actor" (or where the author given came from). Now I see that the intro page says Welles narrates it all. Could this be clarified in the note or somehow.
I had added the editor of the website as the author, but maybe I should add Welles instead, or in addition? I've tried listing them both now. It's kind of a tricky situation, as I don't know how else to add this information to a citation. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fn 75 (Altimari) does not support the sentence preceding it, which for some reason has four footnotes. It only supports the simple assertion that the dinosaur was named state dino. It's almost void of info, that particular source.
It was added by a drive-by user after I was finished writing the article, so I just left it in after I had added more detailed sources. But I now see that has made the first source redundant, so removed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fn 77 (Stone) does support the sentence mentioned above, and it seems like those four sources, some fairly low-quality, could be moved to the parts of the para they support, and any redundant ones (Altimari) deleted.
Removed Altimari, but the remaining citations are used to support different parts within the same sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fn 68 (Hamblin) needs quotes and italics to distinguish the long title (chapter?) and the book.
Formatted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welles 1971 not formatted.
Formatted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The great rift valleys of Pangea in eastern North America" appears to be a book, but is formatted like a journal. "Weems" appears to be chapter 18 of volume 2.
Reformatted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does an article with this quality of sources need to resort to "theropoddatabase.blogspot.ca"--they refer to themselves as an amateur paleontologist.
It is only there to support the statement that D. "breedorum" is a nomen nudum, because though this is implied by the Gay source (by writing "breedorum" with citation marks), it is not directly stated. So the blog isn't used for any controversial claim, and Mortimer is actually well-known within dinosaur palaeontology. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to stop there for now. If someone watching this would like to confirm with me off-page that this type of review constitutes a decent "source review", I can continue, though I expect there isn't much to say about the remainder of the sources, which are almost all academic publications. Outriggr (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not that my opinion matters in this particular case, but so far this is one of the more in-depth source reviews I've gotten. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good! Here are one or two more comments:
  • The ISBN for "Dinosaurs, the encyclopedia" is the same as for Holtz et al. I found this out in the process of trying to capitalize this title to something like "Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia", which is probably more correct.
Oh, I guess you mean Glut and Holtz rather than two times Holtz? Not sure what happened, but I added another ISBN for Glut from Amazon:[15] FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gay, R. (2005)" repeats the title as a result of being one of those complicated chapter-in-book types. Needs formatting.
Fixed, not sure how that happened... FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Curtis, K., and Padian, K. (1999)" and "Gay, R. (2010)" are not formatted.
Fixed, turned out the latter is some kind of weird print on demand book... FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spot-checked journal citations for accuracy. All were fine. The use of sources looks fine, but I did not dig deeply into source verification during this. Nice work, anyway. Outriggr (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, answered above. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note (2)[edit]

@Edwininlondon and Outriggr: just to confirm, are your comments satisfactorily resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sorry, I had forgotten to express my support explicitly. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Outriggr (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Ian Rose and Sarastro1. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning OpposeComments: I was looking at this with a view to promote but noticed a few things that could be ironed out. As it stands, I'm inclined to oppose on prose for now. I've got as far as the History of discovery section, but I would recommend that someone gives this a bit of a polish. I will copy-edit as I go, but I think more eyes would be beneficial. However, I fully expect to support this once a little more work has been done. Sarastro (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it was already copy-edited by Corinne (who might want to chime in when it comes to specific choices), but of course your issues might also have to do with jargon. I've answered below. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that several of the sets of references are not in ascending numerical order. Was this a deliberate choice?
Deliberate in the sense that it does not appear to be required that they are in any particular order. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, Lusotitan kindly did it with this[16] edit. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he moved the species to the new genus Dilophosaurus": I appreciate the meaning, but "moved the species" sounds a little like a physical act and could lead to a little misunderstanding. Is there another expression that could be used for the general reader?
Changed to assigned, though "move" is common enough. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity (it may be a convention in these articles) why do we start the lead with the information on the discovery, and only describe the actual animal in the second paragraph?
This is a convention of other featured dinosaur articles which I simply followed. Can't say whether it's good or bad, but it has been accepted many times. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dilophosaurus was one of the first big predatory dinosaurs, though it was smaller than some later theropods.": There's something about this that doesn't quite work but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's because the first time I read it, I thought it meant the first to be discovered. Maybe that's me, but given that we spend a while talking about it's discovery, maybe more of a distinction is needed, to make clear that this is discussing an evolutionary timeline. (The same issue crops up in the main body)
Changed to "earliest". FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dilophosaurus has been described as a medium-sized theropod.": Obvious question: who described it? And the same for "it has been described as comparable to a brown bear in size". (And that's two "described as" in the first three sentences of this section)
Removed the first "described", as it is simply a fact. The second claim is more subjective, but non-controversial claims are usually not attribute din text in description sections. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A resting trace of a theropod similar to Dilophosaurus and Liliensternus has markings around the belly and feet that have been interpreted as feather impressions by the Polish paleontologist Gerard Gierliński in 1996 and supported by the Czech paleontologist Martin Kundrát in 2004." Aside from this being a scarily long sentence, we have an odd clash of tenses "have been interpreted ... in 1996". I think we should either lose the date, or have this as "were interpreted ... in 1996". And I think the sentence could be split.
I have shortened the sentence and changed tense, better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Others, such as the American paleontologists Martin Lockley and colleagues in 2003 and Anthony J. Martin and colleagues in 2004, have concluded that the markings are sedimentological artifacts created as the dinosaur moved, while the latter noted that this interpretation does not rule out that the track-maker bore feathers": And this seems to veer all over. The main thrust of this sentence is that they don't think it had feathers... but the sentence concludes that it might still have had feathers. This is confusing the sentence a little. Also, the construction "... and colleagues" makes this harder to understand. Is there a way to rewrite this a little?
They rule out that the impressions are of feathers, but note that this does not mean the animal itself had feathers. The only alternative to "colleagues" is "et al.", which would be gibberish to most readers, or to list all authors, which would take a lot of space. But I have reworded the sentence entirely, better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the third was so eroded that it consisted only of vertebra fragments ... but the third skeleton was almost gone" Why are we effectively repeating the same information in close proximity?
This is because the source doesn't specify that the last specimen wasn't collected, though that it was happened, so this is to imply that it wasn't collected, without saying so directly (similar to how the source puts it). FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glancing ahead, I notice that eleven out of the last twelve paragraphs start "In [year]". Sarastro (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see this? Last paragraphs from the bottom of the article and up, or how? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I've now randomised the placement of the dates further, is this what you had in mind, Sarastro1? FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay here. Real life and all that. I've struck the leaning oppose as my concerns were mainly addressed. I notice that Victoria has been looking too, which can only be good. I still plan to return to this, which should be in the next day or two now that I have a little more time, but I wouldn't oppose promotion on prose grounds. And if I've not returned soon, this review should not stand in the way of promotion. Sarastro (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, good to see you back, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Victoria[edit]

Lay reader here, but I like dinosaurs and have always been interested in those sites in Utah. Will take a read through and post comments. It might take a few days. Please don't hesitate to ping if I get sidetracked. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, non-expert reviews are always welcome! Will have a look at the points soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "A resting trace of a theropod similar to Dilophosaurus was interpreted as having feather impressions around the belly and feet by the Polish paleontologist Gerard Gierliński in 1996 and the Czech paleontologist Martin Kundrát in 2004. The markings were instead interpreted as sedimentological artifacts created as the dinosaur moved by the American paleontologists Martin Lockley and colleagues in 2003 and Anthony J. Martin and colleagues in 2004, but the latter writers noted that this interpretation does not rule out that the track-maker bore feathers." >> awkward construction and hard to parse. Can this be summarized to say that paleontologists theorize it may have been feathered based on the resting trace of a similar theropod, yet they disagree whether the markings are artifacts or not?
It's a bit more complicated than that. The first two researchers mentioned think the traces are from feathers, the two latter ones mentioned think the traces are not from feathers, but one of the two latter writers says that even if the traces are not of feathers, Dilophosaurus could still have had feathers. Admittedly it doesn't really help that I add in authors and dates to the mix (or that separate writers mentioned in the same sentence are called Martin)... I've tried to simplify it by removing dates and names, and moving them to the ichnology section instead. That doesn't exactly make the ichnology section more readable, but I cut some tangential text out from there instead. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • pleurocoels & centrocoels and many many more terms throughout the second & third paras in the first "Description" section>> are there links for any of these? As a lay reader, I'm really lost.
Nothing on Wikipedia, but I've now added Wiktionary links, I think it's all that can be done. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I realized as I read on that probably we don't have links, so no problem. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skull
  • looks fine. I made a couple of minor edits there.
History of discovery
  • looks fine. I've made a few minor copyedits. Fascinating read. Back later.
Formerly assigned species
  • "Welles died in 1997, before he could name this supposed new dinosaur, but the idea that the two were separate genera has generally been ignored or forgotten since.[3]" >> does this refer to another dinosaur altogether. I'm wondering whether it belongs here, but these sections are difficult to get through for a lay reader.
That entire paragraph is about a single specimen, the large one found in 1964. Welles initially thought it was Dilophosaurus, but considered it a new species in 1984, though he never came around to naming it. Most other researchers just think it's a large specimen of Dilophosaurus, though an amateur later did give it a name in a questionable publication. With this explanation in mind, is it easier to follow, or do you think something should be changed? I've changed the paragraph so it refers to the specimen as "the 1964 specimen" throughout, which might make it easier to follow. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes. Much better to refer to the 1964 specimen. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ichnology
  • Lost me - will return to this section.
Ichnotaxonomy is notoriously complicated, sadly I had to cover it here, since so many tracks have been attributed to the animal... I have added a short introduction: "Various ichnotaxa (taxa based on trace fossils) have been attributed to Dilophosaurus". FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, realized that, and better now. I read through a second time with a little more success. My feeling is that it's very nicely done and comprehensive for the reader who dips in and out of sections and wants this specific information and the casual reader is free to skip through. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the papers cited is called "Crouching Theropods in Taxonomic Jungles"[17], which I now realise of course alludes to a situation which is confusing to even experts... FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third para "In 2006, ... " includes comma after date, which is inconsistent. Because the prose is dense and a difficult read for a lay reader, might be better to have the commas after dates throughout.
I usually follow dates with a comma, but they were removed during the copy-edit I requested, so I assumed it was for good reason. Should I ask the copy-editor about the issue? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don't bother. No need to further complicate. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Classification
  • "Though Welles originally thought Dilophosaurus to be a megalosaur in 1954, he realized this to be incorrect in 1970 after discovering it had crests, making it at the time the only theropod with such a feature.[13][17]" > difficult to parse first sentence in a section. Suggest something like this: "Welles originally thought Dilophosaurus a megalosaur, but in 1970 after the discovery that it is the only theropod with crests, he revised his opinion."
I basically took your wording, though I cut more out (it is already stated earlier that it was the only known theropod with crests) and retained the 1954 date. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Motion
  • trackway SGDS.18.T1 > where is the trackway? Just to satisfy my own curiosity
It's in Utah, as mentioned at the bottom of the ichnology section and the caption of the image of the crouching dinosaur. Should it be mentioned again in the motion section? FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added "Utah" in front of "trackway" since it's a couple of sections apart, but it's not a big deal and feel free to revert. I'm happy with the article and have to be gone for the next day or so. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me! FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feeding and diet
  • No problems here. I've made a few minor copyedits
Crest function
  • Interesting. No problems
Development
  • No problems. Made a few minor copyedits
Paleopathology
  • Interesting! No problems here.
Paleoecology
  • Good. I made a small edit to tighten.
Cultural significance
  • Interesting! Made a couple of small edits to tighten
Lead
  • I always read the lead at the end. It's a nice summary of the article.


Looks good. I'm really enjoying this read. Hope to finish later today. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: am reading through section by section, making a few copyedits (feel free to revert), and a couple of comments. I need to stop now and hope to get back later today or tomorrow. My sense is that this meets the FAC criteria; there are a few prose issues that I'm happy to copyedit as I go along or bring here, but unless I run into something awful, I think this is fine. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article, though I feel as though I've just been through a crash course in paleontology. I cannot imagine the work it's been through - so kudos. Whenever I'm next in Arizona or Connecticut I'd like to visit one of the sites. A side note is that there are some difficult verb constructions - I kept wanting to change to present tense but had to remind myself that this animal lived almost 200 million years ago. That, combined with the recent past discoveries and more recent research makes it difficult, but you've done a nice job. I've made a few minor tweaks along the way, but please feel free to change anything - very much out of my subject are on this. Nice work! Victoriaearle (tk) 17:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, it can be hard to know what will be gibberish to layreaders in such articles, so it is extremely important to get layman reviews! I'd like to visit such a fossil site too, but the closest to where I live is the one in Sweden. I've been wanting to work on this article for years, but it seemed like an overwhelming task because of the extensive literature, but at least that means a lot is known about the animal, compared to many other fossils. Perhaps it can be TFA when Jurassic World 2 comes out... FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

  • Second lead sentence: 1940 three skeletons were found in northern Arizona. The two best preserved were collected in 1942; the most complete was made the holotype specimen of a new species of the genus Megalosaurus, named M. wetherilli by Samuel P. Welles in 1954. Can this be reorganised. Found vs collected, "became" rather than "was made". Small point, article is v. good. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, had to go back in and remove a duplink anyway... Not entirely sure what you mean by "Found vs collected", but I changed "found" to "discovered". Re-jigged the sentence a bit further. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Does collected mean moved off site? Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it should cover both excavation and moving of the fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was not obvious. I suppose my point is about accessibility and using simple rather than disguised but subtle technical language. Its all very fascinating though. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term "collecting" is also used in describing when archaeological artefacts are excavated and moved? But yeah, the main problem with palaeontology articles is always accessibility... FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Lusotitan[edit]

I don't particularly imagine I'll find a lot, given how many people have already gone over it, but I'll chip in anyways:

Alright, some of these seem to be somewhat subjective, I'll answer some now and see what I can fix tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had a pair of longitudinal, plate-shaped crests on its skull, similar to a cassowary with two crests. – two things in this sentence: firstly, longitudinal should probably link to either Sagittal plane or the "Planes" section of Anatomical terms of location; secondly, the cassowary comparison seems rather odd, given the much more complex internal structure of cassowary casques. Given the use of images throughout the article, I'm not sure a comparison is really necessary anyway. The same comparison is made in the Skull section. Also, fitting in the word parallel in might be nice. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cassowary comparison is made in the detailed description by Welles, and note that most people reading this article won't be experts, so comparisons that may seem daft for the rest of us is probably helpful to most others. The crests aren't really sagittal, by the way, since they are offset from the midline, and longitudinal isn't really a specifically anatomical term. They could be described as "parasagittal", but I don't really think that helps many readers beyond what is already written, but just adds more complexity to an already complex sentence.FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I just searched "longitudinal" and it was said to be a synonym of sagittal on the Anatomical terms of location page. Either that's incorrect, or the reference to them being "longitudinal" (which is useless to lay readers in absence of a link anyways) should just be removed. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that longitudinal refers to something across the length, whereas sagittal is something on the midline of something. Therefore, they are not really synonyms, but describe a similar thing. Longitude is a very common word, so it is something most readers understand, and I don't see what benefit there would be in removing it. Also note that though "longitudinal plane" may be an anatomical term, it is more specific than the more general "longitudinal" which is used here. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A resting trace of a theropod similar to Dilophosaurus and Liliensternus has been interpreted by some researchers as showing impressions of feathers around the belly and feet, similar to down. Other researchers instead interpret these impressions as sedimentological artifacts created as the dinosaur moved, though this interpretation does not rule out that the track-maker could have borne feathers.[7][8][9][10] – this whole chip about integument is written fine, but it seems odd to place at the end of a paragraph that's all about size. Why not make it its own paragraph, right before the "skull" section? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph gives a general overview of the animal, so that's where I think that info makes most sense, as I don't think it is long enough to warrant a separate paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • During preparation of this specimen, it became clear that it was a larger individual of M. wetherilli, and that it would have had two crests on the top of its skull. Being a thin plate of bone, one crest was originally thought to be part of the missing left side of the skull which had been pulled out of its position by a scavenger. When it became apparent that it was a crest, it was also realized that there would have been a corresponding crest on the left side, since the right crest was right of the midline, and was concave along its middle length. – it's never really established properly how complete and intact the skull was. As the excerpt goes on, it just sort of slowly gives information and implications about the preservation, making it somewhat unclear and awkward to read. Could it be established in the preceding sentence or something, for clarity? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is dealt with in the first paragraph of the history section. The source doesn't really give much more detail than that. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, the section I quoted was about the 1964 specimen, which doesn't appear to have been mentioned in that paragraph at all? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, there is nothing more in the sources on the 1964 specimen, unless we dig out Pickering's "Jurassic Park: Unauthorized Jewish Fractals in Philopatry", which even few palaeontologists have ever seen... FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dilophosaurus was the first well-known theropod from the Early Jurassic, and remains one of the best-preserved examples of that age.[3] - to my knowledge, it's one of the best-preserved dinosaurs of the Early Jurassic in general, which I think would be notable to state. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but none of the sources make this point explicitly as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the "Formerly assigned species" section, the one on "breedorum", contradicts the Theropod Database's section on it on several points. The "Skull" section claims it was never described, but the Database says Pickering's paper was a description, not just a naming of it. It also says Welles wrote it, with Pickering merely releasing it. Additionally, it says Paul (1988) was unsure whether the specimen was distinct or not, and Gauthier (1986) is said to have commented on it, so the suggestion wasn't entirely "ignored and forgotten". There's confusion mentioned over whether Pickering's release of the naming was released in 1995 or 1999, and George Olshevsky is said to have considered the name validly published on the DML. Not sure where all these inconsistencies are coming from, but a further look into it seems warranted. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The section doesn't say "entirely" ignored/forgotten but generally, as Darren Naish puts it. But yes, though Pickering's description isn't considered proper, he seems to have done so, so I've added "properly" in front of "described" in the earlier mention. I believe the "not described" claim is from Rauhut, and scientifically, it hasn't been described, since invalidly published articles are grey literature, which could just as well not exist, which is the cause of the inconsistencies. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, as long as it's not flatly incorrect on anything we don't need to go into every detail of the taxon. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1971 Welles reported dinosaur footprints from the Kayenta Formation of northern Arizona, 14 meters (45 ft) and 112 meters (367 ft) below the level where the original Dilophosaurus specimens were found. - this could be confusing, since there's two numbers in succession; if it's just two trackways being referred to here (which I'm assuming, since there's two numbers), saying "report two tracks of dinosaur footprints" and then "...112 meters (367 ft), respectively," would make it more clear. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not talking about two trackways, but two separate areas with several footprints and trackways, only some of which are the tracks attributed to Dilophosaurus and discussed here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well then my points stands, just with "two areas with dinosaur footprints" instead. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Said "two levels", since that's how the source describes it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American paleontologist Robert E. Weems proposed in 2003 that Eubrontes was not produced by a theropod but by a sauropodomorph similar to Plateosaurus, excluding Dilophosaurus as possible trackmaker. - trackmaker of what? This is the first sentence of the paragraph. Eubrontes is mentioned twice in the section prior, once as a subgenus at the start of the last paragraph (multiple other trackways were discussed since that mentioned), and one mention in the middle of the first paragraph. This sentence doesn't clearly refer to either one, so I'm at a loss what this is supposed to mean. Also, it should say "as a possible trackmaker".Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name Eubrontes refers to a type of track, not to any specific tracks. But I added "a". FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm still confused what it's referring to. The ichnogenus in general? In that case, why is it clearly written to sound like it's referring to something already brought up? Only specific instances have been mentioned up to that point. Is it referring to the 1996 trackway from the first paragraph? In that case, why is there an entire unrelated paragraph sandwiched in the middle? I'm just confused about the topic being discussion in general here. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "that Eubrontes was not" to "that Eubrontes tracks were not", does it make it clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead, Weems proposed Kayentapus, another ichnotaxon originally named by Welles from the Kayenta Formation in 1971, as the best match for Dilophosaurus.[28][32] - this is the next sentence, and it suddenly changes from matching Dilophosaurus to trackways in the preceding sentence to matching trackways to Dilophosaurus in this one.
It is really interchangeable which is matched to which. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really...? It's saying "here are these tracks, did Dilophosaurus make them" versus "are the tracks of Dilophosaurus those of the x type". It's a complete reversal of the question, making for a rather jarring swap of topic. You could remove the "as the best match for Dilophosaurus" and add "Weems proposed Dilphosaurus made the tracks of the ichnotaxon Kayentavenator", which would fix the confusion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 2003 Weems source used there says "Therefore, the large footprint called Kayentapus hopii from the Kayenta Formation is the best available match for the foot of Dilophosaurus." The 2006 Weems source says "Thus, the unexpected manus prints of Kayentapus, far from precluding a Dilophosaurus-like ceratosaur from being their track maker, actually reinforce the association of such manus and pes prints with ceratosaurs." Changing the former to "Dilophosaurus made the tracks" veers too far away from what the first source actually says. The writer describes it differently in each of his articles, so we can't really try to homogenise it for the sake of internal consistency within the article, we can only reflect what the sources say. I have modified the sentence in some other ways, though. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2006, Weems defended his assessment made in the 2003 paper, and proposed Dilophosaurus as possible trackmaker of numerous Kayentapus trackways of the Culpeper Quarry in Virginia. - start of the next paragraph, and it mentions "the 2003 paper". But two 2003 studies were mentioned in the last paragraph. Though the clause of Weems defending his assessment makes it clear which is being referred to, "in his 2003 paper" would still be more appropriate. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added "his". FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gigandipus and Anchisauripus may likewise also just represent variations of Eubrontes. They pointed out that differences between ichnotaxa may reflect how the track-maker interacted with the substrate rather than taxonomy. - those two taxa have not been brought up at all in the section before and aren't invoked again afterwards, why is it relevant? The second sentence, for its part, is just about ichnology in general - how this applies to Dilophosauripus was already gone over in the sentence before the excerpt. Both sentences should be removed. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Gigandipus and Anchisauripus are the same as Eubrontes, and Eubrontes has been attributed to Dilophosaurus, that means they can also be attributed to Dilophosaurus. The statement about substrate interaction explains to the reader why so many names have been given to the same things, which they are probably wondering about after reading that section. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could a mention that this means that Gigandipus and Anchisauripus being Eubrontes making them Dilophoaurus tracks be put in the sentence, making the connection to the topic more clearly direct? As for the second sentence, maybe a "the" before the word "inchnotaxa" would relate it to the topic better. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say it outright, as it is not concerned with assigning these tracks to Dilophosaurus, but with sorting out taxonomy among the track taxa themselves. The writers likely assume that since they have already stated that Dilophosaurus could be a match for Eubrontes, they don't have to repeat that this goes for eventual synonyms of Eubrontes as well. I've reworded the sentence slightly, don't know if it makes it clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does a section on Ichnology really belong in a History of discovery section? Granted, it doesn't fit better anywhere else, but it still feels out of place. Could a top-level section be warranted? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is mainly about ichnotaxonomy and the various individual discoveries, that is where it makes most sense. What can be inferred from the tracks is covered under palaeobiology. You could argue the section should instead be called ichnotaxonomy, but most lay readers already had trouble understanding the section as is, so I don't think we need to hassle them with even more obscure terminology... FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lamanna and colleagues pointed out in 1998 that since Dilophosaurus was found to have crests on its skull, other similarly crested theropods have been discovered (including Sinosaurus), and that this feature is therefore not unique to the genus, and of limited use for determining interrelationships within their group. - I initially read this as in "because Dilophosaurus was found to have crests...", which made no sense. Adding the clause "on its skull in 1964" would fix this. Also, Spinosaurus being mentioned seems both unnecessary and out of place, despite spinosaurs being brought up last paragraph. Lastly, I'd try to find a way to avoid using "and" twice in this sentence; perhaps "so of limited..."? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Sinosaurus? That genus is very relevant there, so I guess you misread it. I have replaced "found to have" with "discovered to have had" and removed an "and". FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All for now, I'll cover the second half of the article later. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be gone for a few days starting tomorrow, it's been reviewed by several people, and all the qualms I raised have been dealt with or defended satisfactorily, so I'll give this support. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if this isn't closed by your return, feel free to bring up further issues. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2018 (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) 15:06, 21 April 2018 [18].

