Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2016

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose on 16:09, 26 August 2016‎ [1].

Emma Stone[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the withdrawal of its previous nomination, some fellow editors encouraged me to try again. It was copyedited by a GOCE member and the fellow editor SchroCat also helped in polishing the prose. Now I know that in the biography of contemporary actors (a few example can be the recent ones Josh Hutcherson, Sonam Kapoor and Kalki Koechlin) the career section can get a bit repetitive, but I have really tried hard to make it less monotonous. I am hoping this will be the breakthrough one. Thank you.

For the image review, refer to Talk:Emma Stone#Image review (nothing about images have changed since then). FrB.TG (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I made extensive comments in the peer review, and all my concerns were addressed then. The article is in at least as good shape now as it was then. One mini-issue I noticed:

  • "In October 2010, Stone hosted an episode of NBC's late-night sketch comedy Saturday Night Live, describing it as "the greatest week of my life".[5][21]" Ref 21 is from 2008, but this event is in 2010. Moisejp (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the source. Thanks for your support. FrB.TG (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. (Note for delegates, just by way of openness, I've made several edits to the article (c. 30 or so), done before this FAC was started. - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, SchroCat - both your edits and support are really appreciated. FrB.TG (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I reviewed the first nomination under my former username (Z105space), and since then, the article has been strengthened with better prose and meets the FA criteria. MWright96 (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, MWright96. FrB.TG (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ref formatting consistent.
material cited by FN 11 faithful to source.
material cited by FN 17 mostly faithful to source, but source does not mention it is a nickname her mother gave her.
material cited by FN 19 faithful to source.
material cited by FN 61 faithful to source.
No copyvio detected using Earwig's tool.

i.e. Spot check ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Casliber - I have removed the nickname part. FrB.TG (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
cool! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I can see from the article's history that a good deal of work has been undertaken since the withdrawal of the last FAC; Sarastro1 and Mike Christie, as you raised several concerns last time round, could you pls stop by when/if you can and offer your opinions on how things have progressed? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'll appreciate any input from you for further improvement even if it is not promoted. FrB.TG (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like at least some of the things I commented on are improved; I'll go ahead and do a review below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I've done a copyedit; please revert if I mess anything up. Overall this looks much improved. I just have a couple of minor points:

  • You mention her appearance on Malcolm in the Middle twice, as if it happened both while she was "Riley Stone" and again after she changed to "Emma Stone". Which is right?
  • A minor point, but can you update the "As of April 2016" note to be more current?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike! Thank you for stopping by to copy edit and review the article. I have sorted your above point. As for the other one, I see that nothing about the films have updated or changed so far so I guess it's okay for now. FrB.TG (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the Riley/Emma one, I looked at IMDB, and it appears it was actually Medium where she was credited as "Riley", so that needs to be changed. Unfortunately IMDB is not a reliable source as far as I know so you'll need to find some other way to source that. On the other point, it says "As of April 2016, Stone is filming her third film with Ryan Gosling‍" -- is filming complete? If it's still going on, I'd change this to "As of August"; if it's over, I'd say something like "In early 2016, Stone began filming...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you had it right. I checked the Variety source, the one in the article. It also says so in a direct quote from the actress. The other one is also sorted. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, FrB.TG, I know I'm being picky, but I think neither is quite right yet. For the "As of" one, you can't use an April source to say what's happening in August. If you can't find out whether she is still filming, then if filming began in April you could say "In April 2016, ...", and if you can't tell when filming began, you probably have to leave it with the April date, but change it to past tense: "As of April 2016, she was filming". On the other point, in the Variety source she doesn't say whether it was Malcolm or Medium; she says "I did an episode of ‘Medium’ or ‘Malcolm in the Middle’ and they yelled ‘Riley’ when I had to go to set and I had no idea who they were talking to", so we can't use that source to settle it. From IMDB it's clear that it was Medium, but we need another source. You currently have the article saying she was "Riley Stone" in Malcolm but apparently that's incorrect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I had it correct; she was credited as "Riley" in both of them. This source clearly states that it was during the shoot of Malcolm she realized "Riley" wasn't quite the name for her. Found another one (by Interview) which supports the statement. FrB.TG (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. Support; I think the prose issues from last time around are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro: This looks much better than last time. Overall, it is reading much better with the exception of the occasional paragraph. I've read down to the end of the 2009-11 section so far. There are one of two little issues still, however. I'm nowhere near opposing this, but I'd like a little more polish before supporting. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, we are using "Stone" a lot; some variety with "she" or other rephrasing might help this. And I notice that this is repeated throughout the article: do a Ctr-F search for Stone and see how many come up.
Rephrased some sentences and replaced some with either "she" or "the actress"
  • Every sentence in the second paragraph of the lead begins "Stone" or "She"; this makes for repetitive prose and is best avoided. I'm noticing this in a few other places in the article, but it's fairly easily fixed.
  • "a dramatic part in the critically acclaimed film ": I'm not quite sure what a "dramatic" part is in a film; what else would a part be?
  • There are a few parts that I think are trivial and could be removed at little cost to the article: we can be comprehensive without having to include every available detail. For example, do we need the name of her brother, and is it important that she broke her arm in gym? Or that she stated she wanted to be a producer?
I agree with the gym and producer ones, but I think the brother part could stay. I can name several articles that talk about the person's whole family.
  • "She auditioned to star as Claire Bennet in the NBC science fiction drama Heroes and overheard in the casting room, "On a scale of 1 to 10, you're an 11"; but the casting directors were referring to Hayden Panettiere, who was cast instead. Stone has called it her "rock bottom" experience.": Not sure about this; it looks like we are cramming in a quote from an interview, and it seems slightly contrived and doesn't quite have the same meaning as in the source. I'd cut this right back to "She auditioned to star as Claire Bennet in the NBC science fiction drama Heroes but was unsuccessful and later called this her "rock bottom" experience. I'd also date this to 2007 and use the part from the interview where she used this to drive her to get the next part.
  • I'm not sure that I trust Watchmojo as a reliable source, but even if it is, are we really comfortable using it to say that a performance of Stone's was well-received by critics? On a similar note, what are we using to decide which reviews to give as examples? I'm not saying we need to quote every single review for every performance, but I'm curious why we are using the quotes and reviews that we are. I'd prefer a source (more reliable that Watchmojo) that was giving more of an overview of the reviews than choosing them ourselves. For example, is there anything in the Vanity Fair article, or the "Breakout Movie Star" book? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like that but the problem is finding that kind of review, which is a very difficult find. From my experience here editors often pick reviews that either are quotable or best describe the roles the actors play. I have also done something similar here. FrB.TG (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Giving one more explanation for above: I tried where possible to select reviews on the basis that they provided understanding on the individual and her work. As a summary article (as opposed to a full biography) we can only give highlights or examples of an individual: so long as we are balanced in the selection of those reviews then we are doing our job. - FrB.TG (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Thanks for your comments and copyedits. I look forward to more of your comments, if any, so that I can improve it more. FrB.TG (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've read to the end now, and I'm happy to support. I've done some light copy-editing but nothing major. I'm still not convinced about Watchmojo as a source (the only source I've really looked at), and the selection of reviews still gives me pause, but that is a general issue not about this article as such. It's something I might bring up somewhere else at some point. But none of this affects my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for being considerate enough to return to review, c/e and support this although my response last time isn't something you could call polite (and I apologize for it, again). I've removed the WatchMojo source. FrB.TG (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2016 [2].

California State Route 94[edit]