Dubnium[edit]

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, we are reaching deep into the dark corners of the periodic table. I hope I've made the journey informative and interesting enough!--R8R (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DePiep[edit]

All my comments are mute now. -DePiep (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section Reports now says: "... (JINR) in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union, in 1968." To me, "Russian SFSR" does not seem to add information. Remove? - DePiep (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not. The Soviet Union was technically not just a sovereign country but a union of sovereign countries. Throughout all of its history, Russia (i.e., the Russian SFSR we're talking about) was one of those. So I consider that an important part of an introduction of a Soviet city/town.--R8R (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is correct, but could there be confusion after "Moscow Oblast"? Or was the SFSR relevant for JINR (I'd guess it is a state-level enterprise). -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that I am trying to keep my writing style uniform. Moscow Oblast is probably clear; but what if it were, say, Gomel Oblast, Kherson Oblast, or Ulyanovsk Oblast? That's why I consistently use this "town, region, SSR, Soviet Union" four-level introduction format for Soviet places.--R8R (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article now says: "the JINR" and "Berkeley". I'm not sure myself, but should this not be congruent in grammar (remove "the" in places)? On a minor note, it also writes "Berkeley team, Berkeley scientists" but not similarly for JINR; this may be good for readability though. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know the grammar behind this myself but I checked and it appears you are correct. I'll fix this tomorrow. Your latter note is also worthwhile; I'll see what I can do about this.--R8R (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also involved: "Dubna" is sometimes used meaning JINR. Could be in the check then. As I said, not need to downgrade good readibility for all this. - DePiep (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also true, yes. I had that in mind when writing the previous reply. I'll look at it as well.--R8R (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please give it a look now. Anything to be fixed yet?--R8R (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the years thereafter, American scientists undoubtedly have synthesized the following elements up to mendelevium, element 101, in 1955." - "have synthesized" is in present perfect tense, I think it maybe should say "had synthesized" Chris857 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was my recent edit [19]. Please do improve it, Chris857. -DePiep (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we stick to past simple since we have a particular date when the event occurred?--R8R (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, already the change from "coming" into "thereafter" may be enough, but I'm not sure.- DePiep (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change it as I see fit; feel free to alter it thereafter.--R8R (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
feel free to take a look--R8R (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede says: "Limited investigation ... has demonstrated that dubnium behaves as a typical group 5 element and [as] the heavier homologue to tantalum;". Can we agree that adding the "as" grammatically helps? Without it, I understood it to say that tantalum is not a group 5 element. Also possible (to illustrate my point): add "especially". -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is, "a typical group 5 element and as the heavier homologue to tantalum" is sort of one statement rather than two. You can't really separate either from the other; when you say either "dubnium is a group 5 element" or "dubnium is eka-tantalum," the other is implied. That's why it reads to me naturally the way it currently is, though this is not something to fight over, I think. Give what I just said a good thought and if you still disagree, we'll work it out.--R8R (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Dubnium#Isotopes, no {{Infobox dubnium isotopes}} then? -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DePiep: Sorry I've been keeping you waiting. When I look at the article from my laptop, there is simply not enough room for an isobox. That's why I have not even considered it until now.--R8R (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comments left. - DePiep (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

  • 242mfAm— I have some background in chemistry, but I have no idea what the "mf" means. Perhaps a note?
    • Dropping by to say that it means a fission isomer; I'll look for a detailed explanation with a source. Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's absolutely correct. I'll write it down soon.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added a note. Since it is nothing more than nomenclature, I assume that no reference is needed (which is great given that I haven't seen anyone explain this rare notation, even though it is used only this way).--R8R (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • latter one— ="latter"
  • possibility of it being 260105 was not excluded—suggest possibility of 260105 was not excluded
    • That indeed sounds better, done.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • s orbitals (and p1/2 ones…—nothing linked here to help us with atomic orbitals, and "ones" is, again, redundant
    • I've added a wikilink to Atomic orbital. As for redundant "ones," I'd normally love to phrase it, "s (and p1/2) orbitals," but the parenthesized note goes on and I wouldn't want to break a phrase with such a long note in the middle.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check whether all uses of "however" and placeholder "one/ones" are necessary
    • I was able to remove most occasions of "howewer," bringing the count from 12 down to 3. As for "one," this is more difficult to me; I tried my best but still couldn't figure out how to do it in those few cases we have and if we should at all.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else to add, all looks good, supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Sources and refs in good order apart from a couple of minor issues:

  • Inconsistency in providing retrieval dates. See, e.g. refs 7, 16, 23, 30, 33 possibly others.
    • Changed to a consistent mdy date format.--R8R (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a couple of cases (18, 22) the titles given in the refs differ somewhat from what's in the source – in the case of 22 the source article isn't mentioned at all in the ref. These could create uncertainties as to whether the links are going to the right articles.
    • Fixed ref 18, added the missing article title for ref 22.--R8R (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All links seem to be working, and the sources themselves are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John[edit]

For now, oppose on prose. The passive voice is way overused. There are other problems too. I will try to post a fuller review. --John (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to go over prose for now and then seek help from other editors. I think we should be able to handle this quite quickly.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am still eagerly awaiting your review, so please don't let the comment just above stop you from posting it.--R8R (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John: May I ask you to go forward and bring in the promised review? In the meantime, prose has considerably improved thanks to Galobtter, so you may find some great improvements in that respect.--R8R (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking. I see the improvements, I had a go at further improvement, but I think I'd like one more pass before supporting. --John (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as you know I'm not a fan of overdoing pronunciation guides. /ˈdʌbniəm/ (DUB-nee-əm) /ˈduːbniəm/ (DOOB-nee-əm) seems excessive. If it is important to record each of its pronunciations twice, they should at least be referenced. --John (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That I can do. I've added the required references.--R8R (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's looking better, prose-wise. I still think some bits could be better written. I was just looking at the Naming controversy section; it;s really confusing. --John (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This could be the case. But in what ways so?--R8R (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's late at night and I have had a few beers. I apologise for the lackadaisical pace of my review. I'll try to give it some proper attention in the next days. --John (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great to know, I'll be eagerly waiting.--R8R (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this paragraph for starters:

In 1994, IUPAC published a recommendation on naming the disputed elements following the previous reports. For element 105, they proposed the name joliotium (Jl), after the French physicist Frédéric Joliot-Curie, a significant contributor to the development of nuclear physics and chemistry; this name was originally proposed by the Soviet team for element 102, which by then had long been called nobelium.[20] (The name nielsbohrium for element 107 was transformed to bohrium to conform with the practice set by all then-named elements.)[20] This recommendation paper was generally met with criticism from the American scientists: their recommendations were scrambled (the names rutherfordium and hahnium, originally suggested by Berkeley for elements 104 and 105, were used for elements 106 and 108, respectively); both elements 104 and 105 were given names suggested by JINR despite earlier recognition of LBL as of an equal co-discoverer; and especially because the name seaborgium for element 106 was rejected for honoring a living person, a rule that had only just been approved.[21]

There must be some major improvements of organisation here; I know it's a complicated story, but if it needs to be told in detail here, it needs to be done in such a way that it explains clearly. I know the story going into reading it, and to me the current version makes the story less clear, not more. --John (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would still love you to elaborate on this thought a little more. I actually don't see what exactly you stumble here on. What IUPAC suggested in 1994 was indeed only a set of recommendations which they assembled based on established priorities and suggestions by the competing teams, and those recommendations were criticized by the American scientists for a number of points they disagreed with. Is it not clear from the paragraph somehow? Is it something else that's unclear?--R8R (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first question that arises for me is, do we need this level of detail on the wider naming disputes, on this article? --John (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see where this is coming from. I was originally a little uneasy with such extensiveness of this section myself. However, I just haven't found a good way of saying less. If I tried something like, "In 1994, IUPAC suggested a set of names; for element 105, they chose joilotium. However, the Americans didn't like it so a new solution had to be found," it just left too many questions like "why that name?" and "why did the Americans not like it?" and after you fill in those blanks, there are more questions. What we have now is a wholesome story, which you can read without having your thoughts interrupted by various questions you get but don't see answers to from the text. So I'm going to say, yes, we do.--R8R (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also find myself uneasy with the length of the section, but I likewise don't think there's a better way to deal with it. Consider: the American proposal for E105 was hahnium and the Soviet one was nielsbohrium. Unlike for all the other disputed cases, neither became the name of the element. So now the question is raised: if it's named dubnium now, honouring the Soviet team, then what happened to nielsbohrium? Well, it became E107 following discussions with the German team that discovered it. Okay, so where did these compromises come from? They came from IUPAC in 1994 and 1997. Why aren't the 1994 names the ones we use now? Because the American Chemical Society refused to use them in the face of protests from American scientists. But then we need to explain why they protested, and why they protested the next compromise as well, and while the scrambling of their E104 and E105 names and their replacement with the Soviet proposals had something to do with it, another major part was the loss of seaborgium for E106 (and then how it was ransomed later for all the other American proposals). I don't see anything in this paragraph that can be cut without losing part of the story. If anything I'd want to know more: why was E105 chosen for the compromise instead of E104? Some of it might be the political impossibility of naming an element after Kurchatov (the father of the Soviet atomic bomb), but it could have been dubnium as well (and in fact was in 1994). I think another possible explanation is that E104 was the American scientists' biggest quarrel with the TWG report, due to the lack of an isotope of E104 with the half-life claimed by the Soviets: at least with E105 the Americans acknowledged that the Soviets had produced the element as well, though (they insisted) only later. But I am most uncertain that we can find a source for this unless it happens to be in The Transuranium People. Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I would really really appreciate more input from you here. I frankly cannot see what is so wrong with prose. Well, of course you may argue that I wrote most of it and thus am somewhat used to the writing anyway and that I'm not even a native speaker to begin with so I don't really count, and I'd say that's fair. But now the article has been copyedited and two native speakers have spoken in support specifically given the new prose quality. I genuinely do want to see what you dislike about the prose at the moment---I've gotten past the point where I just collect stickers and rather enjoy the writing itself (even given my mediocre literary skills)---so I could fix it or, more realistically, get someone to fix it. For that, however, I do need to see some exact complaints that can be addressed. The review has been open for over a month now, so I'd say it's the high time for that.--R8R (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry about the glacial pace of progress here. I've suffered some family problems, see my talk for details. R8R, I love your writing even more than I love your modesty; I dread to think how I would do writing a professional-quality article in German, which would be my closest comparison. But there are still some problems. I appreciate the improvements in the prose but this particular section still isn't up to snuff. When JINR published their first report claiming synthesis of element 105, they did not propose a name for the new element, which was customary following a discovery of a new element. It starts off clunkily and just goes off from there. And I take your points that it's a complex and interesting story that needs to be told. But, here's the thing: while it's good for our non-science educated readers to realise that there are controversies and arguments among scientists over silly trivial stuff like what name to give an element, we fanatics are always liable to overestimate the interest the details of such a controversy are likely to be to non-fanatics. I will try to clean it up a bit, but honestly I am still leaning towards cutting this section extensively. However it is done This recommendation paper was generally met with criticism from the American scientists: their suggestions were scrambled (the names rutherfordium and hahnium, originally suggested by Berkeley for elements 104 and 105, were used for elements 106 and 108, respectively); both elements 104 and 105 were given names suggested by JINR despite earlier recognition of LBL as of an equal co-discoverer; and especially because the name seaborgium for element 106 was rejected for honoring a living person, a rule that had only just been approved. is never going to be FA prose. --John (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut that sentence up to clarify things: now it reads This recommendation paper was criticised by the American scientists, for various reasons. Firstly, their suggestions were scrambled: the names rutherfordium and hahnium, originally suggested by Berkeley for elements 104 and 105, were respectively reassigned to elements 106 and 108. Secondly, elements 104 and 105 were given names suggested by JINR, despite earlier recognition of LBL as an equal co-discoverer for both of them. Thirdly and most importantly, IUPAC rejected the name seaborgium for element 106, having just approved a rule that an element cannot be named to honor a living person, even though the 1993 report had given the LBL team the sole credit for its discovery. Actually, come to think of it, I think this slightly understates the level of criticism the 1994 recommendations faced, because the American Chemical Society went so far as to make the original American and German names (Rf, Ha, Sg, Ns, Hs, Mt) official for publishing in their journals in spite of IUPAC. Double sharp (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have also changed the first sentence you mentioned to When JINR published their first report claiming synthesis of element 105, they did not propose a name for it, which was customary following a new discovery. Double sharp (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
John, I am very sorry to hear about your problems. I feel a little sorry now for having had to ping you. From what I've read, it seems you have a positive attitude now, which is a great thing! I wish you all the best in your problem!
Let me make one thing clear: when you said, "this particular section still isn't up to snuff," did you mean the Naming controversy subsection or did you mean the entirety of the History section?--R8R (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thank you very much for your kind words about my writing! I would have reacted sooner if I hadn't been so overwhelmed by your response in general. As for your concern about how naming is too minor a thing to build an extensive story upon, I'll note that I (again) had these concerns, too, so I totally understand you. However, I am put at ease by these three particular arguments: first, this particular conflict on how to name an element is not as minor a deal as it usually is (like with cassiopeium/lutetium etc.) because it is also a clash in a new kind of a technological race, which was further advanced by the geopolitical rivalry of their countries; so much so that the conflict even got a name and a Wikipedia article of its own. It is actually particularly notable historically speaking. Second, it is not like we are denying room for other sections by extending this one; there is really not too much known or even theorized data that we could present without going too far into details. This article isn't filled with data too densely anyway, so we can afford it. And third, I am certain that if we do succeed in getting a non-scientist readers' attention by something they can easily understand or even relate to, then maybe it will motivate some of them to read on and try to understand it. Have you noticed that all articles on superheavy elements start with History even though this is rarely the case for articles on stable elements?--R8R (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have wanted for a while to write about the cassiopeium/lutetium thing for lutetium. It was actually pretty wide-ranging and managed to create a set of warring names after having spilt over to celtium/hafnium, with such illustrious figures as Niels Bohr getting behind the cassiopeium campaign. ^_^ But we're off topic here! Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past couple of days, I've tried to look into the text closely and I do think I've managed to improve the text in the subsection (presumably) in question quite a bit. Now I've asked for a comment from a native speaker whom I previously did not know, LichWizard, and they've told me the subsection was now good: the flow was fine and they were able to follow the story despite no background in the field. John, may I assume the section is actually fine now? I would really to hear from you.--R8R (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's looking better now; can you inspect my copyedits and other minor trims and tucks? I now support. --John (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for the support and your help with prose. I've checked your edits; maybe there are a couple of things I would do differently but they'd be fine one way or another. Other than that, they were great as usual.--R8R (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments by Galobtter[edit]

So I was looking to improve the prose, and was checking to see what the source was saying, and I'm unable to find hydrofluoric acid mentioned in the pdf of the paper cited for the JAEA tandem accelarator. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you very much on willing to help with prose. As a non-native speaker, I'll gladly take any help I can get.
As for the question, here is the sentence that starts the part of the article I was referencing: "The anion-exchange behaviour of Db produced in the 248Cm(19F, 5n)262Db reaction at the JAEA tandem accelerator was investigated together with Nb, Ta, and Pa in mixed HF/HNO3 solution [26]." I hope this clarifies it.--R8R (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, thanks Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was concluded that the available information that dubnium often behaved like niobium, sometimes like protactinium, but rarely as tantalum. I assume this is meant to be It was concluded from the available information that dubnium often behaved like niobium, sometimes like protactinium, but rarely as tantalum. or It was concluded that the available information showed that dubnium often behaved like niobium, sometimes like protactinium, but rarely as tantalum.? Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what it must have been meant to be. Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I make mistakes sometimes, usually not because I don't know enough English but rather because I often get lost in thoughts while writing and don't watch too closely what I type down.--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems a little short. Could do with more detail rather than skimming over the article Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like details in lead exactly because they seem out of place to me. I believe we should only draw the general picture here and it makes certain sense to me that there's less to say in this section for the superheavy elements than the stable ones (examples: hydrogen, oxygen, lead) because so little is actually known and even theorized. If there's anything big that we're missing, however, I'm always listening.--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their rivalry resulted in a race for new elements and credit of their discoveries, later named the Transfermium Wars. isn't actually cited there
    • I remember we are supposed to find refs for what is challenged or likely to be challenged. I just assume that this fact should be believable to everyone especially given that we actually have a blue link for "Transfermium Wars." It's not too difficult to get this cited, I just didn't see the point. If you insist, however, I may get this, too. Should I?--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this trend that is expected to continue to the superheavy elements supposed to say? Wouldn't the trend already be shown, since the elements have been discovered? It isn't a grammatical clause either - is it supposed to be this trend is expected to continue to the superheavy elements?
    • As for grammar, yes (see note above). As for the statement itself, while we (the humanity) have synthesized some isotopes of the superheavy elements, we have not synthesized the heavier ones that are expected to be the most stable, not to mention the even heavier ones still to ensure those that we believe to be most stable now actually are most stable.--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then it should be this trend is expected to continue in new superheavy elements, shouldn't it? Actually, I think the paragraph can be rewritten to be a lot simpler explanation, that puts the most important and relevant fact first and the explanation later. Instead of

This is amplified by the trend of growth of the neutron-to-proton ratio of the most stable isotopes of an element with growth of the atomic number; this trend is expected to continue to the superheavy elements.[26] This complicates synthesis of the most stable isotopes as the isotopes in question will have more neutrons per proton than both the target and beam nuclei that could be employed.

have this, which is simpler, though can be improved as I'm a bit in a rush/tweaked if it is off from the source:

This is amplified by the fact that the most heavy, and expectedly stable, isotopes are the hardest to synthesize. Elements with a lower atomic number have stable isotopes with a lower neutron-to-proton ratio than those with higher atomic number, meaning that the target and beam nuclei that could be employed have less neutrons than needed to form these heavy isotopes.

Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

        • Yeah, that's a great way to put it, except I'm a little surprised by that "most heavy." And, to point it out, there must be isotopes even heavier than the most stable ones, meaning that the most stable isotopes are not the heaviest isotopes possible but they are heavier than those we have observed so far (or at least that's the general trend with superheavy elements). But otherwise, yes, you got it.--R8R (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah indeed the heaviest wouldn't the most stable; I put a modified version in, diff Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • @R8R: You might want to put in a mention of actinide transfer reactions as another way to reach these beta-stable nuclides (also in Zagrebaev), now that preliminary experiments have actually been done with promising results (the paper is on your talk page). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you, that would be a good idea, actually. Will do in a few minutes.--R8R (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • dominate research in the area nowadays. isn't explicitly cited there and a date should be specified per MOS:CURRENT
    • You're right about that. Someone got to this before me, though.--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These properties have remained challenging to measure: studies have only been performed on single atoms Would this be clearer/accurate as These properties have remained challenging to measure, as studies have only been performed on single atoms? Otherwise what's the connection? Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite. "As" appears equivalent to "because" in this context, as if the fact that studies have only been performed on single atoms was the reason for the properties to remain challenging to measure. Instead, the fact that the properties have remained challenging to measure is a fact of its own, and that studies have only been performed on single atoms rather goes a little deeper on that to illustrate that fact. I think a colon is right for that, but since it puzzled you, I guess we'd be better off rephrasing that. Any suggestions?--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • These properties have remained challenging to measure; studies have only been performed on single atoms semicolon is ok I think, I wonder if more explanation can be there e.g something like "These properties have remained challenging to measure; studies have only been performed on single atoms, not on the macroscopic scales required to observe deviating properties." - not sure if that's exactly true as I don't have the source, but something in that vein? ​ Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tried to explain that (and not deviate from the source) directly in the text, please feel free to ask any more questions if I wasn't clear enough. As for what you ask, yes, macroscopic scales would certainly be easier to test, but there is more to it.--R8R (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: you haven't responded in a while and I'd like to see your responses on some of the above. Also, I'd love you to help me out with prose a little more if that's possible. As for myself, I'll try to look closely into it more next week when I should have enough time for that.--R8R (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to one above; I agree with some of your responses. Also a little busy :). Will get to the prose in a bit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great to know :) I'll try to look closely at your response above tomorrow or at the beginning of the next week. Eagerly awaiting your prose corrections!--R8R (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the reaction producing heavier 258103 and 259103 was expected to produce no SF activity at all, falling in line with theoretical data" Didn't they do the tests, so why is it was expected? Wouldn't that expectation come from theoretical data?
    • That should be "the reaction producing heavier 258103 and 259103 produced no SF activity at all," I wasn't careful enough editing that sentence.--R8R (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its sorption of dubnium" not 100% sure what "it" is
    • Good one, that should be just "sorption of dubnium" or something--R8R (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at lower concentrations of hydrogen chloride, small amounts of hydrogen fluoride were added to start selective re-extraction" is this a description of the previous extraction, or is it closer to after mixing with lower concentrations of hydrogen chloride, small amounts of hydrogen fluoride were added to start selective re-extraction? Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked what the source actually says on this and it turns out my wording is quite closer to its: "At lower concentrations of HCl, small amounts of added HF gave selective back extraction." Nevertheless, they seem to have formulated it more clearly than I did. Generally, I think you've nailed the point with your latter suggestion.--R8R (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copyediting efforts; these are actually very good. The text is indeed becoming better.--R8R (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article again, did some small edits, and have some last comments R8R:

  • In May 1970, JINR published another report on element 105. The researchers then attempted another experiment to create it. I assume it is more like, JINR then attempted another experiment to create element 105, published in a report in May 1970. - researchers is slightly ambiguous and the phrasing is confusing
    • Yes, let's go with that.--R8R (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think perhaps some stuff on predicted properties could be added to the lead, since so much is there in the body?
    • I am a little afraid to go into small details in the lead, but perhaps something could be added indeed. Let me think it though for a day. I'll ping you tomorrow when I have added something.--R8R (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Galobtter: this is the best thing I could come up with. Does it look good for you? I am a little afraid to go further into details as they seem too minuscule for the lead section.--R8R (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the heavier homolog to tantalum can this really specifically be said considering the experimental chemistry section says that often behaved like niobium, sometimes like protactinium, but rarely like tantalum. and that resembled niobium more closely than tantalumGalobtter (pingó mió) 04:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. This may seem a little at odds with the general periodic trends, but these trends are expected to be twisted for the superheavy elements because of relativistic effects anyway. This behavior dubnium exhibits is what computational chemists would expect (well, mostly) from the heavier homolog of tantalum.--R8R (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get the feeling that really explaining this in a way that gives the readers the right idea would involve expanding a bit on the chemistry of Nb and Ta. They are actually very similar and while it is interesting that Db follows Nb more often than Ta, the differences between the two are fairly small, so these are also small differences that we are talking about for Db. Even Pa is not terribly different from Nb and Ta, although that difference is greater. The 6d transition metals from Rf to Rg could be said to be unusual in the details but ordinary homologues of Hf to Au in their general behaviour; even Cn is not that far removed from Hg, though the distance is a little bit greater (mostly because Cn can use its d-electrons for chemistry whereas Hg cannot). The way this is being phrased now, to a reader who does not know heavy transition element chemistry very well, suggests rather the big differences of the 7p elements than the small ones of the 6d elements, and I think that that should be addressed somehow. Double sharp (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't thank you more for your copyedit. I do see the improvements that I'm still unable to make, but able to enjoy, myself.--R8R (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Double sharp[edit]

Reserving this for now; I'll probably have time to give these in a few days. I was originally going to comment about the prose, but Galobtter has helped to improve this a great deal! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: the prose has indeed improved greatly from when I last looked at this article, so that I am now comfortable with supporting. I'll look through my sources on transactinide chemistry to see if anything needs to be improved or added. Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I could only second your comment re prose quality.
Yes, please, look through those and let me know if there's anything missing. I doubt there would be much but I am eager to stand corrected on this.--R8R (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox mentions a predicted +4 oxidation state (cited) that is not mentioned in the body (unless this has something to do with the +4 species that occurred together with the +5 species assigned to Db in the 2004–5 chemical experiments). Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I just added a very simple mention following the source saying, "Thus, the most stable oxidation state of Db is expected to be 5+ and the 3+ and 4+ states are even less stable than in its lighter homolog Ta."--R8R (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look and nothing else appears to be missing, so I'm happy to support without any more qualifications. Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, this is nice to know :) --R8R (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon[edit]

I would love to see all articles about the elements get to FA status one day. Unfortunately I am no scientist, so there is little I can do apart from providing my prose comments:

  • I think the first sentence should contain that it is highly radioactive. Compare thorium
    • Yeah, radioactivity is a big topic with dubnium and I think it does deserve some accent on it. That was why I dedicated a whole second sentence of the article to it and I deliberately made the first paragraph of the lead so short so that the importance of its great radioactivity is not diminished. I think this is more of an accent than a slight mention in the first sentence.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They ascribed the latter ... with theoretical predictions. --> too long
    • How exactly? The former phrase refers to an experimental result, while the latter (obviously) to a theoretical prediction.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend playing around with punctuation a bit. Something like this maybe: "They assigned the former activity to 242mfAm[a] and ascribed the latter activity to an isotope of element 105. They suggested that it was unlikely that the latter activity could come from a transfer reaction instead of element 105, because the yield ratio for this reaction was significantly lower than that of the 242mfAm-producing transfer reaction, in accordance with theoretical predictions." Edwininlondon (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see; you meant that the sentence was too long. I didn't get that initially. But yes, you were correct; I used your wording instead.--R8R (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the late 1960s and 1970s, tensions reduced somewhat. --> I don't understand why the 60s are mentioned. So far we've been going month by month in 1970. Later you have "In 1968". All this naming controversy timing needs a better set-up.
    • Good one. I've changed that bit.--R8R (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These names were accepted --> This reads a bit odd as the last name is the rejected seaborgium
  • a Council meeting --> what council is this? This sentence also need a reference
    • That one sentence did not even describe the reality very correctly. I've changed that bit.--R8R (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IUPAC decided to allow the name seaborgium --> I feel by now we are straying quite far from the article's topic
    • I've tried my best there to explain just so much that the reader is not left puzzled with a missing detail. If we remove one detail, some questions will inevitably arise, so I keep it as it is. There are just too many connections between various details to omit any.--R8R (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • have less neutrons --> fewer
  • These two are the heaviest isotopes --> any indication of how many isotopes there are total? And how unstable the others are?
    • This would be sort of filler information rather something actually useful. Unstable isotopes are of no particular (or maybe it would be correct to say, "too specialized") interest, so it doesn't really matter how many have been synthesized and how unstable they are; people in fact are interested in the stable isotopes.--R8R (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • of fusion for high atomic numbers. --> needs a reference

I checked the one relevant book I have, Emsley's 2001 Nature's building blocks, and have few comments, which you are free to ignore since the book is 17 years old. It says this:

  • it doesn't list dubnium in a-z order but puts it at the end with the other transfermium elements. Should transfermium not appear in the lead?
    • It is sort of arbitrary where to draw the line if you want to treat the last elements together. "Transfermium" means "after 100"; we use the term "synthetic," which does not say directly but hints, essentially, "after 94," and adds an additional characteristic to that. We could also use the term "superheavy," which usually means, "after 103." It would be good one way or another.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are 9 known isotopes
    • There are more now and this will be hard to keep up to date. Possibly we could mention that in the Isotopes section, but while I do this for the stable elements because it sort of feels like a good, even if not very informative, way to end the subsection, we have a better way to do so with the superheavy elements. This is, to be fair, not the most useful piece of information there is, as only some of these isotopes actually matter.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • atomic weight ranges from 255 to 263
    • The range is wider now--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • it has 1967 for first report of 260 isotope
    • To be exact, the experiment took place in 1967, but the report came out in 1968.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • it has Flerov as leading the Russian team
  • and Ghiorso as leading the US team
    • I don't see a reason to focus on them. We do give them a mention where this becomes important, though: the attempt to solve the conflict around priority and naming of the new elements in 1975.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • first attempt to assess chemical behavior done by bombarding berkelium 249 with O18
    • Given that we're only writing an overview article, that would be a little too close a detail if you ask me.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on an obscure element. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • The 2011 edition of Nature's Building Blocks puts Db in the alphabetical order. I don't think the 2001 edition is necessarily a good guide because much of the research on such elements is recent and post-dates 2001: now there are 13 known isotopes (going past 263 to 270), but that's more of a figure detailing what we so far can produce than what is likely to be out there (there should be a lot more, and the list of those currently known contains a lot of gaps). As for seaborgium – the problem is that the whole controversy spilled over to all the other elements between 102 and 108, although it really only started being a problem with 104 and 105. As a result trying to keep the story to element 105 alone results in a lot of details that need explanation. Double sharp (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would love to see all element articles to become featured someday. There is not a single FA in this part of the periodic table yet, so I just went ahead and wrote an article on one element.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the initiative. I just found the ultimate goal stated on WP:ELEM. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I know little of science, I support. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! And I assume most readers won't be scientists, either, so such input is very appreciated.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I was looking to promote this but I notice that two statements appear to be uncited: last sentence of Background and last sentence of second-last paragraph of Naming controversy -- pls review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I've added the refs. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt response. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2018 (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) 07:46, 21 April 2018 [20].

Sonic Adventure[edit]

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 1996, audiences were taught that a Mario could wall-jump. Now, it was time for them to see what a Sonic could do. Sonic Adventure, released for the Dreamcast in December 1998, is one of the most significant video games of all time for several reasons. For one thing, it was the first 3D Sonic game (there was an attempt that ended in disaster a few years before); therefore, expectations were high. It is also one of the first sixth generation video games and showed players the potential of a 128-bit system.

I've been nurturing this article for a few months now, when I managed to restore its good article status over three years after it was delisted. Ever since then, I've greatly expanded almost every section of this article, making it the most complete resource about the game on the Internet. I'd also like to thank TarkusAB, czar, and Adam9007 for providing me print resources that I wouldn't have had access to. Now, I think this article is of (or close to) featured quality. I'd like to have it up to standards by December for its 20th anniversary. Thanks! JOEBRO64 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start with images and sources, because that's what I do best. I'm not the greatest prose reviewer, but I'll try to look at some prose a little later.
    • File:Sonic Adventure.PNG - looks to be appropriately licensed and used.
    • File:Sonic Adventure Dreamcast.png - Just nitpicking here: no such free equivalent exists because the game itself is a copyrighted work and therefore no free equivalent can exist.
      • Done.
    • File:Sonic design for Sonic Adventure.png - Looks pretty good, but also no free equivalent can exist because the character is a copyrighted character. I do think this would meet the qualifications to justify fair use in this article.
      • Done.
    • File:Sonic Adventure compared.png - Same as above.
      • Done.

Will filter sources a little later. Red Phoenix talk 23:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - spotchecks not done.
    • Missing dates on some sources. Source 8, for instance, is dated June 20, 2003 on the article, and it's far from the only one missing a date. It's preferable to have the actual article date whenever you can, even if you have an archivedate and retrieved date; it can provide relevance to how recent the reviews or information was in relation to the game's release.
      • I've gone and done all of this. Damn, I love the Visual Editor. Some, like certain 1UP and AllGame didn't have dates, so I left them out.
    • Source 10 has the publisher and date in the link, but not cited as the magazine or the date itself. Check the formatting here.
      • Fixed.
    • What kind of source is #13? It's hard to tell, or where I can find it to review.
      • It's citing a video. The source is a video interview Sega released in 2003 to promote the GameCube/PC re-release. The problem is... it was added to the article a long time ago, and the original video link has been dead for years now. You can find a re-uploaded version here.
    • List publishers whenever you can. Retro Gamer, for instance, is Imagine Publishing (except for a few of the earliest and latest issues). Having publishers listed helps readers to establish the reliability of the sources.
      • All refs have publishers now.
    • Keep your sources consistent as well. IGN is linked several times at random, and not linked elsewhere. It is also italicized in various places as well; it should always be as the website, then either IGN Entertainment or Ziff Davis as the publisher. Take a scan over and look for consistency in your sourcing.
      • Consistent now—all have links.
    • Is #78 necessary? "Sonic Team (November 14, 2006). Sonic the Hedgehog. Sega. Level/area: Wave Ocean." What specifically is this reference to the video game itself citing? If the other source says Wave Ocean is based on Emerald Coast, that's all you need.
      • The source doesn't explicitly call it "Wave Ocean", so that's why I added it. I'll remove it though—I'm now realizing it's not necessary
    • Same for #84 and #85.
      • The first one is actually necessary. I couldn't find any secondary sources that provided the detail that Chaos is in Sonic Battle, so I just cited the game itself. I have found a Nintendo Life source that mentions the Chaos recreation, so I've added that.
        • I'll see if I can find a replacement for 84. I won't fail it if I can't, but I think we can do better on the source. I have some ideas on where to look.
    • I'm unfamiliar with #91; what makes this YouTube video a reliable source?
      • It's an interview with Sega associate brand manager Ken Balough from 2012, so it's acceptable as a primary source. The quote that supports what he's saying is "I know Iizuka-san has officially retired Big the Cat".

Sources all look reliable based on my knowledge of WP:VG/RS, so let's look at what's above and we should be good on sourcing. Red Phoenix talk 00:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: I'll finish with fixing up the sources tomorrow. I've responded to a few of your points above. JOEBRO64 01:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: I think I've resolved all issues with referencing. Responded above. JOEBRO64 21:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good so far, Joebro. I'm going through and filtering through sources again and throwing in a few publishers and fixes myself. As I do, I'm coming across a couple more questions I have.
  • Source 29 is to a strategy guide, and the link is just a link to where to purchase it via Amazon. If it's not a link to the text itself, it should just be delinked because it only serves as advertisement. Also, I see that source is used to cite a technological limitation of the Dreamcast? I would be curious to see the actual source or what's being cited there specifically; it's a bit unusual for a game guide to go into technologic speculation and surely they're getting their information on that from a better source, or they're just making an assumption, which can be dangerous.
  • Removed the Amazon link. The strategy guide actually has an interview with Takashi Iizuka, which is where that information is coming from.
  • Something interesting about source 30 you may want to consider: its original form was used before in the Knuckles Chaotix article. This makes some sense, since EGM was for a time owned by Ziff Davis, who also purchased 1UP and owned it for a while, so 1UP shares some of that material. It's not a huge, huge deal, but I would consider going with the primary source since it was EGM who conducted the interview. Not a dealbreaker if you leave it be, though.
  • I've replaced it, per your suggestion.
  • Source 36: Anywhere we can access this interview? Was it published somewhere?
  • Crap. It was here, but the video looks like it was deleted. I've dropped it entirely.
  • Source 69: Is this a book? If so, can we find an ISBN number?
  • Done. I've also linked to the book, since it has its own article.
I did some work to help add a few more publishers too. If we can address these final few points, I would be glad to support this article on images and sources. Red Phoenix talk 15:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: Thank you for reviewing! I've hopefully addressed your comments; responded above. JOEBRO64 16:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. At this time, I believe that the article's images and sources meet the FA criteria, and I am happy to support this article on images and sources. Well done! Red Phoenix talk 16:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Aoba47
  • Since you reference Tails by his full name (i.e. Miles “Tails” Prower) at his first mention in the body article, do you think that you should do the same for the first mention of the character in the lead for consistency?
    • You're right. I've done this.
  • For the final sentence of the first paragraph of the “Gameplay” section, I am not sure if the use of the semicolons are grammatically correct (i.e. the use of semicolons in a list). The same comment applies for the end of the second paragraph in the same section. It could be correct, but I just wanted to draw attention to this.
    • I've changed them to commas. I looked at other video game FAs and they didn't use semicolons, just commas.
      • Actually, the semicolons are the correct way to go here. Each item in these two lists is actually a complete sentence, so using commas would make the entire thing a run-on. I have changed them back. Indrian (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (As they explore the hub, players find entrances to), I am uncertain about the use of the word “players”. To the best of my knowledge, this is a single-player game so I think it would be more appropriate to say “the player”. The “they” pronoun would still work with the singular as it would be gender neutral. Is the reference to “players” appropriate for this section? It is a nitpicky comment, but just wanted to raise this to your attention.
    • I've changed it to "the player".
  • I have a clarification question about this part (Action Stages; some of which have to be opened using a key that is hidden in the Adventure Field). The current word, specifically the reference to “using a key that is hidden in the Adventure Field”, makes me think there is only one key to unlock all of the entraces. Is this true? If not, then I would substitute “keys” for “a key”.
    • I've used your suggestion.
  • For this part (Chao can be taken with the player), I think you mean “Chaos” plural.
    • Actually, within the Sonic games, "Chao" is one of those words that can be single and plural, like "deer".
      • Makes sense to me. It has been a while since I thought about those little guys so I forgot about that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you thik you should be put the GBA acronym after the first mention of Game Boy Advance?
    • Yeah, I've done this.
  • For References 30, 31, and 32, the titles should not be in all-caps.
    • Fixed.

Wonderful work with this article. I remember playing this game when I was younger. I only had a few brief comments. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate help with my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1) if you have the time and energy. I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for commenting! I've responded above. I'll take a look at your FAC later. JOEBRO64 21:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Indrian

The content of the article is fantastic. The prose is a little weak in places. The series of edits I have made myself while conducting this review and the below observations will help in that department, but even with these corrections, I am not sure the writing is quite up to FA quality yet. We'll see what we can do though!

  • The History of Sonic the Hedgehog is a book, so every time it is sourced the citation should include a page number.
    • Done.
      • All the FA articles I can recall reading include the page numbers in the footnotes, so each page is a new citation. It may be your way is also correct, I just don't know the policy on that. Indrian (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't actually matter, as far as I know; both ways are acceptable. I've written some articles include the page numbers in footnotes, but that's because the book citation isn't inline (it's included at the end of the article sometimes, but not here). I recently helped get Knuckles' Chaotix to FA status, and all the book citations were inline. JOEBRO64 16:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the player is placed in an Adventure Field—open-ended hub worlds that they can freely explore" - Singular versus plural agreement. The player is either "placed in one of several Adventure Fields" or an Adventure Field is "an open-ended hub world that they can freely explore." Whichever you prefer is fine.
    • I used the plural.
  • I do not believe the term "player character" is a hyphenate.
    • You're right. I've removed it.
  • "Through exploration, the player finds entrances to normal levels called Action Stages" - What exactly makes a level "normal"? Perhaps the word can be omitted?
    • Yeah, I've omitted "normal".
  • "Chao can be taken with the player by downloading the minigame Chao Adventure" - Poorly worded. Chao can also be taken with the player if they lug a Dreamcast to someone else's house. We need a better way to convey the portability aspect of the creatures.
    • Reworded. I've made it clear the VMU is a handheld and moved the information about the GBA connectivity in SADX to the release section.
  • "Players can also raise the status of their Chao's status"
    • Man, as much as I love the GOCE, sometimes weird things happen when they edit articles! Fixed.
  • "The story ends on a cliffhanger, with Sonic chasing Robotnik." - Chasing him where?
    • Uh, the game kinda just ends with Sonic chasing him. I've reworded it to say "chases him to places unknown".
  • There is an organizational problem in the beginning of the development section. In the prelude portion, the article makes reference to Naka being excited by the possibility of the Dreamcast allowing him to make "the best Sonic game ever," which implies that working on Dreamcast was the impetus for starting the game. However, in the next section, the article reveals development began on Saturn and only switched to Dreamcast a few months later. The material about Naka being impressed by Dreamcast should appear when the article discusses the shift to Dreamcast development.
    • I've restructured it. I split Naka's learning of the Dreamcast and the beginnings of development (i.e. Saturn development and Dreamcast transition/basics) into its own section, and added some information about how Naka didn't like Sonic X-treme and thought that only Sonic Team should make 3D Sonic games.
  • "as development progressed the team wanted to challenge itself 'with in this undertaking of recreating Sonic, the character, and his world brand new'" - This phrase makes no sense and appears not to track with the included quotation from the source. He is saying that it felt like the power of the hardware was challenging the team to recreate Sonic and his world in a new way. The current sentence construction does not convey that and is grammatically incorrect.
    • Goshdarnit, I knew there was something wrong with that sentence. Fixed.
  • "The designer submitted several concepts before one was accepted." - This sentence adds little to our understanding of the subject -- I think its understood that most designs go through several iterations -- while harming the flow of the paragraph. I would personally take it out.
    • Cut it entirely.
  • "Sonic was also given new homing and light speed attacks to make the 3D controls feel more comfortable" - How exactly these new moves make the controls more "comfortable" is not clear from the article.
    • I've clarified this and moved it down to the paragraph about the challenges of transitioning the series to 3D.
  • "Iizuka wanted to create a villain who would serve alongside Doctor Robotnik, which would have been impossible to make on older hardware." - I assume this sentence indicates that they wanted to create a villain design that would have been impossible on older hardware, but as written it states that it would have been impossible to have two villains on older hardware.
    • I've cut the part about him serving with Robotnik.
  • "they changed their stance when working on the 2001 sequel, Sonic Adventure 2, only including the elements they deemed necessary" - This fact would make sense in a series article, but not an article specifically discussing the first game. Maybe it could be worked into the Legacy section.
    • You're right—I've cut it entirely. I might try to take the Sonic series article to GA sometime, so I'll keep this fact in mind.
  • "and introducing new elements such as evolution" - Chao evolution is not mentioned in the gameplay section of the article. If its important enough to be discussed in development, then it needs to be explained what evolution is in the context of the game.
    • "Evolution" was supposed to be a paraphrase of "improve its skills". I've mentioned evolution in the gameplay section, and reworded the sentence in development.
  • "The band created the game's main theme" - What band? First time a band is mentioned.
    • Oops. That's a leftover of when someone tried to add that Crush 40 made the music for the game (in retrospective OST releases they are credited, but actually weren't formed until 2000). Fixed.
  • "downloadable content were also added" - What downloadable content? DLC is not mentioned anywhere else that I can see.
    • I've reworded the sentence to give a better explanation of the original's DLC.
  • "This version is based on Sonic Adventure DX and supports high-definition visuals but most additional features were removed and needed to be re-implemented by purchasing them as downloadable content" - What was removed? It need not be a complete list, but as written the article gives the reader no idea what is missing.
    • I was actually able to add all the stuff that was removed because it was only three (big) things: the Game Gear games, missions, and Metal Sonic. The latter two can be reimplemented with the DLC.
  • Many of the reviews are from the time of release, but the article mixes in several that are retrospective in nature. These are very different types of reviews that are evaluating the game on different criteria, as release reviews are based on what has existed to that point and retrospective reviews are also taking into account developments since that time. They should be clearly separated from each other.
    • Yeah, I did try to separate them, but they kinda got shifted around with later edits. To fix this, I've added each retrospective comment to the end of the paragraph they're in and signified that it was a retrospective analysis.
  • One and three-quarters paragraphs on Big is too much Big. I would attached the first sentence of the stand-alone paragraph ("Big's poor reception and perceived uselessness caused Sonic Team in 2012 to decide not to place him in any more games") to the end of the previous paragraph and delete everything that comes after. If you want to do it another way that's fine, but we need a smaller Big presence.
    • Done.

That does it for this round. Its a fair number of changes, but they will really help whip the prose into shape. Indrian (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Indrian: Thank you for the copyedits and review! I think I've resolved everything from this round; responded above. And I appreciate the comment that the content is fantastic—this is probably my favorite article that I've worked on. JOEBRO64 21:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Thank you for the changes, they have improved the flow of the article tremendously! I still have a question on page numbers articulated above, but all my other concerns have been addressed. I do not have time to do another full read through right now, but I will do so soon. I will note any other concerns at that time. Indrian (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64:Okay, I did one more round of copy editing mostly to improve flow, and I believe the prose has reached a similar standard to the excellent content. I am ready to support promotion. Well done!
Thank you! JOEBRO64 18:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I was hoping that some of the commentators on the WT:FAC thread on source reviews would chip in here, but unfortunately no-one has. This diff from Ealdgyth (this is a courtesy ping, not a request for a review!) raises a few issues. The main one is if the Pétronille, Marc; Audureau, William work is sufficiently high quality for FA. My inclination is that it isn't. But there are a few other issues raised there. So I think we need to look at sourcing a little more. Also pinging Red Phoenix who did the earlier source review. Sarastro (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • A JUVENILE book?!? Not sure what worldcat is smoking, but no it's not. Pix'n Love is a French specialist press run by Florent Gorges, the world's foremost expert on Nintendo. The Petronille book is written for an adult enthusiast audience and includes numerous direct quotes from all of Sonic's key creators, three of whom were interviewed specifically for this book. It is the best general history of Sonic out there. I understand the need to be careful on sourcing, but this is what happens when a non-expert in a topic takes a hurried look at a source without even bothering to read it. Indrian (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we could avoid alienating reviewers, that might be a good starting point. And I'm afraid we need some way to verify what you are saying. Sarastro (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not my FA candidate nor my source review (nor my GA review for that matter), so I don't have a horse in this fight, but yeah I kinda take offense at people offering critique on a source they have clearly not engaged with, so I will stand by that. Ealdgyth takes issue with the Petronille book because he claims Worldcat labels it a juvenile work. It is, quite simply, not, which anyone who actually read the source itself would know. Simple as that. If you need proof of that beyond the article being promoted to GA status and being given a source review by an editor in accordance with policy, then just take a peak at the preview on Amazon. Its not high scholarship or anything, but there is no reason to doubt its reliability or dismiss it as a children's work. Indrian (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note that some of Ealdgyth's other concerns related to Destructoid, Engadget, and Kotaku are valid and should be examined in further detail, as these are all situational sources that may or may not have been used appropriately in this article. If this needs a further source review as a result, I would be happy to do one, but readily admit I have never done one for an FA before. Indrian (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone and replaced the refs Ealdgyth commented upon with better ones. The only one I didn't change was the ref used to cite "In May 2011, Sega rereleased the soundtrack to celebrate the Sonic franchise's 20th anniversary" because that is clearly supported by the source (which is primary). JOEBRO64 23:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I was pinged: As someone who has spent a long time reviewing WP:VG/RS and has spent considerable time studying video game sources for accuracy in writing a collection of FAs myself, I will stand by my source review. Red Phoenix talk 00:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Red's expertise. I only offered to do a second review if it would set minds here at ease, not because I think he did a poor job. Indrian (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the actual content of Ealdgyth's non-FAC comments that Sarastro1 is merging into this FAC: Engadget does not appear on the article. Kotaku and the editorial side of Destructoid are listed at WP:VG/RS. WorldCat listing the book as a "juvenile work" is clearly an error on their side—a look at its Amazon listing very much indicates otherwise. Ealdgyth and Sarastro1 appear to be mulling over your FAC at his talk page, which I'd suggest you all keep an eye on. Something about an iTunes source. Ealdgyth has even posted a helpful solution. Aside from that, I see no reason to disparage the credibility of the initial source review. Ealdgyth was mistaken. I'll be watching this page to see how this goes. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd actually seen that and implemented Ealdgyth's suggested change. JOEBRO64 23:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I was under the impression that this had three supports and was looking to promote. However, I see we only have two. Perhaps the simplest way is if I recuse as coordinator and review myself as this seems pretty close to me. I've copy-edited where I can, but as usual please revert anything that I messed up. Once these issues have been discussed/addressed, I'm inclined to support this as it's a very readable piece of work. Sarastro (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do sales figures stop at 2006? Is there anything more recent? If not, can we not just say that two million copies were sold rather than dating it?
    • The Dreamcast was basically dead by 2006, which is when those sales were first reported. Reliable sources haven't provided any higher numbers since, so those are the most recent sales we have. I'd wouldn't mind removing it, but the video game project typically requires articles to state when the sales numbers were reported. (If they don't, editors typically put a "when" tag next to it.) JOEBRO64 21:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, we say that reviewers were "saying it successfully moved the Sonic franchise to 3D" but I can't really find this in the main body. Not from the reviewers anyway.
    • You're right. I've removed it and changed it to something the reviewers do say. JOEBRO64 21:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game is considered one of the most important of the sixth generation of video game consoles and among the best games of the Sonic series.": I think we should be a little more circumspect in the lead; the main body qualifies this by saying who said these things. Maybe tone this down slightly for the lead? In any case, the obvious question here is "considered by who"?
    • I've provided attribution. I'll remove it from the lead entirely if you think that's better, though. JOEBRO64 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is often called one of the worst in a video game": Called by who?
  • "Sonic Adventure is a 3D platformer action game": Watch out for WP:SEAOFBLUE
    • I've reworked it a little bit. Is what I did better? JOEBRO64 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horrified, Chaos harnesses the power of the Chaos Emeralds to transform into his Perfect form": Why is Perfect capitalised?
    • That's how it is in the game and how sources write it, so I think that's how it should be here. JOEBRO64 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot really understand the plot section at all. It simply makes no sense to me, but I suspect that isn't the fault of the editors of this article! Perhaps someone who knows what it's all about could take a look and see if it can be tweaked for the poor general reader without bloating out that section? I wouldn't oppose over that section, and it wouldn't prevent my support, but it sticks out as clunky in a generally well-written and accessible article.
    • Well, before I rewrote this article in November, the plot section looked like this. I tried to make it "Sonic Adventure in a nutshell" when I wrote it. I've altered it a bit and added some clarification, so I hope it's a bit better. JOEBRO64 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cancellation is considered an important factor in the Saturn's commercial failure": In this case, it either was or wasn't. Would we be safe to lose "considered"? If not, I'd suggest reworking this to say "Levi Buchanan [note to say who he is] considers..."
    • I've removed "considered". Many more sources (and the Saturn article) verify that X-treme's cancellation is indeed a factor the Saturn's ultimate failure. If you'd like me to I'll add more of those sources. JOEBRO64 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Development of Sonic Adventure began in April 1997 on the Saturn with a 20-strong team.": Four refs for such a simple sentence usually rings alarm bells.
    • I've removed them. A few of them weren't supposed to be there; I think they might've been accidentally moved when the GOCE copyedited the article. JOEBRO64 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some of the longer quotations in the "Design" section would benefit from in-text attribution (e.g. "giving the player an element of discovery in addition to the platforming") although technically this wouldn't be required as they are not full sentences so I wouldn't insist on this.
    • I've added attribution to the one you mentioned but not to any else, since I think the way they're currently handled are fine.JOEBRO64 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the level designs were completed, Naka decided to use them for other characters and playstyles.": I've no idea what this means. Decided to use the design levels how? Then the next sentence "Sonic Team had already implemented an in-game fishing rod with no context or use, so they created Big[27] as a contrast to the other action-based characters" similarly does not make any sense to me, nor does it really follow on from the previous sentence.
    • I've added a direct quote from Naka. I've split up the Big info, too, and clarified it. JOEBRO64 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speculation arose that the game could save the Dreamcast,[65][71] which had not sold well by the end of 1998,[65] or even re-establish Sega as the dominant console manufacturer after the relatively unsuccessful Saturn": This is sourced to the two reviews. Can I just clarify, do the reviews say that speculation arose among other people? Or do the reviewers speculate themselves? If the latter, this probably needs rephrasing in that we should say that "[reviewer name] speculated that ..."
    • I've attributed the comments; I just checked the magazines and they say it as their belief. JOEBRO64 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I almost never comment on images, but I do wonder if the sketch of the new design in really warranted. We would know what he looked like from the other images. But I'm not an image expert so this does not affect my support. Sarastro (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Thank you for the review! I've responded above and have hopefully resolved your issues. JOEBRO64 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy with all the changes made, and made a few little further tweaks. Just to note that I'm still not convinced about the image I mentioned, and wonder is it worth looking at this further. But that doesn't affect my support. Sarastro (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Homeostasis07

I wasn't really gonna go either way on this, but since I was watching this page anyway, I figured it'd be good manners to contribute one way or the other. Since another editor raised questions elsewhere about the source quality, I've read through the entire article and checked every reference for both quality and accuracy, and I'm satisfied with what's here.

The only reference I could concievably see anyone complaining about is reference #26: Gamers Global, which is used to support the text: Sonic Team (explained elsewhere) had already implemented an in-game fishing rod (explained elsewhere) with no context or use, leading to the creation of Big. In the context of what the article uses this citation to reference, and the fact that the reference itself is an interview with the game's producer Yuji Naka, I'm satisfied it can comply with the "high-quality" criteria of FAC.

Two minor complaints though: wouldn't it be better to use the SFN template for reference #4, instead of all those page numbers? I know SFN can seem a bit complicated, if you're unfamiliar with the formatting, so I'd be happy to do that for you if needed. Likewise, the only piece of prose I could complain about is the second-to-last sentence in the lead: "Writers often call a character introduced in the game—Big the Cat—one of the worst in a video game." Perhaps that could be worded a bit clearer, something like: "Writers have referred to one of the characters introduced in this game—Big the Cat—as being one of the worst video game characters ever created." That seems to be the point that both the prose of the article and the sources themselves seem to be making.

Aside from those, I'm happy to Support this article for promotion. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Thank you for the support! My responses:
  • I'm aware of the SFN template, but I didn't use it for consistency because most of the printed resources I cite are inline. If you still think it's better I'll be more than happy to change it, though.
  • I changed the sentence about Big to say Writers have called Big the Cat one of the worst characters to feature in a video game, which I think is clearer. JOEBRO64 23:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The SFN stuff is really more of a personal preference anyway. I only brought it up in-case you weren't aware of it. Since I see there's a reason you've used the formatting you did, I'm happy to just drop it. And I like what you did with the prose point too. No complaints from me. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @WP:FAC coordinators: I'm going to be gone from Saturday the 21st to Friday the 27th and am probably not going to be able to edit Wikipedia. Should I notify someone to keep an eye on this and address any issues that may be raised while I'm gone? JOEBRO64 23:07, 19 April 2018 (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) 06:53, 21 April 2018 [21].

Hi-Level[edit]

Nominator(s): Mackensen (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hi-Level is a bilevel intercity railcar which ran in the United States from 1954–2018. It entered service in 1954 with the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway's El Capitan. It was the first type of bilevel intercity railcar in the United States. The Hi-Levels remained in service with Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States, from 1971–2018, after the end of most private sector passenger service in the United States. Their design influenced the Superliner, which entered service in 1978 and remains the backbone of Amtrak's fleet west of the Mississippi River. The article was promoted to GA status in February 2016; I've just finished a major expansion. Mackensen (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tintor2[edit]

Nice article. I don't know too much but there are somethings that might be worth checking:

  • Are the notes in the infobox necessary. Unless we are dealing with controversial information I would advise removing them.
  • The background section uses a single source. Is it possible to use another one? I know it's an introduction to another article though.
  • "Summary" sounds a bit redundant. Reference 13 and a possible other one could also serve as a source.
  • Archived the five online sources. FAs need them in case the url ever gets deleted.

That's all I have to say. Ping me or mention me when you think that you are finished. I'm not too used with these types of articles so some comments I made might be wrong. Also, a fellow user and me made this FAC and I would appreciate your feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tintor2: Thanks for your feedback. Notes in the infobox are common with rail transport articles because some information isn't in the main text, and unsourced information has a habit of creeping in. Background could easily be sourced from multiple places; Flick and Krogan simply told the whole story. I'll add some sources. The "Summary" section is modeled on Superliner (railcar)#Summary and I think a useful callout. The road numbers, in particular, aren't elsewhere in the main text but there are readers who will want them. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support it then. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: I've added some sources and expanded the background section a little. Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work.Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 9: The main link isn't going to the headlined page of the Chicago Tribune – how does one get there? Also I'm getting timeouts on the archive link.
  • Ref 13: A similiar problem: neither main nor archived links go to the headline page.
  • Format issues: please choose a single format for archive dates. Also as to when you add retrieval dates.
  • Ref 29: Why is this source reliable? There are no publisher details; the site contains the message: "Site not affiliated to Amtrak"
  • Ref 55: Harvard error ("Welch")

Otherwise sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your feedback, I've tried to address all your points:
    • Reference 9: It appears that the Chicago Tribune has moved to Newspapers.com for its archives. I've clipped the article and re-done the reference.
    • Reference 13: I made a deliberate choice to link to the metadata instead of the PDF, because it'll download directly from Amtrak's website without context. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.
    • Reference 29: The site isn't affiliated with Amtrak, but the diagrams almost certainly came from an Amtrak source at some point. You can see a refreshed version on an official site; it's the same style. I've replaced it.
    • Reference 55: gah, fixed.
    • Format: all dates are consistent now.
  • Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "first-class lounge service on the Coast Starlight through February 4, 2018." "until February 4, 2018" would be clearer for British readers.
  • I would add a paragraph about the fate of the Hi-Levels, if the information is available. Were they all demolished or are some preserved in museums etc, and if so, where?
  • Support. Just a couple of minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles: Thanks for the feedback. No preservations thus far that I'm aware of. Corridor Capital owns most of the cars, but reliable information is thin. I've added a sentence. I incorporated your suggestion into the lead as well. Mackensen (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon[edit]

Having been on a similar one years ago, I could not resist the opportunity to review this short and sweet article, nicely illustrated. I have no train knowledge, so with that caveat, my comments below:

  • infobox says 15 feet 6 inches but main text 15.5, maybe better to have consistent notation. Same with 4.7m in text but 4.72 in infobox. The main text has 2 decimals for 0.61 so probably best for consistency to use 4.72 in text
    • Griswold said 15 1/2 ft, so I've settled on that. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • links: MOS:REPEATLINK suggests for example Santa Fe in Background section should be linked again, and Budd Company in History should be delinked
  • I found the separation between Background and History by the Design section odd. I think swapping the Design and History sections might work better
  • Fred Frailey, Twilight of the Great Trains, --> that last comma .. is something meant to follow?
  • or retrofitting them --> stylistically not the prettiest (not a fan of that "or", plus the "them" takes effort to understand it's not the parts you're referring to)
  • ISBN numbers, I've been told, should all be same format (e.g., all isbn 13). https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter could help
  • should Wayner, Robert J., ed. (1972) perhaps precede Wayner, Robert J., ed. (1973) ?
  • question: is there anything about any difficulties or limitations when they designed the cars to be 2 feet higher than normal? Was there a standard tunnel height?
    • Not in the Santa Fe's territory, which was mostly wide-open plains and desert. I've taken the Chicago-Los Angeles train a couple times and the only tunnel I can recall is the one within the Raton Pass. I've never seen clearances mentioned as a design constraint. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Recusing on coordinator on this one as I think we were a little light on review. A first read through looks good, and I'm inclined to support this. Just two general queries from me. Sarastro (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Santa Fe introduced the El Capitan in 1938": I think we need to say a little about the El Capitan here; we describe it in the lead but not in the main body.
  • "Amtrak took over operation of most intercity passenger service in the United States in 1971, including the Santa Fe's remaining trains.": Can we give a little context to this? It's probably generally known, but would set the article in a wider context. Sarastro (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sarastro1: thank you for your feedback and copyediting. There's a paragraph on the El Capitan in Hi-Level#Background; do you think more is needed? I've added a few sentences explaining what Amtrak is. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm convinced by the replies, and I think we have enough on El Capitan, if I'm honest. I'm happy now that this meets the criteria. Nice piece of work. Sarastro (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • Have we had an image review? If not, you can request one at the top of WT:FAC.
  • There are several duplinks in the article so pls review.
  • There's a harv error at FN22, which looks like it's caused by a conflict in the author name -- Thoms vs. Thomas -- I can see in WorldCat that both are used but you need to keep it consistent here.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Ian Rose:. I've requested an image review and addressed the DUPLINKS. The reference error was caused by the template using author instead of first and last name (no idea how that happened) and I've fixed that as well. Best, Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick review! The NARA images were uploaded as part of a cooperation with the National Archives and Records Administration. The images were bot-uploaded. I can't speak to the publication date for the postcard, though there isn't much doubt the image was published prior to 1978. Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jo-Jo, can I confirm if we're good to go with image licensing now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry[edit]

  • taller than most conventional equipment Did this cause any issues with clearance/guageing? Did it restrict the availability?
  • vestibules connected the upper levels only I know what a vestibule is and I know it's linked, but I feel we should offer the reader a definition here, especially since the linked "Vestibuled train" opens with the somewhat circular "A vestibuled train is a passenger train whose cars have enclosed vestibules".

That's it from me. An enjoyable read and I'm really struggling to find anything much to criticise, so support regardless of what you decide to do with the above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the feedback! Clearances were only an issue east of the Mississippi River; most sources only discuss them in the context of the Superliners. I've added a sentence. I've reworded the bit about vestibules to explain their function. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2018 (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) 21:16, 10 April 2018 [22].

2017–18 Bergen County eruv controversy[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a controversy that it's something of a shock to have happening in the present day. Still, Bergen County, the county that brought you boroughitis, the Meadowlands, The Sopranos and me, for I grew up there, has been known for such things in the past, regrettably.Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should "local authories" should be " local authorities"?
Fixed.
Image review
All looks good to me. What year is it again? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1492, I gather. All done. Thanks Hawkeye!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from FunksBrother

  • Hello. I noticed in the article's talk page that there weren't any Wikiprojects related to the article. I went ahead and added three Wikiprojects: Judaism, Urban Planning, and New Jersey. Also I noticed this article wasn't mentioned in the eruv article. Maybe you could add a summary that links that article to the eruv article. FunksBrother (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it as a see also even though I see there is a pipe to the article in the controversies section. I hate to add text to the eruv article on this controversy, as there have been other controversies, and the Tenafly one went to the Third Circuit.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nothing much to say, except that paras towards the end of the article start to run rather long. Interesting & well written, though the later sections inevitably get a bit dense as matters reach the courts. The eruv context is well-explained. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support. I will look at the paragraph length and legalese issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - reviewed this at PR and was satisfied with the responses there. Ceoil (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments there and here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Another happy camper from the PR. Another subsequent read through shows the article has strengthened since then to the point of firmly meeting all FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius[edit]

TL;DR: The prose is a little buggy and it seems the event is still ongoing. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there is one major issue. Per WP:FACR 1(e), wouldn't the article only be stable after the lawsuit and settlement have been definitively decided? This doesn't seem to be a crucial point of failure, but New Jersey Attorney General's lawsuit against Mahwah remains pending doesn't instill confidence of this article's stability.

I wouldn't say that. Clearly a small amount of updating may be needed to show the outcome of the AG"s suit vs. Mahwah, but that's a relatively minor detail. Most of this controversy is past tense. At some point they will settle the AG suit or bring it to trial and we'll record the result. Articles have passed FA many times even though there's a bit more to be done in the events.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, here are my prose reviews:

  • Lead:
    • An eruv is used by Orthodox Jews as a ritual boundary within which they can carry items in a way normally forbidden on the Jewish Sabbath, and was marked by plastic pipes attached to utility poles. - "Is" and "was" are of two different tenses, since we're talking about the eruv. You should pick one tense and stick with it. Also, is there a way to integrate this with the preceding sentence? This sounds like it could be the first sentence in the "eruv" article.
"Was" is correct because it refers to this specific eruv, which is marked with plastic pipes. Another eruv might not be; we know twine is sometimes used. I've clarified we're talking about the one in Bergen County but don't entirely feel the change is an improvement. I think it important to have a basic definition of eruv in both lede and body.
    • Rockland County, New York should have a comma after it.
I'm not convinced it's necessary and it slows down the prose. Can you explain why it is needed?
@Wehwalt: The comma acts like a parenthesis here. For example, "I traveled to Rockland County, New York, and went camping." versus "I traveled to Rockland County and went camping". epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I think "New York" or "New York State" needs to be in there, adding a comma seems the best alternative and I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background:
    • and the boroughs of Upper Saddle River and Montvale should also be followed by a comma, since this is a comma-separated clause.
Very well.
    • All three are adjacent to the state line with New York, which is to the northeast of these New Jersey municipalities, but this is not made clear in the article. Parts of New York are also to the southeast of New Jersey, so mentioning that Rockland County is to the northeast would clarify things.
If you assume that the state line runs northwest-southeast, that is true to a limited extent, but as Rockland County continues to the northwest of Mahwah, I'm not convinced this helps the reader. And the line really runs about ESE. Is the image of the map not satisfactory here?
No, it only shows the New Jersey side. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a second map.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally, on Shabbat, an object cannot be taken from a private domain, like a house, into a public one, such as a street or sidewalk, or moved, in a public area, more than 4 cubits (about 6 feet; 1.7 meters). However, objects can be moved freely if they remain within a private domain, and an eruv effectively extends the private domain through the area it encloses. So basically, this article is implying that the sidewalk or street can also be part of the private domain. This should be clarified.
I've added a bit.
    • The poles are regarded as doorposts, and are marked by lechis (singular: lechi), solid objects such as twine or plastic pipe, which run from near the ground to just below the wires. - While we're on the subject of eruvim, would all telephone posts attached to an eruv be marked with a lechi, or would observant Jews only be able to go through certain pairs of poles with lechi on them? If the article is going into this level of detail about eruv, this should at least be clarified.
I haven't the faintest idea. This strikes me as beyond the basic information we are providing the reader. I would hesitate even to add it if I could find it on one of the Judaism sites I use because unless it is a matter of halachah, the local rabbis may be interpreting things differently. When I did the fieldwork for this article in February, every pole on one side of the road did seem to have lechis, but I'm in no position to judge from this.
Fair enough. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction and controversy:
    • Mahwah police noted construction being done on utility poles in May and made inquiries, on learning that Orange and Rockland had authorized the work, they provided police protection, for which the department was paid about $2,000 by the eruv fund. is a run-on sentence.
Split.
    • "firestorm of opposition" - this quotation's source should be attributed in the article prose.
Done, reluctantly. I think the quote more than sufficient. Indeed, I put it that way because however I put it, someone would ask for a change. If I paraphrased, they'd ask for a quote, etc. I think it is somewhat ungainly, and without need.
    • inappropriate comments made by some signers - This would be unclear on its own since "inappropriate" can encompass a wide variety of things, like being anti-Semitic or using profanities. However, the source mentions that these comments are "inappropriate comments made on the web page", using these exact words. Either this should be paraphrased even more, or the source should be quoted.
The specific comments are not mentioned. I don't see how we are better off going with a quote, there is no information being lost by paraphrasing.
Paraphrasing is fine. My quibble is with the "inappropriate comments" phrasing, as it's too vague. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The quandary is, it's attributed to John Roth, but it is not a direct quote. Thus I am reluctant to use quotation marks. The reporter may have paraphrased, we don't know. I've said he called them that, without quotation marks.
  • Attempted enforcement:
    • The heading should be changed because the enforcement is of the town's laws, not the eruv.
I am open to suggestions, but I think it is clear from context.
How about "Attempted eruv ban"? epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if that would work. I've put in "Municipal and public reaction".
Fine with me. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • the eruv became complete in part of Upper Saddle River → "the eruv was completed in part of Upper Saddle River"
Fine.
    • On July 18, Upper Saddle River's attorney sent a letter demanding the removal of the lechis that had been erected there, with a deadline of July 26, but the borough agreed to let them remain for the time being after two New York State residents filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark, requesting a temporary restraining order against the borough and Mayor Joanne Minichetti. - This is a very long, bordering on run-on, sentence. I suggest putting a period after "with a deadline of July 26" and splitting the rest into a new sentence.
But it isn't a run-on sentence. Much of the length is supplied by my giving the full name and vicinage of the court. I could shorten it to "federal court in Newark" or similar.
    • The borough agreed to allow the existing eruv to remain temporarily in exchange for an undertaking from the eruv association not to expand it, and the motion for a restraining order was withdrawn. - The first part of the sentence is redundant, in light of what the previous sentence says. How about, "In exchange, the eruv association agreed not to expand the eruv, and the motion for a restraining order was withdrawn."
I've changed it not too dissimilarly, I hope, from what you are proposing.
    • Out-of-staters, residents had complained, were flooding Mahwah's parks, sometimes by the busload - This is a convoluted sentence structure. I suggest "Residents had complained that out-of-staters were flooding Mahwah's parks, sometimes by the busload"
    • Prior to the ordinance going into effect, the Mahwah police chief, James Batelli, having received many phone calls from residents asking that it be enforced against Orthodox Jews, contacted the Bergen County Prosecutor, Gurbir Grewal, for advice. - Again, convoluted sentence structure with too many commas. Having so many commas makes this into a run-on. How about: "Before the ordinance went into effect, Mahwah police chief James Batelli contacted Bergen County Prosecutor Gurbir Grewal for advice, having received many phone calls from residents asking that it be enforced against Orthodox Jews."
No, I think the events need to be presented in chronological order. I'll cut a couple of commas
If that's the case, then this happens after the ordinance passed but before it went into effect. I thought it was before the ordinance passed. It would be good to clarify it. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the eruv controversy heated up, Mahwah and Montvale, together with neighboring boroughs such as Ramsey and Woodcliff Lake
      1. "heated up" is too colloquial.
        • I don't think so, but am open to alternatives. I would not have used a fairly colloquial term had I been able to find an effective alternative.
          • I mentioned an alternative below, "intensified". epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems OK. I've put it up and will see if I can come up with anything better.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I'm pretty sure more than four boroughs enacted these restrictive ordinances. This article implies otherwise by singling out Ramsey and Woodcliff Lake. How about, "As the eruv controversy intensified, Mahwah and Montvale, along with neighboring boroughs"?
I've cut them.
    • Residents of Teaneck and Englewood, in southeastern Bergen County, where there are large communities of Orthodox Jews, had gone to Mahwah and Upper Saddle River to make known their views at council meetings; in return Citizens for a Better Upper Saddle River, which opposed the eruv, posted a screenshot of the Teaneck council schedule online.
      1. This could be a run-on sentence, which should be split at the semicolon. Run-ons aren't exclusive to sentences with too many commas.
      2. The first part of this sentence is particularly bad construction: Residents of Teaneck and Englewood, in southeastern Bergen County, where there are large communities of Orthodox Jews should be reworded to "Residents of Teaneck, as well as those of Englewood in southeastern Bergen County, where there are large communities of Orthodox Jews"
I don't think such a major restructuring as you propose is needed, but I've tweaked later in the sentence and split it.
      1. in return Citizens for a Better Upper Saddle River - the sentence structure makes it sound like retaliation, when it really isn't. I think you should drop "in return" altogether.
To my eyes, it is retaliation. They wanted USR residents to go to Teaneck and Englewood and criticize.
Oh. I thought the Teaneck and Englewood residents were the ones who were in support of the eruv ban. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite. I've added material to clarify.
  • Litigation:
    • 2nd paragraph: though he declined to comment on the additional lawsuit facing his township - is this necessary?
I suppose not.
    • federal constitution is called the United States Constitution.
    • a new, more comprehensive, sign ordinance, thus acting in a discriminatory matter
      1. The second comma is unnecessary: "a new, more comprehensive sign ordinance"
      2. The correct phrase is "discriminatory manner".
  • Settlements:
    • With Murphy elected governor in November and designating Bergen County Prosecutor Grewal as the new Attorney General, opponents of Mahwah's position would hold powerful posts in the state capital of Trenton - This is jumping too far ahead, and I think this should be reworded. First, "Murphy was elected governor in November, and he designated Bergen County Prosecutor Grewal as the new Attorney General." Second, "Opponents of Mahwah's position began holding powerful posts in the state capital of Trenton"
I think you misunderstand. Murphy and Grewal are the Mahwah opponents being spoken of. Thus, your solution would have the reader thinking that there were other opponents getting office. And November is hardly too far ahead, we're basically there. They did not hold them until later, thus the "would" which you advocated for above. This is something that happened (Murphy's swearing in and Grewal's confirmation) after a past event.
OK, that makes sense. What I meant by "getting too far ahead" was that you mentioned that Murphy was elected governor in November, but as somewhat of an afterthought. How about this: "By November, two opponents of Mahwah's position would hold powerful posts in the state capital of Trenton, with Murphy being elected governor and designating Bergen County Prosecutor Grewal as the new Attorney General." epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like putting the facts first, so I've changed to "Murphy was elected governor in November and designated Bergen County Prosecutor Grewal as the new Attorney General. Thus, once they took office, opponents of Mahwah's position would hold powerful posts in the state capital of Trenton, and municipal officials began to have second thoughts about whether to fight the eruv."
OK, that is much better. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • on January 9, 2018 needs a comma afterward.
I'd rather not, so I've rephrased around it.
    • the Mahwah council voted, 5–2, - neither comma is needed.
    • The eruv will remain, but the lechis will be painted to match the pole, or replaced with ones of that color, and the township will pay the association $10,000 or such other sum as is agreed for legal fees - "will" should be changed to "would". These are future terms that have been agreed on in the past, and therefore you would use "would". Similarly, "as is agreed" should be "as was agreed".
I have rephrased around that, I hope, as I think doing as you suggest might create ambiguity.
    • The association may expand the eruv, but is to consult with the council before doing so - Same problems as above. "The association was allowed to expand the eruv, but was to consult with the council before doing so."
My concern there is that may suggest to the reader that the eruv has been further expanded when that has not happened.
    • On February 21, the borough announced over its emergency notification system - Not a problem with the article itself, but why would they broadcast over an emergency notification system if it's clearly not an emergency?
I don't think I can find a reliable source on this. I could enquire of a resident I'm in touch with but I think the answer really is "It's a small town and they do stuff like that to get news spread."
Hmm, interesting. Anyway, it's not a issue with the article itself, I was just wondering as a Regular FA Reader. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • He will retain continuing jurisdiction over the matters, and they can be re-opened if a dispute arises. - Same as above. "He retains continuing jurisdiction over the matters, and they can be re-opened if a dispute arises."

Although this article is very detailed, it needs a little work to get it up to the prose quality of an FA. While I'm neither opposing or supporting at this time, I believe any potential reviewers should examine this article's prose in depth. epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the review. I'm not sure the situation is quite as drastic as you suggest. While you have made quite valid points, some of yours seem to be more personal preference, or in some cases based on a misunderstanding of the facts. If I haven't addressed a point, I've done it, along with many of the ones that you've mentioned, and I will be happy to engage with you where we disagree.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable. Maybe I performed a little harsher of a review than everyone else, but it looks like a lot of the issues I've raised have been responded to. I posted responses to your questions above. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the remaining points, I hope. Thank you for your work on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I now support this nomination. Best of luck. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I greatly appreciate it, as well as your thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • About half of the citations are to northjersey.com, but from 23 onwards I was blocked by a paywall so was unable to verify individually 23, 25, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41.
  • Is there a distinction between "northjersey.com" and "nj.com"? In ref 6 the publisher is given as newjersey.com but the link goes to a nj.com site. See also ref 20.
Yes, they are different. Northjersey.com publishes the Bergen Record and nj.com the Newark Star-Ledger, where most of these articles would have been published.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27: presumably someone or some body is responsible for the online publication of this letter?
Added.
  • Ref 29: the link is to an 85-page document – shouldn't a p. ref be given?
Done.
  • Ref 44 appears to be unverifiable
Replaced. It was a placeholder until something web-based became available.
  • In general, the sources are what you would expect for a relatively low-key recent event: local news reports, statements from public bodies, legal documents etc. I have a few possible quality issues:
  • Ref 4 Greater Boston Eruv Corporation. It's a pretty tatty website for so imposing a name, and the "about" link provides no useful information as to who or what they are. Can you enlighten?
Per their website, they run one of the largest eruvin in the United States, and a web search gives me no reason to doubt that. To perform their function, they necessarily are authorities regarding eruvin.
  • Ref 26: Who/what is "Mahwah Patch"?
Local newspaper.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, unless published somewhere, the email source is unverifiable.
It is a placeholder pending a better source which I am expecting in a day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now replaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All online links are working. Subject to the above, the sources look in good order and of the appropriate quality. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've taken care of all of those issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2018 (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) 21:08, 10 April 2018 [23].

Banksia petiolaris[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah yeah I know, another banksia (like the other 31 FAs). Still, as a body of work I wanted to get them all featured. Anyway, short and sweet. It's comprehensive (I scoured the sources) and should read ok. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley. It does indeed read ok. I'm no botanist, but I enjoyed and (I'm fairly sure) understood the article. Seems to this layman to be comprehensive, and is well and widely sourced. (I foresee a quibble about ISBN formatting from the source reviewer, but for my own part I don't much care whether ISBNs are hyphenated or in 10- or 13-digit form.) Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 19:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Page range formats should be consistent throughout. Compare refs 2, 3 et al with refs 6, 9 et al
err, they are. They are more than two digits when they have 'clocked' the hundred mark... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I didn't look closely enough. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11 link is returning me a 404 error message
hmm, the doi is linking to the abstract ok for me.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant 10 not 11, and I'm still getting 404 on that. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14: There's a hyphen in the page range that ought to be a ndash.
weird. the automated tool wouldn't fix that one. fixed now manually anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only issues. Otherwise sources meet all FAC criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon[edit]

A fine article, short and sweet. I am neither a biologist nor a native speaker, so just a few comments:

  • Those of this species ... the longest-lived leaves of --> just a suggestion: The leaves of this species .. the longest-lived of
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15 degrees off vertical.[1] --> first 8 sentences all are sourced from [1], so it feels random to have this [1] here.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • linking is inconsistent: von Mueller is linked in lead and body, as I expected, but prostrate shrub only in lead. Flowering plant is linked on second occurrence in lead. Those are just examples.
checked a few links and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • characters --> just checking, I'm a lay-person, is that really characters or perhaps characteristics?
latter more accessible to lay-readers so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as rockeries --> seems a bit lost.
massaged this section a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banksia petiolaris in bud, cult. Sydney --> does this mean in bud, cultivated in Sydney?
yes/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You describe what is shown in each photo in the article body, but could this be done for the taxobox photo as well? On Commons, it says " inflorescence, cult", which would be helpful.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No common names?
nope. doesn't appear to have any Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "B. subg. Banksia", " B. sect. Banksia", "Banksia ser. Prostratae". Perhaps subgenus, section, etc, should be spelled out, I image most readers may not know what these abbreviations mean.
unabbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genus Banksia L.f. (Proteaceae)" Since the title is in italics, I think the genus name should not be? See for example the reference in the article about that work.
tried to format but didn't work. As teh name of he monograph is the just the genus (and hence pretty unimaginative), I have tweaked it to link instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the vicinity of Esperance" Only stated in intro.
aligned with body of text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from JM[edit]

Co-ordinators: I reviewed this article at GAC.

  • ""Banksia petiolaris F.Muell". Australian Plant Name Index (APNI), IBIS database. Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, Australian Government." I find the italics a little odd, here, and is there a reason you haven't included an accessdate?
it is an old template. accessdate added manually. which talics? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mueller, Ferdinand J. H. von (1864). "Banksia petiolaris". Fragmenta Phytographiae Australiae. 4 (27): 109. Archived from the original on 2018-03-19." Should the binomial not be italicsed? It seems to be in the source.
italicised now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent on the capitalisation of article titles; notes 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16 are sentence case, 1, 7, 13, 15 and 17 are title case.
lowercased now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
linked now. I cited the other as a journal as the format of volumes and issues seemed to be appropriate Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Elliot, Rodger W.; Jones, David L.; Blake, Trevor (1985). Encyclopaedia of Australian Plants Suitable for Cultivation: Vol. 2. Port Melbourne: Lothian Press. p. 299. ISBN 0-85091-143-5." Would it not be more usual to cite the particular entry in the encyclopedia, rather than the encyclopedia as a whole?
hadn't given it much thought. entry added. lowercased now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Sweedman, Luke; Merritt, David (2006). Australian seeds: a guide to their collection, identification and biology. CSIRO Publishing. p. 203. ISBN 0-643-09298-6." Surprising capitalisation; no location.
uppercased now. location added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mast, Austin R.; Givnish, Thomas J. (2002). "Historical biogeography and the origin of stomatal distributions in Banksia and Dryandra (Proteaceae) based on Their cpDNA phylogeny". American Journal of Botany. 89 (8): 1311–23. doi:10.3732/ajb.89.8.1311. ISSN 0002-9122. PMID 21665734. Archived from the original on 2006-06-12. Retrieved 2006-07-02." Retrieval dates aren't necessary for journal publications.
removed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's about as picky as I can manage. All sources are appropriately scholarly. I have no opinion right now on comprehensiveness. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2018 (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) 22:13, 4 April 2018 [24].

Panzer Dragoon Saga[edit]

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Panzer Dragoon Saga, a 1998 role-playing game for the Sega Saturn. Saga is the most critically acclaimed Saturn game and appears on many lists of the best games of all time, but was released in very limited quantities and few people got to play it.

I nominated the article for FAC recently (previous discussion here), and it was supported by reviewers, but I withdrew the nomination as new sources emerged and I wanted to integrate the new information. The prose has changed, so will need to be reviewed again, but the other stuff (references, images) should be intact. Thanks for your patience, everyone.

Pinging previous reviewers: @Mike Christie: @Casliber: @Deckiller: @Red Phoenix: @SchroCat:, @Ceranthor:, @Aoba47: Popcornduff (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just read through again, and I see nothing to nitpick. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as my comments were addressed in the previous FAC. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on images and sources, as per my comments in the previous FAC. I did review the sources again and made sure they are all reliable and well documented in the references section. Popcornduff, if you happen to have time and would like to return the favor, I am seeking comments on my FAC for another Saturn title, Sonic X-treme. Thanks, and best of luck. Red Phoenix talk 23:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I was on the verge of a support last time, and there is nothing in the subsequent changes that would stop me now. All good work. - SchroCat (talk)

Support: An engaging and well-written article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: As I mentioned on the previous FAC, the nominator was the one who identified additional material, and but for that the article would already have been promoted. This was effectively a restart to allow the reviewers to have another look at the changes. That has been done now, and I shall be promoting this shortly. Sarastro (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (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) 22:02, 4 April 2018 [25].

Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in my occasional series on aircraft operated by the Australian military covers a large helicopter type which has been operated in various forms since 1974. A total of 30 Chinooks have been acquired by the military, and have provided useful service in Australia and overseas. This has included combat operations in Afghanistan, an embarrassing deployment during the 2003 Iraq War and an amazingly varied set of duties domestically (my favourite being transporting bulldozers onto a grounded iron ore ship!). No single detailed sources on the history of the helicopter in Australian service exist, and I've developed the article from a large number of sources to fill the gap. This appears to have been successful, with elements of article recently being lightly paraphrased on (to put things kindly) for an article in a commercial defence magazine.

This article was assessed as GA class in July 2016, and passed a military history Wikiproject A-class review last October. It has since been further expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 52: Missing publisher details
  • Ref 56: link no longer goes to the source article
  • Ref 59: I imagine the publisher is the Ministry of Defence - it certainly isn't "Media release"
    • No, the publisher is minister, as labelled (the Department of Defence has various disclaimers to separate themselves from media releases issued by their minister, in line with the usual arrangements for Australian Government agencies: the department usually hosts their minister's media website, but takes no responsibility for what's posted there). I've used the 'website' field to note that this was a media release. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 64: Strictly, "News Corp Australia" is the publisher. news.com.au is the website
  • Ref 73: "Flightglobal" should not be italicized
  • Ref 85: Neither should ABC News.
    • In both cases, this is what the 'work' field spits out. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the above, sources look in good order and of the required standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Brian Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Nick, I've had a gnome's look...

  • two serious accidents. On 26 June 1975, A15-011 crashed - mention if crew not/injured?
    • Good catch - I've found a source saying that they were all uninjured. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • unaware of presence of power lines - the presence?
  • A 2005 history also started that one - stated?
  • Squadron's operations were constrained at this time - C?
    • Yes, it looks like I copy edited that out: fixed. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, regards, JennyOz (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review Jenny Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have followed review and happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Placeholder by Ian -- I reviewed at GAN or ACR (or both!) so will visit here when I get the chance... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There've been a few changes to this useful and comprehensive article since ACR and I've gone through all of them and copyedited where I think worthwhile, but generally I think the article has only improved. I just have one relatively minor point re. prose, and it's right at the top:
    • "A total of 30 of the type have entered Australian service" -- I know MOS discourages starting sentences with digits but "A total of" is redundant and I think grammatically you should then say "has entered service" because it's one total, even though that may sound odd to some ears. I think in this case we'd be better of writing "Thirty of the type have entered Australian service" (or just "Thirty Chinooks have entered") and use "ten" for "10" later in the sentence for consistency. Whether you then spell out figures under 100 in the rest of the article is up to you but I've always done so and been able to justify it for reasons like this, and also simply the plethora of digits in military articles (model numbers, unit numbers, etc)...
      • That does read better changed Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content-wise, I guess the only query I have (and I daresay you'd have included it if reliably sourced) is if the Chinooks have been (or can be) carried by our Globemasters, as they apparently can be, per one of the images, by USAF Galaxys.
    • Good catch: I've noted that the RAAF has this capability, though it seems pretty clunky to use in practice. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was happy with image licensing and source quality back at ACR and see no issues with those added since (some of the photos, new and old, are especially good).
  • Formatting-wise, I notice that in the sentence beginning "Two ex-US Army CH-47Ds were purchased in December 2011" the refs are not in chronological order -- is this deliberate?
    • Nope: I missed this in my tidying; fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hawkeye7

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, 4 April 2018 [26].

Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We decided to split the logistics of the campaign off into its own article. I think the results justify the decision. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi[edit]

  • P/PP error: Kelly 2003, pp. 354.
  • Allied Geographical Section (1943). . Missing OCLC or similar
  • [I've never noticed an LCCN before. are they a good substitute for ISBN or OCLC?]
  • Casey, Hugh J., ed. (1951). Volume VI, Missing OCLC;
  • Coates, John (1995). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Dod, Karl (1966). Missing OCLC
  • Horner, David (1995). Sort error, expected: Horner, David (1978);
  • Horner, David (1978). Sort error, expected: Horner, David (1995);
  • Milner, Samuel (1957). Pub. too early for ISBN; perhaps needs |orig-date=; Missing OCLC;
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot (1947). Pub. too early for ISBN; perhaps needs |orig-date=; Missing OCLC;
  • Paull, Raymond (1958). Pub. too early for ISBN; Missing OCLC
  • Watson, Richard L. Jr (1944). Sort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. (1948).. is this the same person, or his son?
  • Watson, Richard L. (1948). "TSort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. (1950); Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Watson, Richard L. (1950). "The Papuan Campaign". Sort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. Jr (1944); Inconsistent Location (41 with; 1 without) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected all of these. There is no such parameter as |orig-date=; could you change your script to say |orig-year=? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha my face is red. :-) I'll look again at the article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article at A-class, and thought that it greatly exceeded the A-class criteria. The edits since then are a solid improvement, and I think that the FA criteria are also met. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this is a fantastic addition to our coverage of the Kokoda Track campaign, IMO. I reviewed the article when it was at Milhist ACR and am happy with the changes that have occured since then. I fixed a minor typo and I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The population was about 300,000, of whom 1,800 were Europeans (Asians not being permitted): suggest maybe clarifying the bit about Asians not being permitted - this could go in a footnote, potentially
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the images would be more visually appealing if the white borders at the bottom were cropped
    I tried to locate the best quality images available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, suggest linking Tatana Island
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • slightly inconsistent "rainforest" v. "rain forest"
    Settled on the former. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese forces overran the Dutch East Indies: suggest linking Dutch East Indies campaign here
  • Rabaul was captured on 23 January 1942: suggest linking Battle of Rabaul (1942) here
  • Lae and Salamaua were occupied on 8 March: suggest linking Invasion of Salamaua–Lae here
  • A company of the 15th Infantry Battalion: suggest linking Company (military unit) here
    All of these have been linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spot checked the McNicoll refs (as I have a copy of that book). Citations # 83, 103, and 108 all support the information provided in the article
  • typo: About a 0.80 kilometres (1⁄2 mi) offshore...: remove "a"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I feared that the article would be passed in for lack of response. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Hawkeye7, some possible tweaks...

  • New Caledonia and Fiji - wlink these locations for context?
    Linked New Caledonia. Fiji is a present-day country, so not wiki=linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buna isn't wlinked til 5th appearance - wlink earlier?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the wake of the Battle of Midway on 6 June,... - Midway was 4-7 June, pipe to 'attack' on Midway? or change "wake" to attack? (ie wake meaning afterwards?)
    Chmnaged to 4–7 June Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • departing Illolo on 23 July - Ilolo
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was established under Matthews' command - his full name appears at 3rd mention
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some 24 ships were on charter on 1 January 1942; this dropped to 22 by 1 January 1943 - confirm only dropped by 2?
    Correct, but not much of a dip. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • which was returning to Cairns - wlink Cairns?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • asdic - caps? is all caps at link
    I suppose so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ioribaiwa - link to Battle of Ioribaiwa?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Work resumed on 28 September, but was abandoned in early October... Improvements to the road allowed 3-ton trucks to reach Owers' Corner on 28 September." - those dates right?
  • Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • shot down their first Japanese aircraft on 28 February - add 1942? (because January 1943 just mentioned)
    Moved the 1943 reference down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was greatly disturbed at what saw in August: - insert 'he' before saw
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the loss of the airstrip at Kokoda, the AAF concluded that - AAF not yet used, needs (AAF) inserted at "George C. Kenney, the commander of Allied Air Forces, sent a letter"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another seven aircraft were badly damaged: four B-26s, a C-39, a C-49 and two C-53s. - adds to eight
    Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would quickly fill with water - These?
    "They" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • retain the 2/27th Infantry Battalion in the Port Moresby in - remove "the" before Port Moresby
    Added "area" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was found that the mules were best-suited for the task, followed by the brumbies. - with the brumbies following
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • they taught the animals to walk - trained?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • timber cut along the Track - this capital is inconsistent
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions

They are usually metric --> imp, these are the exceptions:
  • establish a roadway 690 metres (2,250 ft) long and 24 feet (7.3 m) wide 2 feet (0.6 m) above the high tide mark
  • 300,000 pounds (140,000 kg) of vital supplies
  • 4 inches (100 mm)
  • 4,480 pounds (2,030 kg) of biscuits and 4,200 pounds (1,900 kg)
All corrected. The decision was to use metric as the primary measurement throughout. Historically, the campaign was fought is a confusing mix of imperial and US measurements. Changed the 4 inches conversion to cm. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Style with/without hyphens and metre v metres, some examples
  • 5,700,000 cubic metres (2,000,000 grt) v 12,920-cubic-metre (4,561 grt)
  • 1,524 by 30 metres (5,000 by 100 ft) v 1,402-by-30-metre (4,600 by 100 ft)
  • 25-centimetre (10 in) v 20 centimetres (8 in)
    Per MOS:HYPHEN, the hyphens are used in the adjectival form, which is enforced by the {{convert}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Metres - they convert to feet eg 2,000 metres (6,500 ft) but there is one that converts to yards
  • ie 1,800 metres (2,000 yd)
    It's correct. Just the magic of the olde measurements. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tweaks - and explanations from which I learn so much:) - JennyOz (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Between this review and the A-Class and GA reviews, this has had a lot of eyes now. Just to note: not all of the images have alt text. For consistency, it should be all or none, but that is not enough to delay promotion. Finally, I'm slightly surprised that no-one has mentioned the length of this article, but again that is no reason to delay. Sarastro (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2018 (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) 21:13, 4 April 2018 [27].