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 00:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After another long hiatus from FAC, I am nominating this article about an east–west freeway in metro San Diego. Rschen7754 00:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kevon kevono
Support I'm not a very good reviewer, but this article looks pretty through and complete. And amazingly no grammar mistakes! :)
Kevon kevono (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 14:57 (PDT)[reply]
  • The introduction needs a few citations. The entire introduction is uncited.
  • I don't think we need three decimal places in the length of the highway, but, why not?
    • It's best to be as accurate as possible, according to the sources. --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is File:California 94 Sign.jpg needed?
  • RD is good.
  • "However, the Highway 94 association, as well as the Campo-Potrero and Highway 80 chambers of commerce raised concerns about the safety of the children going to school in the buses along the road." Is this the only reason, because I feel it isn't a very big one.?
    • Again, we go with whatever the sources say, whether we personally agree with them or not. --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...as was planning for the portion west of there to the intersection of 18th and F streets and the future interchange with US 101." Wasn't I-5 built yet by 1956?
  • "By 1977, much of the SR 94 freeway was congested, with 85,000 to 95,000 trips per day on the freeway according to Caltrans." No citation to this sentence.
    • See the citation after the next sentence? --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In July 1998, the Back Country Coalition sued Caltrans..." Um, what's the Back County Coalition?
    • A coalition representing the interests of the Back Country. --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two citations, California Department of Transportation (January 2016). "State Route 94 / SR-125 Interchange Project Fact Sheet". California Department of Transportation. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 10, 2016. Retrieved July 10, 2016., and California Department of Transportation (March 2016). "State Route 94 Express Lanes Project Fact Sheet". California Department of Transportation. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 10, 2016. Retrieved July 10, 2016., are dead links.
    • Works for me... --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The archived versions fail for me, but the originals still work. Imzadi 1979 → 00:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed the archives since webcitation.org won't take it for whatever reason. --Rschen7754 01:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that SR 94 runs concurrently with SR 125 and SR 54 for awhile according to Google Maps. Otherwise, junction list is good.
    • I'm not sure where you're getting SR 125 from, look closely at the interchange. SR 54 is actually decommissioned from SR 125 to SR 94 (check the Caltrans bridge logs) - Google Maps is actually wrong here. --Rschen7754 00:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent and descriptive prose with no grammar or spelling errors. However, a Google Chrome extension called Grammarly noted 35 writing issues for this article, 13 word choice issues, 12 passive voice misuses, 5 wordy sentences, 4 improper formattings, and 1 unclear reference.
    • I don't trust automated grammar checkers. If you can point out specific issues that you agree with, I might consider changes. --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but very close Overall, I'd say that you have to improve this article a little more and change minor issues. Then, I'll support the promotion of the article.
Kevon kevono (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC) 13:12 (PDT)[reply]
@Kevon kevono: regarding your first point, you apparently don't know of the tenets of WP:LEAD. A lead does not need normally need any citations at all. If it had a direct quotation, then yes, it would need a citation for that quotation, but there are none in this article. Everything else in the lead is a summary of material present in the body of the article, which is cited there, so it does not need an explicit citation. A quick perusal of Category: FA-Class U.S. road transport articles would show you that most of them lack citations in the lead, pretty much reinforcing my point here. Additionally, if you did the same outside of the highway FAs, you'd see a very similar pattern as well. Imzadi 1979 → 00:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I now pass this article.
Kevon kevono (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 13:31 (PDT)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria. I also conducted an image review at the ACR. Dough4872 01:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review—the two California Numbered Exit Uniform System citations in the last footnote have ISO-style publication dates, while the rest of the article's footnotes uniformly use MDY format. You will want to change those over. Otherwise, all of the citations are formatted fairly consistently, and they're all citing reliable sources. The following aren't deal breakers, but I'm including them as a little extra something to give the cites that last bit of polish:
    • You may want to see if the California Highways and Public Works journal has either an ISSN or OCLC to include. If any of the cited paper maps have OCLC numbers, it would be nice to see those appear as well, even if there is a scanned copy online.
    • If it were me, I'd move the "Streets and Highway Code" part of the citation into |work= Streets and Highway Code and leave the section number alone as the title.
      • Fixed the publication dates, found the OCLC for CHPW and some of the maps. I'll look at the rest tomorrow. --Rschen7754 06:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose review:
    • freeway may warrant a link on first usage for the non-American readers. YMMV.
    • Can you spell out the full name for Caltrans on the first usage in the lead. I know what it means, but others won't.
    • "and west of SR 188 is part of the National Highway System" needs a subject slotted into that clause someplace to make it flow better with the rest of the compound/complex sentence.
  • "SR 94 was built along the routing of an old stagecoach road that took two days to travel to East County in the 19th century". The road itself took two days to travel? I think you mean that travelers using the road took two days. Also, is "East County" a proper name in this case?
    • In that first history subsection, things flip between "Campo Road" and "Campo road". I'm going to assume that one version isn't correct there.
      • I'm going off the capitalization found in the sources. While it's highly probable that they are the same, I'm playing on the safe side (in the event that "Campo Road" and "Campo road", or the road to Campo aren't the same). I can fix it if you think that's too cautious. --Rschen7754 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In June 1953, the Commission approved an eight-lane freeway for Route 94 from Home Avenue in San Diego to Palm Avenue around La Mesa;[33] The local Board of Education also gave their approval, which was required because the freeway would be built on land that was for a proposed school." Either that semicolon needs to be changed to a period (preferred) or the capital letter after it needs to be dropped to lowercase.
    • "state senator Fred Kraft criticized" since that's a title preceding his name, it should be capitalized. Later on in that same sentence, "long-term" should not be hyphenated.
    • "metal weakened-plane joints" I think the hyphenation here looks wrong; I parse it in a way that should read "metal-weakened plane joints".
    • "lanes in between" the "in" there isn't needed.

All in all, just a few minor changes noted so far that should be easily fixed before I formally support. Imzadi 1979 → 06:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be too cautious, but I understand the idea. It just looks odd to have the two flipping back and forth. Imzadi 1979 → 06:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment -- About ready to promote this but I always like to see a review from someone outside their comfort zone with the subject, to help ensure comprehensibility for the lay reader; Cas, you drew the short straw in my mind's lottery, would you have time for a quick read? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some queries...
In lead, "wagon road" redirects to wagon train...is that right?
It redirects to the general concept, so I think it's okay. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
can "state highway system" link to somewhere? Should it be a stub as some other states have articles....
Linked to the California one. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put the length in the lead, possibly in the first one or two sentences.
Done. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
can we link "interchange"?
Done. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
is there an article on downtown San Diego?
Added. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
440 what? vehicles?
Done. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SR 94 was built along the routing of an old stagecoach road that took travelers two days to reach East County in the 19th century - odd construction...I'd say "a road takes travellers" but wouldn't use time like that...but use it with the people as the agent" the travellers took two days to go down the road" or something...
Shuffled it around again. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In 1927, the Potrero bridge was replaced, after a storm washed out the bridge. - try and remove one the "bridge" words in the sentence.
Done. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"large haulers" - can be rewritten to dequote, surely...
Done. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks reasonably comprehensive - any notable accidents taken place on the road?
Not that would be considered notable, i.e. received a lot of news coverage or closed the road for days. Some of the minor ones are alluded to in other parts of the history. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is clear enough and good enough to not make me think about it too much while reading (a good sign). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: All done, and thanks! --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I support this on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2016 [3].

Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an episode from the American television medical drama Private Practice. It received critical acclaim and attention for its representation of rape. I have recently created this article, gotten it through GAN, and based the structure and language on FA articles about television episodes. I believe the article meets the FA criteria: I have taken particular effort in examining as many reviews and articles written about the episode as possible and incorporating them into a comprehensive and authoritative treatment of the topic. I look forward to your feedback. Regards, Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/American television task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grey's Anatomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
Comments from Numerounovedant

Will go through the article in the next couple of days.

  • I would suggest you remove the "which some critics found surprising since his most familiar role was Xander Harris on Buffy the Vampire Slayer." part from the lead, because this has no context whatsoever. The article has neither talked about the actor, or the character and is just palin confusing.
  • Not done: Nicholas Brendon and Xander Harris were both clearly mentioned in the "Production" section and the "Critical response" subsection of the "Reception" section so your comment "this has no context whatsoever" is not accurate. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of the lead is to summarise sections, without adding ambiguous information. The piece suggesting "which some critics found surprising", is just confusing because up until now the reader doesn't know about the character, the actor, or his previous roles. This just leads to confusion more than anything else, and I'd leave it out of the lead.
  • "The initial broadcast was seen by 10.18 million viewers" - "viewed by"
  • Not done: Your suggest edit would result in an unnecessary repetition of a variation of the word "view". There is no reason to change "seen" for "viewed". Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you could change it to " was viewed by ... people". The use of "seen" sounds really informal.
  • Maybe talk about an award or two in the lead, since you already have a completely dedicated to it. NumerounovedantTalk 18:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done: I have already mentioned this in the lead with the following sentence: ("Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" earned the series, Rhimes and Strickland several awards and nominations and was well received by critics, with Strickland's character and performance praised.) Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bad.
No worries. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Left further replies. NumerounovedantTalk 05:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot is fairly well written and has good flow in most parts. Just the one concern, isn't Cooper teh one who escorts King out in teh hallway? (I haven't seen the episode, just went through the scenes on YouTube.) NumerounovedantTalk 16:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the catch! I don't know how I made that mistake lol. I have corrected this :) Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: Sorry for the intrusion, but I was wondering if you have any further comments to make about this article/nomination? Aoba47 (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for having abandoned the review in the middle. But, I have been extremely busy in RL with my college applications and would not be able to provide further detailed comments. However, having gone through the article previously during the FAC I am leaning towards Weak Support. I suggest a source review and spot-check for the article. Notify me once that is done and I can offer my final comments then. Good luck and good job so far. NumerounovedantTalk 18:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numerounovedant: No worries. I understand that we all have a lot to do so I hope I did not come across as rude. Good luck with your college applications! Those are always the worst to get through lol. I will request a source review soon, and I will do a spot-check as well. Thank you again, and good luck with everything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numerounovedant: Hello, I just wanted to let you know that a source review has been done for the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. NumerounovedantTalk 13:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numerounovedant: I just want to confirm that your vote remains "weak support" and that you have not updated your stance.
Comments from Carbrera
Promote As the GA reviewer of this article, I heavily agree that this should be promoted to FA-status. I see nothing of major issue with the article, and it seems to pass all of the suggested criteria. Great work! Carbrera (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, Carbrera! Aoba47 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus.
  • File:Shonda Rhimes 2008.jpg: Caption is backed by the wiki text, file of the writer in the section about the production seems pertinent. Free image from Flickr with a good license. Other versions with smaller resolution exist on the web. OK EXIF, other uploads by the Flickr user have variable EXIF but no other indication of commons:Commons:Flickrwashing.
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I can replace the Shonda Rhimes image with another image from Wikimedia Commons if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:KaDee Strickland in Brentwood Magazine April 2005.jpg: Caption is backed by article text. File seems to be pertinent as the coverage about that actor is prominent in the pertinent section. Free file, certified by OTRS which I am inclined to trust although I don't have OTRS access myself.