Design A-150 battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] and Sturmvogel 66

Hey folks, this is a short but good one. The Design A-150s, known by some as the so-called "Super" Yamato class, were a planned class of Japanese battleships that were never built due to wartime pressures. For those interested in comparing between countries, they would have been the contemporaries to the US Montana class—but unlike the Montanas, much information about the A-150s has been lost, thanks to the deliberate destruction of documents towards the end of the war. The loss of these primary sources has severely limited what can be gleaned from reliable secondary sources about these ships. That said, we do know that the ships would have mounted 51 cm guns, a size that would have made them the largest naval gun ever deployed. On Wikipedia, this article dates back to my early days of writing articles, and has recently been spruced up by co-nominator Sturmvogel 66. I'm looking forward to your comments! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi[edit]

All sources well-formatted & reliable. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Iry-Hor[edit]

I have a question regarding the length of the article. I wonder if it might just be too short for FA, or is there no minimum length to reach FA ? The question is related to the wider the problem of whether or not there are topics which cannot possibly reach FA because too little can be said about them (typically, I have in mind obscure pharaohs). What is the consensus on length ? Are quality and completeness the only criteria when deciding FA ? Iry-Hor (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FA's need to be comprehensive, but that doesn't meant that they need to be long. Some topics are simply obscure (like this one) or simple. According to the (very dated) statistics at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, this would be one of the shortest FAs though. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

  • The shortness of the article is a concern for me too. I'd like to see more context on the topic - for instance, some of the details on Japanese battleship design present in the Yamato-class article would be useful here (thinking specifically of the Japanese concept that since the USN would be able to outbuild them in terms of numbers, their ships should be qualitatively superior - their insistence on superior ships is touched on briefly in the article, but not explained). It would also be useful to get some of the strategic context present in the Yamato article - that Japan planned on conquering European and US colonies in the Pacific, and needed a powerful navy to accomplish that (and defend it).
  • " for most intents and purposes" - what are you getting at here? The plans were complete as far as we know from the records available? Or there was some minor work to be done?
    • G&D say "essentially complete," which I read as some minor work needing to be completed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these were destroyed at the end of the war, along with most of the other documentation relating to the class." - this begs the question "why"? I know why, but the average reader won't.
  • "With war on the horizon in early 1941..." - this could use some context too - something along the lines of "as war with the United States became increasingly likely over the Second Sino-Japanese War, and particularly after the Japanese seizure of French Indochina..."

All for now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made a few edits in response to these! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy: How does it look now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping - I'm happy to support now. On a less important note, do we need the See also links with the nav template at the bottom? They seem a little redundant to me (but of course, I know the template is there - not all readers will, so it's up to you). Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are a bit redundant, but I hadn't even noticed the template for them and the other post-Washington Treaty BBs down at the bottom. I've gone back and forth on whether or not it's worth writing them up as a list as there's really not all that much in common between them except "bigger and faster".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

It's good to see a short article being nominated for FAC - a bit of a blast from the past! From having consulted various works on related topics over the years, there probably isn't a great deal which can be said about this design. The massive destruction of records by the Japanese military and government at the end of the war means that the historical literature on this kind of topic is limited. I have the following comments:

  • I agree with Parsecboy that material on the Japanese Navy's strategy and the principles which guided its warship construction could be noted
    • We figured that you guys would tell us if the background and context needed to be expanded and the vox populi have spoken! Working on it all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Material on the flaws of this strategy (eg, the Yamato class battleships under-performing throughout the war, and being a waste of resources which could have been better used on carriers) could also be noted.
  • Can dates be provided for when the planning described in the 'Background and design' took place?
  • "two layers of armor plates would have been used, despite its decreased effectiveness as compared to a single plate of the same total width" - 'decreased' in this context is a bit confusing. 'Lessor', 'inferior' or similar might be clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to date look good. I have some comments on the new material though:

  • "Planners envisioned an empire stretching from Japan to the resource-rich European colonies in Southeast Asia" - I'm not sure that Japan had over-arching plans to establish a formal empire, especially at this stage. Is this referring to the planning assumptions used by the Navy when considering its force structure, or something similar?
    • The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere wasn't formally envisioned until the mid-1930s, precisely when the Japanese military became more aggressive, and when the planning for these ships began. I don't think that this was a coincidence. So I've added a link to the Co-Prosperity Sphere for interested readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "required the Japanese to build and maintain a large fleet that could seize and hold onto these territories" - they weren't really 'required' to do this. The logic of the Japanese Government's idiotic policies lead to this, but no-one forced such a decision upon the government and navy.
    • I understand what you're saying, but if you actually plan to be aggressive, as opposed to an inchoate desire to expand, you need to procure the means to execute your plan. So I think that this OK, unless you have in mind some sort of alternative phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest changing to something like "The extensive distances involved, and the likelihood of this expansion leading to a confrontation with the United States, led the Japanese to build and maintain a large fleet that could seize and hold onto these territories" to avoid endorsing this dumbness. I remember a university history lecture on the theme of how the WW2-era Japanese government were total morons, and everything I've read since has convinced me that this was an under-statement. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the Japanese expected that the Americans would ascertain the true characteristics of the Yamatos—especially its primary armament of 46-centimeter (18.1 in) guns, which would become the largest naval weapons in use in the world—they hoped that the 51-centimeter guns would give the A-150s superiority over any other American ships" - this is a bit unclear. I'd suggest tweaking it to note that the idea was to out-pace the expected US response to the Yamatos' guns.
  • "This is similar to the fate of primary documents relating to the Yamato class, which were targeted to maintain the continuous veil of secrecy that the Japanese had constructed around the ships" - the article on the Yamatos states that the plans were destroyed as part of the massive program of destruction of records at the end of the war, and not for any special reason. The Japanese military destroyed much of its archives in the period prior to the formal surrender. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have access to Muir, but Skulski doesn't say that these records were specially targeted for destruction. @The ed17: can you get a hold of Muir and see what he's got to say on the issue?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked Muir, who said that the navy "maintained to the end its curtain of secrecy" around the Yamatos by destroying the documents, which isn't necessarily the same as saying that they were specially targeted. I've edited the text to reflect this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that this wording is still too narrow. The Japanese destroyed vast amounts of records of varying importance (see pages 9 and 24 of this expert work for instance), of which this was part. The current wording still implies that this was a specifically targeted destruction. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Nick-D: I've taken out the bit about the Yamatos and slightly rephrased things. See how the changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion to FA Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moisejp[edit]

Just working my way through the article, only one comment so far:

  • The article seems to be inconsistent about how lengths are written "48-centimeter (18.9 in) gun" vs. "51 cm gun". I changed one but then noticed there were others. I wasn't sure if there was logic there that I may have missed. Thanks, I will continue with my review very soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another instance: In the background and design section you have "90,000 long tons (91,000 t)" but in Armament you have "2,780 tonnes (2,740 long tons) and each gun would have massed 227 metric tons (223 long tons)". In the Specifications section there is "70,000 metric tons (69,000 long tons)". Those seem to be three different units of measure used as the "base" (first mentioned) unit (long tons, tonnes, and metric tons). Also the wiki-link for long tons is after 223, but probably it should be after 90,000 earlier in the article?
  • In the Specifications section there is "and the belt armor was probably going to be 46 cm thick" which does not seem consistent with the spelled out instances of "meters" throughout the Armament section. Moisejp (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They fired 13-kilogram (29 lb) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 1,030 m/s (3,400 ft/s), although the resulting wear of the barrels reduced their life to only about 350 rounds. They were able to fire 15–19 rounds per minute." I know very little about warships, but this means the guns were only good for 20 minutes of firing? How did warships survive with such limited firing power? Moisejp (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes they didn't. Several British ships shot themselves dry of anti-aircraft ammunition during the evacuations of Greece and Crete in 1941 and were sunk. What this bit means is that accuracy is degraded after exceeding barrel life and that the barrels should be replaced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for my long absence from this review—real life has been especially busy. Another comment is the lead feels particularly short, even in relation to the not-long article as a whole. How would you feel about adding a few more details to the lead to make it feel a little more substantial? One idea to expand is the point about the Japanese actively trying to make their ships more powerful than other countries' has two paragraphs in the main text, but all the lead says is that historians say it would have been the most powerful. Moisejp (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try hard to have another look within the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Hi! About IJN vs. Imperial Japanese Army, the other option I started typing in my edit summary as a secondary idea, but accidentally pushed Return before I finished, is how about "Imperial Japanese Army (IJN)" in the lead, and then just "IJN", like you've reverted it to, in the main body? Then readers won't be confused when they see "IJN". To be honest, I didn't immediately catch what it referred to, and had to google it.
  • I'm now mostly satisfied with the article, but am still not convinced there aren't more details in the main body that could be good candidates to add to the lead. I see that you added a little bit based on my earlier comment, but the lead still feels possibly short. When doing my batch of edits today I didn't have a chance to have a good look for such details to consider adding, but will try to today or tomorrow. (If you have time before I get to it and any such details jump out at you (that you think wouldn't feel out of place in the lead), you could add them, but if you'd rather wait to see what I come up with, that's okay too.) Moisejp (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel a detail or two could be added to the lead from the first paragraph of the Background and design section: for example, that warships had been built to help with the goal of building an empire, and that the USA (Great Britain is also mentioned in the following paragraph) was seen as the main obstacle in this goal, or the main country who their "qualitative vs quantitative" approach was measured against. The competition with the US is mentioned in all four paragraphs of the Background and design section, and seems like an important point.
  • If my understanding (see below) is correct that plans were reduced from eight or nine 51-centimeter guns to six, this also seems like a point that could be not out of place in the lead.
  • The destruction of plans and the fact this has resulted in some uncertainty about the ship's specifications would also be worthwhile to include n the lead.
  • The Yamato ships are mentioned several times in the article. Is there any context or comparison between these and the A-150 that would be worthwhile for the lead?
  • Is there anything from last two thirds of the Armaments section that could be worthwhile for the lead? These are all just ideas. Moisejp (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Moisejp: I've added/reorganized a bit and moved the "most powerful" quote into the article proper. I really feel like it is an adequate summary of the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead mentions two historians' view that the A-150s would have been the "most powerful battleships in history." But I didn't spot anything about that in the main text (unless I missed it?). Was that intentional? My understanding is that the lead should be a summary of the main text. Moisejp (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the main text does say that the "six 45-caliber 51-centimeter guns in three twin turrets ... would have been the largest ever fitted to a capital ship" but is that clearly the same thing as "most powerful"? For the sake of argument, could a ship with lots more slightly smaller guns be more powerful than one with fewer larger guns? Moisejp (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly, but G&D are referring to any extant battleship designs, not hypotheticals. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Background and design section says "Early conceptions for what would become the A-150 battleships called for eight or nine 51-centimeter guns in double or triple turrets" then later, in the Armaments section, it says "The design of the A-150s called for a main battery of six 45-caliber 51-centimeter guns in three twin turrets." So the number of 51-centimeter planned went down from eight or nine to six? Should those two sentences be linked better? It seems like the two related sentences are mentioned in silos without awareness of each other." (I do see that it's mentioned that "these grand specifications were curtailed" but it'd be nice if it were said more explicitly in one place that the plans went from eight or nine to six.) Moisejp (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was the intention of the "curtailed" sentence, but I agree that the link wasn't clear enough. How does this look? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks good. I am happy to support now, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2018 (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) 07:05, 4 April 2018 [29].

Moorgate tube crash[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Moorgate tube crash was a horrific crash on the London Underground in which 43 people died and 74 were injured. The train, at the height of rush hour, failed to stop at the platform, and continued at full speed into a dead-end tunnel, where it piled into a solid wall. The front three cars of the train were concertinaed into the size of two. It took 13 hours to free the casualties and a further four days to extract the last body. No technical problems were found, and driver-error was the conclusion of the subsequent investigation; no explanation has been established for the driver's action. This article has been through a complete re-write recently and a very constructive PR, with input from Tim riley, Redrose64, Brianboulton and DBaK. Any further comments would be most gratefully received. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Popcornduff[edit]

I just jumped in and did a quick copy edit of the lead, then realised who nominated this. Considering your history of not liking my copyediting I'll step back. Good luck with the nom - at first glance looks like a nice article. Popcornduff (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I kept reading just because it was interesting, and yep, it's a well-written piece. I did a copy-edit, mainly to remove a few unnecessary elements - for example "a deliberate act of suicide" can just become "suicide", because suicide is deliberate by definition - and few cases of dodgy punctuation, but these were minor changes and I'm hoping they will be uncontroversial.

I have only two quibbles:

  • There were two instances of "as at 2018". I've never seen this construction before, but that it appeared twice suggests it's not a typo of "as of 2018". I looked it up and I see it exists, but to my eyes it appears strange and possibly archaic. But whatever.
    "As at" is correct in British English - more correct than "as of", which originated in AmEng, although it is working its way into the language here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tube" is capitalised everywhere but the article title. Why the inconsistency?
    It probably shouldn't be - I'll swap them over shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, these are small fry. Happy to Support on prose. Nice job. Popcornduff (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from SN54129[edit]

Taking this bit by bit. Just a little clarification perhaps. Not a prose an me. as you might have noticed :)

  • Just got to the mention of CLSG, which—pardon—seems to come out of no-where somewhat. Suggest clarifying why pupils would be on that particular train "normally"? (I.e., that Moorgate's 5" walk away so effectively the local station). People reading who don't know London, then won't have to navigate away from your article to Gmaps to find out!
  • Getting a bit ahead of myself, but I see there's no further mention of Harris. Speaking as an ex-Guard, I know that (not withstanding missing his first turn—how did Newson leave DP? A spare turn cover?) leaving one's DCP and strolling through the train to collect newspapers is pretty poor. Surprised, in fact, that subsequent report/s investigation/s never mentioned him again; didn't they?
  • "... sitting upright and facing forward wearing his hat": Intended to indicate that he wasn't in a state of panic? But—it might be just me—but it seems to read as if the fact of him him wearing his hat was of major significance (I mean, it was in that otherwise he would have been in serious breech of the company's dress code. But I don't suppose that was at the forefront of his mind by then!). What are you getting at, exactly, by mentioning his hat? (In comparison, I agree that "sitting upright" makes it immediately clear that he wasn't in any way distracted).
Bacon half a mo. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers SN1233545626! I'll get round to these as soon as I can, but they're all good points. I'll check the sources on the hat point, but I think it was just what people reported at the time as being slightly incongruous: I'll see if there is a deeper point to it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some paragraphs (on pp. 8-9) in McNaughton's report which cover the recollections of eyewitnesses on the platform, some of these describe the driver and mention his hat/cap. I expect that McNaughton included these on the Sherlock Holmes principle that every fact, no matter how minor, can be relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so Redrose64. That's doubtless McNaughton's reason for inclusion; our readers won't know that though, so—the point is—why are we mentioning it? PS: Thanks for implying that I would suggest SchroCat would incude unsourced material! A calumny sir. Take care! —SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to this that witnesses said he looked neatly dressed too. The implication is that he wasn't panicking, or upset, but appeared entirely normal, although the report doesn't specifically draw any inference from the words used. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for these, SN54129; if you have any further points, I'd be delighted to address them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that those were my main points, all very clear now, thanks! Happy to support this promotion, in my small way (and incidentally of course an opportunity to show that I now know how to spell comments  :) —great article, even if it did give me flashbacks. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 18:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers SN54129, I'm very much obliged to you! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I was one of the peer reviewers, and I'm afraid I have funked a thorough rereading: I've reread most of this article thoroughly but only skim-read the most harrowing sections. But I am nonetheless confident in supporting. My few comments at PR were dealt with, and all I can spot now is in the Memorials section, where the first sentence is, in theory, ambiguous and could do with turning about: "A memorial in the south-west corner of Finsbury Square, 410 metres (450 yd) north of Moorgate station, lists those who died". I also question the preposition in the caption "on Finsbury Square". I am ashamed to offer such nitpicks in the context of this tragic article, and I congratulate SchroCat on his thoroughness, which cannot have been easy in the circumstances. Tim riley talk 18:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim. I'll address your points shortly. Thanks very much for your input at the PR too - it was most helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Tim - I'm much obliged for your comments here and at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Reywas92[edit]

  • This article twice says "worst peacetime accident on the London Underground"; it should be clarified that it is the worst rail accident ever and what is implied by the use of "peacetime" as a qualifier. While List_of_London_Underground_accidents#World_War_II lists three incidents with more deaths, none were connected to the trains themselves like this one. "Accident" is suggestive of a train crash in this context and would not include a bombing, and Bethnel Green occurred before it opened as part of the Underground. London Underground also uses the same phrase that should be made more clear. Reywas92Talk 19:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm away for the weekend, so I'll check the source when I'm back, but to the best of my recollection it's a reflection of the reliable sources. – SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but it shouldn't be written that way without better context for someone wondering what the worst is, including wartime, especially since they aren't in the same category. The source in the main LU article does say "worst ever" though. Reywas92Talk 07:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I remember the crash as I was working in an office opposite the station at the time. A boy in an office down the corridor came in on that line, and his parents kept phoning to check whether he had arrived, but it was finally confirmed that he had been killed.
  • "was on a gradient of 1 in 150 for 196 metres" Uphill or downhill?
  • "As the exit to platform 9 was next to the overrun tunnel, the first two carriages were more popular with commuters" Why is this relevant? I thought passengers were mainly at the front because that was where the exit to the street was, as is shown in the lead photo.
  • "The brakes were not applied and the dead man's handle was still depressed when the train entered the overrun tunnel" I remember this as a major point of discussion at the time and I think it is worth mentioning in the lead.
  • "he stated that he believed the crash was due to suicide by Newson" Did he give any evidence for this? The article is all the other way.
    • I've not seen the programme unfortunately. I think that as there are several possible theories, (with none being in 'the lead'), I think it's just his personal opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks Dudley, and I'm much obliged to you. Aside from the final point where I've commented, all your other comments were dealt with here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dudley - I'm much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

The only format point I could find to take issue with is the italicisation of certain non-print sources, notably BBC and Measuringworth. These should be de-italicised. Otherwise, all looks in good order, links working, and sources of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Brian - These have now been tweaked. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Interesting article on an incident I was not aware of.
  • "was caused by Leslie Newson, the 56-year-old tube driver." I would cut "tube".
  • "It took thirteen hours to remove the casualties from the wreckage, many of whom had to be cut free" I might change "casualties" to "injured" since obviously the dead are not included.
  • I might split the third paragraph of "Crash" before "On arrival at Moorgate".
  • Are there no accounts of the experiences of the passengers that might be included? Surely such things would have been reported at the time. It just seems to me that more could be said on the human tragedy of this event.
  • "undertook a brief inspection of the site they saw they were dealing with a serious event" I think this should be pithier. Allowing for engvar, perhaps something like "once they saw what they were dealign with". I'd like to see more urgency in the discussion of events and words should be saved wherever possible. For example, Boots the Chemists could simply be "Boots".
  • "One of the doctors from Barts later described the scene as they worked in the tunnel:" I would cut all after "scene" though retaining the colon.
  • "By 12:00 pm " Should this be 12:00 noon?
  • What became of the guard? If he abandoned the emergency brake, was there culpability on his part? Was he allowed to continue with the Underground?
  • Why are the various safety measures bolded?
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt. All done except two three: the bolding question (commented on), and the point on Guard Harris, which Serial Number 54129 has also raised. I'll add what I can, but there is little known about him after the report. I'll also add some comments from the passengers too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Wehwalt, I've added a little extra from the passengers, as well as concluding on the other points you raised. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very little to add to what I said at peer review, or to the additional points raised here by other editors. just one very minor point from the first paragraph. "...the enquiry by Department of the Environment concluded that the accident was caused by Leslie Newson, the 56-year-old driver." That is so, but in the bald terms stated here, the inference is that he caused it deliberately. The report says that there is insufficient evidence to indicate whether the action was deliberate or medically induced. So I'd soften slightly by saying the accident "was caused by the actions of Leslie Newsom". Otherwise, a harrowing story, told with the right balance of detachment and empathy. Brianboulton (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Brian, I've tweaked appropriately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

An immaculately written and detailed article on a very tragic event. Some few thoughts/comments below but nothing to stand in the way of support.

Lead and later
  • Lead and later: Public inquiry or enquiry - Appreciate I am skating on very thin ice!, and that either is acceptable, but isn't inquiry more usual in the content of a public inquiry? You use inquiry in the sub-heading later.
    Yes, see paragraph 1 of McNaughton's report - "the result of my Inquiry into the serious accident that occurred to a passenger train". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With no services running into the adjoining platform" - into sounds a bit odd, but I'm not sure onto is any better?
    Into is correct British English. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two memorials to those who died were unveiled in the vicinity of the station, one in July 2013 and one in February 2014" - it's explained later, but on first encountering it in the lead, I was immediately struck by the length of time, nearly 40 years, between the crash and the erection of the memorials. Perhaps, "After a long campaign by relatives of the dead, two memorials were unveiled..."?
Crash
  • The concluding paragraph ends with, "It was the worst peacetime accident on the Underground." The lead says it is considered the worst, i.e. ever. I wonder if the sentence could be tweaked to something like, "It was, and remains, the worst peacetime accident on the Underground."
Rescue
  • "although the hospital were still unaware of the scale of the problem" - obviously not the intention but, to me, "problem" is inadequate. Disaster, catastrophe? And should it be "hospital was" or "hospital staff were..."?
Investigation and inquiry
  • "McNaughton observed that because of the guard Harris's lack of experience, could not have taken any action to stop the accident from happening, although he thought the young man "displayed himself as idle and undisciplined"." Is there a missing "he" here, i.e. "lack of experience, he could not have..."?
  • "whether it was the result of suddenly arising..." Just checking the absence of an "a", as in "a suddenly arising...." isn't a typo.
Moorgate protection
  • "to prevent a train accelerating when entering the platform, although the value of these resistors" - just checking this shouldn't be valve, or valves, rather than "value". Science isn't my strongest suit!
    No, resistors have a property known as "resistance", measured in ohms; and to avoid the tautology "the resistance of these resistors", we normally write "the value of these resistors". Check out how often the word "value" occurs in our article Resistor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks RR. Not being of scientific mind either I'd changed the term to something else, but given the explanation, I'll put it back. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Memorials
  • As per my comment in the lead, I wondering if it is worth noting that the campaign for a memorial was a long one.
Beautifully written, and moving. Wholly deserving of FA and sorry I missed the PR. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks KJP. Your comments all taken on board and the relevant tweaks made in this edit. Cheers for your thoughts - much appreciated, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from Jim As a former Londoner I remember this as well as Yvonne Fletcher. Just one quibble, which may be just me getting it wrong. You say in line 1 London Underground's Northern City Line; I wonder if it should be clearer that although that was correct at the time, the NCL would soon become part of the national rail network? Your call, won't affect my support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

This was one of the first international news stories I remember as a kid so I took great interest in my regular pre-promotion walkthrough and light copyedit. I have one query that won't delay promotion... Who is David Paul? Appears twice mentioned but no linked article, so can you mention occupation for context? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2018 (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) 08:42, 4 April 2018 [30].