Both files have good ALT text.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK

  • Sources are reliable for an entertainment-related topic (TV magazines and guides, reviews, award sites, etc.) - OK.
  • Sourcing is consistent and thorough throughout the article - OK.
  • A few brief spotchecks revealed no problems with factual accuracy - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments - done

  • Production - "She praised Adelstein's performance, saying that he provided a 'nuanced portrayal of the sexual assault victim's partner'". Such an assessment should not be based on an involved cast member's opinion (no matter if the opinion is correct or not). You need an outsider's review to verify this appraisal of Adelstein's performance (and it should be moved to "Reception").
  • I had my doubts about this part about as well, so thank you for drawing my attention to it again. I have revised the sentence to better fit the "Production" section. I modified the sentence so it discusses how the episode focused on the character's role as the partner to a rape victim. From the research I have found, Rhimes and other members of the production placed a lot of emphasis on how the rape would affect the entire cast so I find it important to mention in this section. I removed the parts about "nuanced portrayal" as it dangerously approaches the term of peacock language. Let me know if this revision is sufficient, as I can always change it more according to your suggestions.
  • A bit too many quotes and quote-like bits in Production and Reception. It's not an absolute dealbreaker, but you should try to rephrase atleast a few more. Quotes are useful for crucial and/or personal statements, or in situations where paraphrasing might be confusing for the reader. But relatively trivial qualifiers and common statements are better rephrased in your own words. GermanJoe (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I have the tendency to over-quote so I will definitely watch out for that in the future. I have reduced the quotes in both the "Production" and "Reception" sections, but please let me know if I should remove more quotes.
    • @GermanJoe: Thank you for the source review and the additional comments. I greatly appreciate both of them, and I apologize for any inconvenience. I have addressed the "Additional comments", but please let me know if I need to make more changes. If you need any help or assistance with any of your projects, I would be more than happy to help at anytime. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No inconvenience at all. Both points are improved now (updated above), thank you for the quick fix. GermanJoe (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @GermanJoe: Thank you again for your review. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @GermanJoe: I was wondering if you could possibly leave a full review or vote for this FAC (I would respect your decision either way). I do understand if you do not have the time or would not like to do so; thank you again for the source review. If you would like any assistance in any of your work, please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by AJona1992
  • "since the characters had had similar traumatic experiences" (second subsection; fourth para)
  • Fixed. That's embarrassing. I don't know how I let that slip in there.
  • "as being worth of an Emmy Award." should change it to "worthy of an Emmy Award" (third subsection; first para)
  • Another silly mistake. Fixed.
  • Is it E! or E! News for both critics used in the article?
  • They both should be E! News for both. I have corrected this as such.
  • Overlinking (Xander Harris and Buffy the Vampire Slayer) – jona ✉ 22:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for spotting that. Must have been a hold-over from my first draft.