Ramesses VI[edit]

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ramesses VI, one of the last kings of the New Kingdom period. Ramesses faced strife and unrests early in his reign and Egypt definitively lost the last remnants of its former empire in Canaan in the meantime. Egypt's economy was seriously declining if not collapsing at the time, the high-priest of Amun essentially established a second center of power in Upper-Egypt controlling the country's finances, and Ramesses dedicated most of his efforts to usurping his predecessor's monuments. As a ruler he said that he "covered all the land with great monuments in his name" yet is now seen by Egyptologists as "a king who wished to pose as a great pharaoh in an age of unrest and decline". Ramesses' tomb (which he had usurped form his nephew!) was pillaged less than 20 years later when chaos had finally engulfed the country, his mummy heavily damaged in the process.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Louvre_122006_029_RamVI.jpg is quite blurry
Removed.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ramesses_Vi_closeup.jpg: what was the author's date of death, and what source was published before 1923?
Done The drawing was originally made by the Franco-Tuscan expedition in 1829 and published in 1832. I believe the author was was Rosellini who died in 1843. In any case, all members of the expedition died before 1900.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

A few minor comments on the prose. Nothing to make any difference to my support.

  • Lead
    • "strife and unrests" – the plural reads rather oddly, and I'd have "unrest" singular here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He laid undisturbed in his tomb" – the verb "lie" in this sense has two different past tenses depending on whether it is used transitively or intransitively: they laid him in his tomb, but he lay there. (As I have said before, don't look for logic in the English language.)
Done, I chose the active tense, so "lay" it is.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parents and early life
    • "The relief shows no less than ten princes" – a touch of WP:EDITORIAL here? I might trim to just "The relief shows ten princes" and let readers decide for themselves that it's quite a large number. (There are, moreover, some pedantic souls who will insist that it should be "no fewer than ten princes", but this is a very debatable point, and best avoided.)
Done you are right. Besides 10 isn't that much when you think about Ramesses II.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "on a door-jamb of her tomb of the Valley of the Queens" – "of the Valley" looks a bit odd instead of the expected "in".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consort and children
    • "A stelae ... demonstrates" – trouble with singular and plural here: either "stelae demonstrate" or "a stela demonstrates". A blue link would be a good idea too, for those who are not familiar with stelae, e.g. me.
Done, my mistake, singular it is.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reign length
    • "eighth year of a king which" – "a king who", perhaps?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Indeed, the reconstruction" – I see this is the first of four emphatic indeeds, all of which strike me as a bit editorial and none of which are really necessary.
Done I have removed all the "indeed" of the article, with the exception of one. My articles are plagued by "indeed" and "however".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early reign: strife in the Theban region
    • "an hypothesis" – the "h" is aspirated, and so the indefinite article is "a" not "an". (Oxford English Dictionary)
Done I should have known it! Believe it or not my inner English voice has a terrible French accent which cannot accomodate the aspirated 'h'.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later reign
    • "no less than six tombs" – as with the ten princes, I'd remove the "no less than"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dynasty of Ramessesnakht
    • "Merybaste control" – I think this is meant to be "Merybaste's control"
Done, indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "high-priestwood" – a typo I imagine, but am not sure enough to interfere with it
Done, actually this was in a source, but I removed it because I too think it sounds strange.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "high-offices" – I'm not sure why this is hyphenated
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final decline in Canaan
    • "Opponents to the Egyptian authority were of local extractions, likely originating" – needs a bit of tweaking on the lines of "Opponents of the Egyptian authority were of local extraction [singular], probably originating".
Done but why is extraction singular ? For example, if I say person A if from New Jersey and person B from Connecticut, should I not say that they are of US extractions ? I mean if I write "US extraction" they could possibly be from the same place, but I know they are from 2 different places.
As I said above, don't look for logic in English. If you took the similar word "origin" it would be plural if you cast the sentence one way but singular if you cast it the other: "Their origins were French and Spanish" but "They were of French and Spanish origin". You do brilliantly to cope with our eccentric language as well as you do. Tim riley talk 09:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomb
    • "more than one occasion, alternatively" – you want a stronger punctuation mark than a comma here. A semicolon would do nicely.
Done I have changed the previous sentence slightly (removing the "indeed") and consequently introduced a period between the two.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mortuary temple
    • There's another "likely" here that I'd make "probably" if you're aiming at BrE throughout the article.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of any great consequence there, and certainly nothing to prevent my adding my support. -- Tim riley talk 08:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley thank you for your help, I have addressed all the points your raised.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk (Support)[edit]

  • I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, the captions of the two photos after "Dilution of power" could state where these objects are now, as in the other captions.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To prevent the last photo from clashing with the notes, you could maybe left align the mummy photo, and then move the last photo a bit up.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the royal titles/translations in the infobox should be sourced, since they do not seem to be listed in the article body.
Done, I have added the citations (Leprohon - Clayton - Amer).Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wearing sidelock of youth" The sidelock?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and no names written in the spaces next to them" How is it known the names were added later, and were not there originally?
Done I have added a footnote. The hieroglyphs refer to four of the princes as pharaohs, meaning that they were written when they had ascended to the throne, not when they were princes. This coincides with the modification of these princes' figures with the addition of royal attributes (securing the fact that the text was written later than the figure, which were not initially intended to be shown as kings). Finally none of the princesses have text, i.e. none of the subsequent pharaohs who modified the relief to show their name bothered to do it for the princesses.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, he altered his youthful figure with an uraeus" You should make it clear earlier in the sentence that you're talking about the relief mentioned earlier.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such hypotheses have now been conclusively rejected" On what basis?
Question based on a careful detailed analysis of the relief. Kitchen's argument is a bit long though, should I try to synthetise it in a footnote ? Anyway after his paper all publications agree with him.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a footnote would be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inst the Valley of the Queens" In?
Done I don't understand what is going on there are spurious pieces of text everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Koptos stela of Iset, the daughter of Ramesses VI" On the left or right?
Done right.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A stela recounting this appointment was discovered in Koptos and demonstrates that Nubkhesbed was indeed Iset's mother." Needs source.
Done Clayton. I don't know how I could have forgotten to put the ref here.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in tomb KV13 doo the Kings" Doo?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, all of the princesses are still lacking their names, which was never added." Were?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You changed one instance of inside to "rinside" in your last edits.
Done what's wrong with me.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in whether you refer to him as Ramesses VI or just Ramesses, the former would probably be better, to prevent confusion with others of that name.
Done now Ramesses VI everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a king who can only have been Ramesses VI." Why?
ok I will get the source back to check, but I remember it is about the way the name is written and what is left of the epiteths. Will check this out.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I should be ready to support after this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "graffito 1860a" Perhaps clarify what the number denotes the first time such a number is mentioned? Museum inventory? Some sort of numeral system for inscriptions?
Question year of discovery I believe but I don't have a source telling this graffito is called like this because it was discovered in 1860. What should I do then ? If I add a footnote, I won't be able to give it a ref.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to do then. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is found on the papyrus Turin Papyrus" Is the word papyrus needed twice here?
Done no!Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 3, 10, and 12 could get sourced.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The statue is said to receive three services of incense and libations everyday" To have received? Past tense is needed somewhere.
You tell me: the text of the ancient source uses a present tense, because at the time the statue was receiving the three services. If I write "have received" wouldn't it read like the ancient source used a past tense ?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do here, so let's just leave it for now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is known to have hold the title" Held?
Done'.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hypothesis of a damnatio memoriae" This concept could be explained in parenthesis.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rices of basic commodities, in particular grain, rose sharply" Why?
Ah! So Janssen has an entire book on the subject. You see the trouble is economy is already complicated in itself but if you try to do it with a 3000 years delay, it becomes extremely difficult. As far as I can tell the processus is complicated and results from the combination of loss of Asiatic territories, possibly difficult harvests (but then copper isn't harvested and its price rose). Short answer is I don't know, longer answer is we need an article on hyperinflation at the end of the New Kingdom!Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " father Merybaste'shigh control" Missing space.
Done and I am missing sleep...Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "poessibly because" There are many weird stray letters in this article!
Done I don't knoe what happened. I am tired, let's face it, I am very tired these days.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't complain, I usually request copyedits before nominations so that my own typos will be fixed by others... FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "been abandonned" Typo.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Egyptian control of Nubia seems to have much firmer at the time" Have been?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did not held his predecessor in high regard" Hold?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archaeological excavations show much of its extend decoration was made" Is this intentional?
Done it should be extent right ? Nothing is intentional in this article!Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was more wondering about what is meant? FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk I meant to say that most the decorations of the temple that have survived to this day have been made under Ramesses VI as shown by the presence of his cartouches on these decorations. I have added a footnote to clarify this.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was fond of cult statues of him" Himself.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk)
  • "Egyptologists now characterises Ramesses VI" Characterise.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk)
  • "a king who wished to pose as a great pharaoh in an age of unrest and decline". It seems a bit strange to attribute a single quote to multiple writers, unless it is from some multi-authored source.
Done explicitely quoted Amer here.Iry-Hor (talk)
  • I only see a few unanswered follow up comments above. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Yes these are not forgotten, I need to summarize Kitchen's arguments in a footnote and add a footnote pertaining to Janssen's argument about the Year 8 of Ramesses VI. I will do so shortly, as soon as I have enought time to review and summarize the sources.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk That's it I have addressed all your points, see footnotes 3 & 6. It was a lot of work to summarise Kitchen's arguments and Janssen's ideas. On this later point, I would like to acknowledge the help of Prof. John Baines who provided the necessary resources.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now, tnat's one epic footnote 3! But I think the article is better for it, after all, it will probably be the main source of knowledge on this subject for most laypeople looking it up, so the extra work is worth it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • A few of the notes are lacking citations
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mdashes in some of your page ranges should be standardised to ndashes.
Look I can't even tell them apart, I can't see which is what. And which one is which – is ndsash and this — mdash ? I can't see the difference! I would like to fix the issue, tell me how to distinguish them so I can go to the text and fix the wrong ones. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The mdash is twice the length of the ndash, although this only becomes apparent when you save. Thus, ndash is –, mdash is — (edit this to see how they are formed). ndashes are used for page ranges, mdashes rarely used at all. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton Thank you for your patient explanations! I have put ndashes throughout in all pages ranges.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32 needs pp. not p.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise ref 62
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 90 needs pp. added
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link in the Brescinani et al source doesn't seem to go to the required web page
The link works for me, it should lead you to the page of the book with the drawing of pharaohs, Ramesses VI is bottom right.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link goes to these images, but I'm confused by your citation to "Brescinani et al. 1993, p. 85", as I can't find any references to Bresciani on the linked page. The image seems to come from a much older book. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton The image comes from the original book published by the Franco-Tuscan expedition in Egypt, its illustration were then re-edited with commentaries in the more recent book. Given that the images date back to the mid 19th century with authors long dead, the copyrights are fine, in fact the image was uploaded by the New York Public Library in a drive to upload all their materials free of copyrights see here.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • mdash in page range in Hovestreydt source
Which one is mdash ? The left one or right one in the editor ?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legrain source - language is French
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • mdash in page range in von Beckerath source
Again, I can't tell n and m dashes apart, and I don't know which is which. So I did a modification but am not sure that it is correct.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iazyges (Support)[edit]

  • As a prince, he was known as Ramesses Amunherkhepeshef and held titles as royal scribe and cavalry general. suggest you change this to:
    As a prince, he was known as Ramesses Amunherkhepeshef and held the titles of royal scribe and cavalry general.
Done better indeed!Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After his elder brother Ramesses IV's son, Ramesses V had died, Ramesses VI seized the throne and was in turn succeeded by Ramesses VII Itamun, A bit complex, suggest:
    After the death of the ruling pharaoh, Ramesses V, who was the son of Ramesses VI's older brother, Ramesses IV, Ramesses VI seized the throne. After his death, he was succeeded by his son, Ramesses VII Itamun,
Done I wrote a slight variant of your proposition : "After the death of the ruling pharaoh, Ramesses V, who was the son of Ramesses VI's older brother, Ramesses IV, Ramesses VI ascended the throne. He was in turn succeeded by his son, Ramesses VII Itamun,"Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • whereby all references to someone are systematically eliminated so as to remove this person from memory suggest:
    whereby all references to someone are systematically eliminated so as to remove this person from memory and history
Done thank you this is a welcomed precision!Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Iazyges Thank you for your help in improving the article ! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments tentative support by Casliber[edit]

Looking now...

  • He was in turn succeeded by his son, Ramesses VII Itamun, Ramesses VII Itamun, whom he had fathered with queen Nubkhesbed. - I think this would be better at the end of the lead, after we talk about his death
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and finally buried his predecessor in what is now an unknown tomb of the Theban necropolis. - why "finally"?
Explanation : Casliber as you will see in the article, Ramesses V's body seems to have had quite an adventure and was not buried before his successor's second year on the throne, contrary to the Egyptian custom of burying the dead within 70 days of the passing. This is because of problems in the Theban region at the time and also in order to usurp the tomb originally prepared for Ramesses V. This is the cause of the word "finally" in the lead and is extensively explained in the article. Should I keep it like that or remove "finally" anyway ?Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I 'd take it out of the lead and leave in the body Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • .. saving it from a wave of tomb robberies which occurred within 20 years after Ramesses VI's death. --> either "within 20 years of Ramesses VI's death." or "less than 20 years after..."
Done I chose the former option.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth para of lead has two consecutive sentences starting, "Though.." - scans oddly.
Done Somebody has copy-edited this passage very poorly, actually ruining much of the second part of the lead. I have tried to revert to what was there originally.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relief shows ten princes all including Ramesses VI,[8] worshipping their father. - you mean "in all"?
Done yes, the article suffers from spurious letters and misplaced/missing words, the origin of which is unclear. Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculations in Egyptology during the 1960s and 1970s... _"Speculation" should be singular I think
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...have also proposed, based on circumstantial evidences,.. -"evidence"?
Done. If you say so, I don't know I thought that since several evidences were brought forward, we should have a plural. But I am no native speaker so I trust your instincts!Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's never a plural like that - one might say "several pieces of evidence" - but is generally a collective noun. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • while the Encyclopædia Britannica reports 1145—1137 BC - EB is a tertiary source, so seems odd to include...presumably it was based on a scholarly source of some description?
Well as you know it is not clear who writes what in EB, however given the overall reputation of EB I thought it worthwhile to include the proposed dates. Let me know if you prefer a removal.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Am in two minds and happy to go with consensus (i.e. if anyone else points it out) otherwise leave it I guess Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This conjectural hypothesis was vindicated the next year...' - "conjectural" strikes me as redundant. Can we remove?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of the largest funerary establishment of the entire Theban necropolis - "establishments"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look a little later. I can't see anything now, but the number of things I found in a quick look makes me want to check again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber Let me know if you find more stuff to modify, and thank you for your help!Iry-Hor (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the Reign length section. It is not an essay, hence you don't need the sentence at the end there "concluding" the section. I would move that the the top and use it to replace "Ramesses is estimated to have reigned eight full years" - otherwise it is labouring the point
Done I have removed the last sentence. The first sentence is now as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am cautiously supporting as I can't see anything else concrete to fix. It does come across as a little essay-like in parts, but on reflection I think that is actually good, as the evidence for alot of his life has been fragmentary and relies on extensive interpretation and calibration of facts. Hence presenting that and informing the reader of how investigators have come to conclusions I feel is a Very Good Thing (rather than presenting the article as a bunch of facts). Anyway, congratulations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber Thank you for your support. I would like to understand more precisely what makes the article essay-like so that my next FAC articles can be better ? Iry-Hor (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is tricky to define - I guess it is where there is very detailed arguments trying to support a point of view, rather than just presenting facts. However, some rationale is needed in some areas, where it can be important to explain to the reader how we know a particular fact. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber Thanks for the clarification. I find it difficult to strike the right balance between facts and the surrounding explanations, in particular when "facts" aren't well established things but rather (sometimes contested) hypotheses. As you noted, we actually hardly know much for certain on Ramesses VI, but perhaps this shouldn't surprise us: after all we are asking rather precise questions about events occuring in a time-span of 8 years some 3100 years ago!Iry-Hor (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think wikipedia has a great role in showing lay readers the limitations of what we know and how we know it. And it is hard for most people to strike the correct balance in this situation. So kudos for doing it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 29 March 2018 (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) 13:19, 3 April 2018 [31].

Margarita with a Straw[edit]

Nominator(s): VedantTalk 15:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Indian film starring Kalki Koechlin. This is my fourth attempt at FAC for an Indian film. The artcile was reviewed by Yashthepunisher at GAR and was copy edited by JimHolden. Looking forward for constructive criticism. VedantTalk 15:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this part (is a 2014, Indian drama film directed by), the comma is not needed.
  • For this part (who moves from New Delhi to Greenwich village), the “village” part should be capitalized.
  • Please provide ALT text for the image in the infobox.
  • For this part (she moves to Greenwich village, Manhattan with her orthodox Maharashtrian), the “village” part should be capitalized. The same comment applies to the image caption for the Greenwich Village image.
  • For this sentence (She has sex with Jared on one occasion, only to regret it immediately.), I am not sure if the “on one occasion” part is necessary. I would remove it.
  • Please use Shonali Bose's full name when you first mention her in the body of the article and link her.
  • Please make sure that the images have ALT text.
  • For this part (The latter was shooting for Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani.), please add the year in which the film was released. I was also make it clear in the prose that this is a film.
  • For this part (Set in the neighbourhood of Greenwich village, the second half of Margarita with a Straw), unlink Greenwich Village as you already linked it in the plot summary and corrected the captilization issue.
  • In the “Critical reception” subsection, you mention there was some criticism, but this is not addressed in the lead.

Great work with this as a whole. I will support this for promotion after my comments are addressed. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've (hopefully) addressed all your comments Aoba47. Thank you for taking a look, you're always the first at all FACs! i really appreciate the help. VedantTalk 09:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Aoba47, I'll take a look at your FAC soon (Probably in a day or two). VedantTalk 08:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Yashthepunisher[edit]

Thank you Yash. VedantTalk 08:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

  • Produced by Bose in partnership with Viacom 18 Motion Pictures - in the film credits, did you manage to read who produced the film under Viacom 18?
Not really.
  • Viacom 18 Motion Pictures may be removed from the producer field in the infobox, since it belongs in the studio field.
  • In January 2011, Shonali Bose conceived the idea - remove her first name since she has already been introduced, and there is no-one else here named Bose.
  • Exactly how much English is spoken in the film to warrant its inclusion in the infobox? Per Template:Infobox film, "Insert the language primarily used in the film [...] Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries with {{unbulleted list}}." The article itself doesn't mention English being a prominent language in the film.
  • Comply with WP:FILMCAST, since none of the actors in the cast section are sourced. Several of the film's cast members with their character names are listed at Rotten Tomatoes.
  • Try splitting the section "Development and casting" since it is five paras long. I've always followed the concept of "Development", "Casting" and "Filming" being separate sections under "Production".
  • Principal photography for Margarita with a Straw began in 2013 - this is optional, but do you know which month or time of the year? If you can't find out, never mind.
I couldn't find anything concrete.
  • Upon release, Margarita with a Straw garnered positive reviews from critics and audiences alike.[51][52][53] This appears to be a case of WP:CITEKILL. One of these sources is Rotten Tomatoes, and you must place it at the end of a new sentence that describes the film's RT score.
  • You may want to add Baradwaj Rangan's review since he is one of India's finest critics.
Added.
I've fixed everything Kailash, all but one (I'll try and incorporate the review). Looking forward for the rest of your review.
  • Don't straightaway mention the film, like "Shonali Bose began working on the story in January 2011". The film has to be introduced somehow, perhaps like "In January 2011, Shonali Bose began working on a story, on what would have been her son's seventeenth birthday." Somewhere in this section, you can write that the story eventually became Margarita with a Straw.
Idk Kailash, I think this would just complicate the prose and could be counterproductive. VedantTalk 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of the above now. VedantTalk 17:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: All my comments have been addressed. Just see that the cast in the infobox, lead and cast section are consistent. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your help Kailash. And not just with the review but throughout! VedantTalk 14:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Mostly in consistent good order. A few nitpicks:

  • Ref 40: You use the "publisher=" field for Rogerebert.com, which is the website title. The publisher is EbertDigital LLC
  • Similarly, with refs 43, 44, 46 and 56, "publisher= " should give "Rediff Movies" rather than the website title
  • Refs 58 and 76: India Today should be italicized.

According to the external links checker tool, all such links are working. Sources are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the sources Brianboulton, thanks for taking up the review. VedantTalk 17:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images review[edit]

  • Do get the Bose image reviewed by an administrator at commons. Other than that, all the images look fine and have alt text.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review Ssven2, I'll get to the image. VedantTalk 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. VedantTalk 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • I would eliminate the link of screenplay from the lead; it's quite a common word and does not need linking.
  • "Bose had auditioned actors with cerebral palsy for the role but was unable to come up with desirable results" - never seen audition used that way. "Audition" is used only for performing an audition, but in this case Bose had actors audition for the role.
  • De-link New York because WP:OVERLINKING.
  • "initiative during post production" - post-production not post production.
  • "The film released theatrically in India on 17 April 2015, to critical acclaim" - unneeded comma.
  • "Commentators praised most aspects of the production, with particular emphasis on Koechlin's performance and Bose's direction" - too wordy. Better as "Commentators praised most aspects of the production, Koechlin's performance and Bose's direction".
  • "Margarita with a Straw performed moderately well at the box office grossing over ₹74 million against a production budget of ₹65 million." Maybe cut the "performed moderately well at the box office" part and let the figures speak for themselves. FrB.TG (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since there were no actresses with cerebral palsy in India, she decided to audition for the role" - who decided to audition for the role? It seems you are referring to Bose, but it implies that she auditioned to play the role.
  • "The latter was shooting for the Imtiaz Ali's romantic comedy Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (2013).[6] Due to a clash in schedules" - when was she shooting for YJHD? Was it while Bose approached her? This should be clarified.
  • "Bose went on to audition other actresses, looking for a substitute for Koechlin, but felt that "something was missing" in each one" - this makes no sense. One auditions to play a role; "audition other actresses" makes no sense. Also, the "looking for a substitute for Koechlin" part is pretty redundant. I think that is implied when you say she searched for other actresses.
  • "She underwent a six-week training workshop with actor Adil Hussain. The workshop aimed.." - you should tweak a little to avoid the repetition of "workshop".
  • "To prepare for the role, Gupta stayed Blindfolded" - why have you capitalized blindfolded?
  • "She also attended classes at the National Association for the Blind, where she learned basic Braille" - braille does not need capitalization. While we're at it, can we briefly describe braille without having to click on it?
  • "William Moseley was cast as Jared, a British student in Laila's class who develops a friendship with her." Here you say he develops a friendship with Koechlin's character, while elsewhere you say he played her love interest.

Down to the end of the casting section. More soon. FrB.TG (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've (hopefully) fixed everything. VedantTalk 19:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other students from the university were cast in the roles of the members of a local band; the band also included Dalha and Dwivedi" → "...a local band, which also included Dalha and Dwivedi"
  • "At one point, the van that was used to carry Koechlin in her wheelchair broke down and had to be manually stabilised during the shoo." Do you mean "shoot" at the end (because the usage of shoo makes no sense here)?
  • "The lyrics for the album were written primarily by Prasoon Joshi, with the exception of the tracks, "I Need a Man", and "Don't Go Running Off Anytime Soon", the latter featuring English lyrics written by McCleary." Might read better as "The lyrics for the album were written primarily by Prasoon Joshi, except for the tracks, "I Need a Man" and "Don't Go Running Off Anytime Soon", which features English lyrics written by McCleary."
  • "Artists such as Sharmistha Chatterjee; Sonu Kakkar; Anushka Manchanda; Rachel Varghese; Vivienne Pocha; and Rajnigandha Shekhawat provided vocals for the album on various tracks." Not sure why you are using semi-colons when commas equally or more appropriate.
Was done during the copy-edit.
Well, I see no reason for using semi-colons here. I think using comma is more appropriate in this case. FrB.TG (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first track to be released, the soft rock number "Dusokute", was originally composed" - I would cut "to be released".
It implies that the track was the first to be released, not the first in the album (which is also the case but not being addressed here).
  • "he former appreciated Barua's "energetic vocals" in "Dusokute" and the "desi yet classy" number" - desi needs linking or at least a translation.
  • "Daily News and Analysis praised the duo for their respective tracks describing them as "unusual" and "candid" respectively" - redundant use of respective(ly) twice.

Down to the end of the Soundtrack section. I have to leave somewhere now, but will get to the rest soon. FrB.TG (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You can take your time FrB.TG, thank you for all the help so far. VedantTalk 18:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the latter said that she was overwhelmed by the response and, "loved to see the audiences cry and laugh with the movie"." Unneeded comma here.
  • "Margarita with a Straw had its American premiere at the 2015, Palm Springs International Film Festival." Same issue.
  • "Srinivasan Narayan, organiser of the Mumbai International Film Festival elaborated that while the Indian film festivals have grown" - not sure you need the second "the" here.
  • "these showings were variously attended by Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan; Aamir Khan; Kiran Rao; Vidya Balan; Anurag Kashyap; and Shraddha Kapoor." Same thing. I think using comma is more appropriate. Using semi-colons in a case like this should be used when there are too many commas or and's.
  • "The film was positively received at the time, with Bollywood personalities including Khan and Hrithik Roshan going on to host separate special screenings for the film." Not a fan of this sentence, especially the "with noun going on".
  • "Koechlin obtained widespread attention and acclaim" - too wordy. Just "Koechlin earned widespread acclaim" should suffice.
  • "While Subhash K. Jha praised Bose for directing with a "luminous austerity", Gupta wrote that she, "blows it all out in the open with warmth and empathy"." The comma after "she" is unneeded.
  • " The Economic Times reviewer, Tasneem Balapurwala, was appreciative of the restraint evident in Bose's direction" - no commas here.
  • "Criticism focused on the change of tone and hurried narrative in the latter half of the film and was made by such critics" - I know that the "made by" part refers to the criticism, but if you read this literally, "the change of tone hurried narrative" were made by these critics. I don't know, maybe it's just me.
  • "Pal ascribed her screen appeal to her lack of acting pretence: she commended "the lack of artifice in her expressions" as truly remarkable." Not sure why you need both "acting pretence" and "the lack of artifice in her expressions". One of them needs to go IMO.
  • "Venky Vembu of The Hindu made paid detailed attention to Koechlin's" - "made paid"?
  • ""understated artistry" saying that, "she lends such verisimilitude to her portrayal.." - unneeded comma, again.
  • "The supporting cast of the film also received largely positive reviews for their respective performances." If you cut "for their respective performances", the sentence would still have the same meaning.
  • "Additionally, she had garnered nominations" - no had. FrB.TG (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything, hopefully. Thank you for taking a thorough look FrB.TG. VedantTalk 09:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some final (or at least I think) observations:

  • "Commentators including Shilpa Jamkhandikar of Reuters and Mihir Fadnavis of Firspost we're critical" - were not we're.
  • "The lyrics for the album were written primarily by Prasoon Joshi, exception for the tracks" - except not exception; not sure if I suggested so above.
  • "Margarita with a Straw had Revathi, Kuljeet Singh, and William Moseley play supporting roles." Why are you mentioning the supporting roles all of a sudden? This should be moved somewhere near the sentences, where you mention the plot and Koechlin's role.
  • "Shonali Bose began working on the story in January 2011" - this is mainly Kailash's (also one of the reviewers here) concern, but I agree with what he has said above and at User talk:FrB.TG#Margarita with a Straw.

I think that's it. This might benefit from further reviewers giving it a thorough look, but from my point of view, this nearly meets criterion 1a. FrB.TG (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the required changes, FrB.TG, thank you again! VedantTalk 10:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just these comments need addressing, and we're there. See below. FrB.TG (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pre-production work began when Koechlin was cast in the role of Laila; Bose had intended to cast an actor with cerebral palsy for the role, but failed to find desirable results." When Bose cast Koechlin in the role, when was it that she intended to cast an actor with cerebral palsy? Was it before or after casting Koechlin? Maybe the "intended" part should come first, and then the casting of Koechlin. Also, "actor" in this sentence should probably become "actress"; I don't assume for Bose, it didn't make a difference if the actor with cerebral palsy was male. Unless she implied that or explicitly stated it, then leave it as is.
  • "She completed the screenplay with co-writer Nilesh Maniyar and the advisory council of the Sundance Institute." I would remove "Nilesh" since he's been mentioned above in the lead. FrB.TG (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked it a bit. The article was also copy-edit​ed by another user earlier today. VedantTalk 15:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Galobtter's edits have made the article much stronger. I don't see any obvious improvements to be made. Support. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've really gone the extra mile here, I really appreciate the help! VedantTalk 17:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

Nice article. Looks in good shape. I support promotion on prose. A few comments:

  • seventeenth birthday -> 17th
  • acquired up -> acquired?
  • [12]>[38] -> that > character, is it a mistake?
  • isn't -> no contractions
  • latter half of the film.[62][63] Although the latter -> 2 latters very close

Great work. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed everything, thank you so much Edwininlondon. I appreciate your help! VedantTalk 13:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Krish![edit]

  • Support: The article is stunning and amazingly witten by Numerounovedant. It deserves that bronze star. Congratulations!Krish | Talk 17:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Krish!, I appreciate you taking a look. VedantTalk 05:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hey guys, the article has been reviewed by 6 users here, has had a source review, an image review, and has been copy-edited by two other users not involved at FAC. I was wondering if you guys could take a look. Thank you. VedantTalk 16:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, apologies for a tardy response to your query. I can see a good deal of useful commentary above but scanning the article I'd feel more comfortable with another set of eyes on it. We twice use the expression "desirable results" in relation to the search for an actress and it reads oddly to me in the context; also finding a stray space between a word and full stop in the last sentence of Development suggests further attention to detail might be warranted. I wonder if say John or Mike Christie could go through before we look at promotion? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright Ian Rose, I think another set of eyes would only help. It'd be great if either of the editors that you've pinged or Krimuk2.0 (as he has extensively worked on the film related articles) could take a look. Thank you for the response. VedantTalk 06:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've also (hopefully) fixed the instances pointed out earlier. VedantTalk 07:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should have time this weekend, if John doesn't get to it first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike Christie, Krimuk2.0 seems to have agreed to help too. VedantTalk 17:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ian Rose. I've addressed all of Mike's comments, could you take a look? Thanks. VedantTalk 10:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I copyedited the lead and have a couple of comments from that and from looking at the related text in the body.

  • she took six months off her filming schedule to prepare for it: what the sources say is "it took her some six months to get into the character" and "I practised on the wheelchair for at least two hours a day for six months". It's likely that she wasn't working on any other films during that time, but unless the source actually says something to that affect I think this should be reworded. Similarly the lead has "to adapt to the physical movement and speech patterns of the people with cerebral palsy" which is not really in the sources.
  • Criticism focused on the hurried narrative in the latter half of the film: this makes it sound as though this was the main focus of criticism, but in the body only two critics are cited. We need to avoid general statements unless we can source them directly or we can be certain we've seen all significant commentary, which is rarely possible.

I then jumped down to the "Critical reception" section, since I think that's the hardest part of a film article to write well. Here are some problems:

  • "garnered" is review-ese; readers will see it as a jargon word. I wouldn't oppose an article for using it, but you're better off sticking with simpler language; "received" would be invisible to the reader, which is what you want.
  • obtained widespread acclaim: "obtained" is an odd verb to use in this context, and "widespread acclaim" is overstated. She got positive reviews.
  • I'm not a fan of building the Rotten Tomatoes ratings into the prose; again I wouldn't oppose on this basis, but can you imagine an encyclopedia article in a printed book mentioning it? It might put the score in the informational listing about the film, and similarly we could put it in the infobox or a table or an external link to Rotten Tomatoes.
  • There are some odd or unnatural phrases in the section. A sample: "equated the film to a life-like experience", "Gupta also made note of the film's treatment of", "Her appraisal of the script was laudatory, claiming that it was without any superfluity", "He elaborated that".
  • The paragraph structure of this section looks like a good start; it seems to be (1) general praise and impact; (2) commentary on the disabled character and cinematography (a bit of an odd juxtaposition there); (3) criticism; (4) Koechlin's performance.

Oppose. This does not meet 1a. Glancing quickly through the rest of the article, I don't see as many problems; I suspect the reception section is what needs the most work. Ping me if this gets another copyedit and you would like me to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the oppose; will read through again if I have time, but this looks better now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Mike. Kurimuk2.0, FrB.TG, and I have tried to move things around and reword the Reception section. Can you take a look again and see if there's anything that needs more work? Thanks. VedantTalk 09:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't finished with it yet. Give me a couple more hours, and I'll get it done. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly was the RT score removed? No explanation was given in the edit summary, and while most reviews were positive, RT too showed a fresh rating, not a rotten one. So the 82% score didn't look inaccurate or biased. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Kailash, Mike does not seem to be a fan of the idea of the RT score being mentioned in the prose as he said above and would rather have it as an external link. I do not necessarily agree with the idea, but since Indian films are not extensively covered by RT I am fine either way. VedantTalk 10:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a personal opinion; with my editor hat on I would argue for keeping Rotten Tomatoes scores out of the body of the article, but I don't think it falls under the FA criteria and wouldn't oppose on that basis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mike. The section and the lead have been reworked. Could you take a look? VedantTalk 09:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through, again just reading the lead and critical reception sections. I'm going to leave the oppose standing for now, but this is definitely improved. I've copyedited a little. Here are some more example issues.

  • who spent six months learning the movements and speech patterns of people with the disorder: can you give the source text that supports this? I see she spent six months preparing, but as written this sentence seems inaccurate, unless I'm just not looking in the right place.
    I have removed the six months bit in context with speech and movement tarining. For the rest you can look at Ref 10: Pacheco (2015) and Ref 11: Singh (2013).
    That fixes the problem. The issue was that the "movements and speech patterns" line in the source says nothing about how long she worked on those aspects of the role; all we know about the six months is that she spent time in the wheel-chair getting used to the limitations it created. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • to critical acclaim: still seems too strong to me.
    Do you mean the phrase in general? or is it not substantiated well enough?
    It's a stronger claim than just saying it was praised, and I think it should be avoided unless there are good secondary sources talking about the extent of praise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • which she felt lacked superfluity: a very unnatural phrase.
  • While Subhash K. Jha praised Bose for directing with a "luminous austerity", Gupta wrote that she "blows it all out in the open with warmth and empathy". The Economic Times reviewer Tasneem Balapurwala was appreciative of the restraint evident in Bose's direction, as well as her expert use of emotions and moments. These are related in that they all refer to the direction, but the flow is disturbed by the need to mention the names of the reviewers and the publications. Sometimes a reviewer or publication is prominent enough to be worth mentioning, but if neither is well-known or authoritative in film criticism, cut them out of the sentence. You do need to cite the source directly after the closing quote if you do this, so the reader can easily see what the source is. For example, these sentences could be recast as "Bose's direction was praised for its restraint and its "luminous austerity", although it was also described as full of "warmth and empathy", and praised for its expert use of emotions and moments". This is friendlier to the reader -- knowing that it was "Economic Times reviewer Tasneem Balapurwala" who commented on the restraint in Bose's direction leaves the reader no better informed, and dulls the impact of the real information in the sentence. I'm not saying you have to cut all in-text attribution in the whole reception section, but you could try putting the section in a sandbox and cutting most or all attribution phrases to see how much more readable it becomes. For example: "The NDTV reviewer ascribed the film's appeal to its "emotionally arresting and startlingly revelatory story". He liked the honest depiction of disability and was pleased with how Laila's handicap eventually ceases to matter. This view was shared by others, with the film described as "wonderfully liberating" and "an achievement [for Indian cinema]"."
    While I do not necessarily agree or diagree with this, it may lead to a lot of seemingly questionable claims and says who tags. Anyway, here is what I have tried. Could you take a look and let me know if it an improvement by any standards. To me it readability can be subjective. There are readers who might prefer to know whose words are being quoted. For all we know, readers accustomed to the current style could very well be left more confused. Also, per WP:RECEPTION "the basic two goals are: vary sentence length, and vary between direct, indirect and summarized comments", and "If six reviewers say X, you should report that X was a widespread opinion, but there's no need to quote or name all six", we could remove attribution for similar comments for the sake of as flow as you suggested and yet leave the unique claims intact with their writers?
    Yes, readability is definitely something that varies from reader to reader; a lot of prose issues are subjective to some degree. I also agree with your point that we should leave the more interesting claims attached to their writers; it's often sensible to give names for writers who are quoted most, too, since that can tie the viewpoint together for the reader. And I agree with the quote from WP:RECEPTION that the variation needed for good flow sometimes makes the attribution natural. Having said all that, I think you'd agree that most readers of reception sections don't care about the name of a reviewer they've never heard of writing for a magazine they've never heard of. They're reading that section because they want to know what reviewers said about it. Re the "says who" tags: if they're right next to the citation that answers the question, I'd remove them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing again through the rest of the article I see a couple of slightly clumsy or wordy phrases: "Nonetheless, he was appreciative of McCleary's command over the English compositions", "elaborated that", "but concluded by saying that owing to". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{Hopefully) Fixed the rest, Mike. I appreciate the amount of time and work that you've put into the artcile. VedantTalk 07:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the oppose above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the comments Mike! It was great listening to a new and fresh perspective. I'll keep them in mind from now on. VedantTalk 10:01, 20 March 2018 (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, 3 April 2018 [32].

Carolwood Pacific Railroad[edit]

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 talk cont 03:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Carolwood Pacific Railroad (CPRR), a ridable miniature railroad run by Walt Disney in his backyard. The locomotive was produced from scratch by the Walt Disney Studios' machine shop, as well as several of its train cars. The wooden portions of the caboose, including its miniature interior, were built by Disney himself. The CPRR was a product of Disney's lifelong passion for trains, and it inspired him to create what would become known as Disneyland. The work experience gained from building the CPRR's rolling stock, its structures, and the landscaping around it were applied towards building Disneyland and its various components, including the Disneyland Railroad. Because of its strong importance in terms of initiating the Disney theme park chain, and the very close connection it had to Walt Disney, I feel that it is worthy of earning FA status. I look forward to reading all of your comments and working towards successfully completing this review. Jackdude101 talk cont 03:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Important in the context of the history of Disney and Disneyland. After receiving GA status, a FA nomination follows naturally. In addition to small changes in the text, I have contributed one photo and the track drawing. --Janke | Talk 07:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the GA reviewer (epicgenius), I suggested many grammatical changes to the article. I also checked the web references extensively. Although this isn't an excuse for additional FA review, I think the article would be suitable for FA based on my suggested changes. I'm not sure if my GA review poses a COI, though. epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I translated parts of the article to German and was impressed by the quality. Thus, I endorse it to become a featured article. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I feel that the article in its present form adequately satisfies sections 1-4 of WP:FACR and should be promoted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I just read the article and FA review and it seems to fulfill the FA criteria and should be promoted. Good work. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

All sources look in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: That specific image is a close-up of one of the CPRR's train cars. There is no license for that logo, as it was made only for Walt Disney's private use and had no commercial purposes. Even modern versions of the logo displayed in public on Disney property like this one here: File:Boulder Ridge Villas - CPRR Logo.jpg have no copyright symbols. Jackdude101 talk cont 22:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, {{Licensed-PD|PD-US-no notice|{{User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass|Sam Howzit|https://flickr.com/photos/12508217@N08/5211524675|2017-07-13 03:40:44|cc-by-2.0|}}{{cc-by-2.0}}}} may be the correct license template, providing that the logo was published without a copyright notice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Elsewhere on the same website here: [33], it is noted that J-E Nystrom runs the website, and a picture of him on that page is also on his Wikipedia user page. Jackdude101 talk cont 12:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am Jan-Eric (J-E) Nyström, of Helsinki, Finland. --Janke | Talk 19:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Support from Aoba47
  • For this part (In addition to the Disneyland Railroad, there are also steam railroad attractions in the Magic Kingdom within Walt Disney World in Florida; Tokyo Disneyland next to Tokyo, Japan; and Disneyland Park near Paris, France.), I would name the city in Florida, as it is a little odd to name the specific cities for two of the three parks, and then only include the state in one.
  • I noted in the article that Walt Disney World is in the vicinity of Orlando, specifically. Jackdude101 talk cont 22:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that one comment, I could not find much in the article that required improvement so I will support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comments[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: To recap, the article has completed an image review, a source review, and has three six confirmed supporters. Also, as Epicgenius mentioned above, this article had an extensive review of its prose last month during its GA review. Unless there is anything outstanding that you can find, it appears that this review is ready to close and that this article should be upgraded to FA status. Jackdude101 talk cont 22:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Although we have 3 supports, I don't think we have had sufficient review against the FA criteria yet. I haven't seen any commentary yet on 1a, 1b, 1c or 1d, and I think we need to establish that the article meets these criteria before we promote. Sarastro (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support this FA candidate because I find it comprehensive and agreeing with the literature on the subject. Being a (retired) cartoon animator myself, I have a large collection of books about Disney. The main opus about the Carolwood RR is indeed the 20-year old Broggie book, referenced here. In my opinion, the article fulfills all the criteria in categories 1-4. --Janke | Talk 19:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: The recent comments from Janke and GoneIn60 above appear to have addressed your concerns. Let me know if this sufficient to conclude the review. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'm still not seeing the depth of review we need. For example: "Articles about the CPRR appeared in several magazines, including the September 1951 issue of Look magazine.[19][31] These articles attracted visitors interested in riding Disney's miniature steam train.[19][32] On weekends, when the railroad was operating, he allowed them to do so, even allowing some to become "guest engineers" and drive the train". These sentences contain redundancy and do not quite make sense. What does "he allowed them to do so" mean here? It presumably means ride the trains, but the previous sentence was about reading an article and does not quite make it clear what it attracted the readers towards. The magazine? The railway? Another example of an issue is that we have the words "Walt Disney" 45 times in the article; while some use of his full name is unavoidable, this seems like overkill and some paragraphs have the combination several times. We need to rethink this a little, especially as we are using the names of companies which make this quite repetitive. Sarastro (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sarastro1: I consolidated the latter two sentences you mentioned above into the following: "These articles attracted visitors interested in the CPRR to the home of Disney, who invited them to ride and occasionally drive his miniature train.[19][32]". As for the repetitive usage of "Walt Disney" when referring to the man himself, I limited it to one instance per section in the article. All of the remaining instances are part of company and museum names, image and source titles, or category links in the article. Jackdude101 talk cont 00:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'm recusing as coordinator on this one as I think that's probably the simplest solution. I've edited the history section quite a bit as I think that needed a little work. But outside of that section, this looks fine from a prose viewpoint. I'm happy to support once my comments have been looked at. Sarastro (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for taking charge and doing the rest of the review yourself. I'm fine with your copy-edits. I made one reference correction to one of them you moved, and noted that Disney worked as a news butcher on the trains themselves (as opposed to station platforms, for instance), which also acts as a segue into the next sentence. Jackdude101 talk cont 16:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disney's backyard railroad attracted visitors interested in riding his miniature steam train": This sentence in the lead does not really fit with those around it; we have one on the locomotive, one on the railroad then this. I suspect at least a paragraph break is needed. Also, why else would visitors come to a railroad if they weren't interested in the steam train? Then we have "On weekends, when the railroad was operating, he allowed them to do so"; they couldn't really do so if it was not operating. We could combine all this into one simpler sentence like "Disney allowed visitors to ride his train at weekends."
  • "It was Disney's lifelong fascination with trains, as well as his interest in miniature models, that led to the creation of the CPRR.": This sentence, at the end of the lead, does not really fit in that paragraph, and would be better elsewhere in the lead.
  • I also wonder could we restructure the lead slightly? Maybe have one separate paragraph on the "history" and merge the (current) 2nd and 3rd paragraphs?
  • I've done a little bit of trimming, which you can revert if you're not happy, but I wonder do we really need the section about how he visited other hobbyists?
  • We are quite heavily dependent on the Broggie source; I wonder is this railroad mentioned in other places? For instance, was this the first such miniature railroad? Given that they are ubiquitous all over the world, not just in Disney parks, can we trace the wider influence of this? Sarastro (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why the Broggie book is used often in the article is because it's the definitive piece of literature on this topic. The author Michael Broggie knew Walt Disney when he was a child, and he, his brother, and their father Roger E. Broggie (the man most directly responsible for making the CPRR a reality), were frequent guests to the Disney home, where they would help maintain and operate the CPRR. This was by no means the first ridable miniature railway, which have been present in amusement parks and recreation areas since at least the late 19th century. Jackdude101 talk cont 16:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy now that this meets the criteria. Nice piece of work. Sarastro (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Given that Sarastro has recused as the coordinator for this review, the decision is now yours whether it gets promoted. Jackdude101 talk cont 17:12, 25 March 2018 (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_2018&oldid=838798196"