@AJona1992: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that my concerns were addressed, I now support this article's nomination. Best – jona ✉ 15:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Miyagawa
  • Firstly, I have to hold my hand up. I've got a couple of FA's under my belt, but for the most part I'm still very much learning what it takes for an article to become FA, and I doubt I'd be confident about nominating articles until I've got at least another 10 to 20!! Anyway, here are my comments:
  • In the first sentence of the lead, I'd drop the comma before Private Practice.
  • Changed.
  • Is there a reason why Tim Daly isn't linked in the plot section?
  • Fixed. I must have overlooked him.
  • "since he is primarily known as the..." I'd change this to "since he is primarily for portraying the..."
  • Fixed.
  • Are there any comparisons to be made with the viewing figures received for episodes of Private Practice before and after this one?
  • Added the ratings for the episodes that aired before and after this one.
  • "Critical response was largely positive" I'd add a "The" before critical.
  • Added.
  • "A TVLine post listed" I'd just say "later listed" as I doubt it would have been immediately after the episodes, but later when the nominations were announced.
  • Changed.
  • @Miyagawa: Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate your feedback. If there is anything else that needs to be addressed, please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • "the immediate aftermath of Charlotte King's (KaDee Strickland) rape": suggest dropping the mention of Strickland because it makes the possessive so clumsy.
  • Done.
  • "revolved around Strickland's character to accurately represent recovery from rape": this needs rewording. What does "revolved to represent" mean? Do you mean something like "revolved around Strickland's character, and was intended to accurately portray a victim's recovery from rape"?
  • Changed to your suggestion.
  • Is Blue Deckert worth a redlink?
  • He appears to be in enough projects so I think a redlink would be worthwhile. Added.
  • "The decision to portray King's resistance to reporting her rape was reached after consultation with the hospital": suggest "with the Rape Treatment Center", as that's what the source says.
  • Thank you for that catch.
  • "According to the reviewer, the first time Freedman saw King's injuries made it seem "like we weren't even watching TV anymore". The reviewer wrote that Strickland's performance was worthy of an Emmy Award." Suggest combining these into a single sentence; perhaps "The reviewer felt that Strickland's performance was worthy of an Emmy, and that the first time Freedman saw King's injuries was "like we weren't even watching TV anymore".
  • Thank you for the suggestion. Changed.
  • The first paragraph of the reception section is focused on Strickland's performance and the comments about Emmys; Marsi's comment about the pacing and Strickland's performance might do better at the end of the first paragraph. That would let you link up TVline, E!News and SpoilerTV's comments, all of which make similar points.
  • Thank you for this suggestion too. I have tried my best to keep the "Reception" section as organized as much as possible around topic so it doesn't seem so random. Done.
  • I think you might consider restructuring the second paragraph to include all the comments directly about the rape. It would also be good if you could make that paragraph a little more like a narrative for the reader; currently it does little more than list several opinions, one after the other. Can you come up with a sentence that summarizes the commentary on the rape? "Most reviewers felt..." or something like that? That would let you combine the information within the paragraph a little more fluidly.
  • I agree with you about this. I have corrected this paragraph with your comments in mind. I also moved up the comments listed it as one of the best episode to the first paragraph as it does not pertain to commentary on rape. Do you think I should combine the second and third paragraphs? I initially separated the two to have the first paragraph focus on the critical response to the rape specifically in this episode while the third paragraph I wanted to focus on the comparisons with other television shows, but I am open to suggestions.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I have addressed all of your comments. Thank you again for the help. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything I noted above has been fixed; I think this is now FA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2016 [4].

Canadian National Vimy Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Canadian World War I memorial in Northern France, the 80th anniversary or the unveiling is this July. This article has been previous advanced for consideration and the most recent nomination in Feb 16 was rejected largely due to concerns associated with imagery copyright.

After a couple months wait, OTRS tickets have recently been completed on the Commons for a couple of these images (File:Vimy Memorial - Foundation construction.jpg, File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg) which effectively confirmed that images with a status of expired are released into the public domain by Canada (with a requirement to credit). Citations are improved on another (File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg and a the painting at the bottom of the article was confirmed as acceptable to the Commons via deletion request Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/22#File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg (closed by a sysop).Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looking really good; will read through properly and review.

At the risk of prolonging the image pain, a couple of quick thoughts:

  • File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg is justified under a UK anonymous tag. UK law requires that this is based on reasonable research into the identity; this is reflected in the wording on the copyright tag, notes that "if you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." No information is currently provided, which invalidates the UK copyright tag.
This image is a Gallaher cigarette card from a series of Victoria Cross winners title "Victoria Cross Heroes". This particular image comes from the 5th series. The New York Public Library record of this object is the best I've seen yet with regards to completeness (complete with electronic images of both front and back) but even they acknowledge its not perfect. The only potential author of mention is Central Press, which I've take to assume from researching (The Press Photo History Project) is Central Press Photo Ltd or London but there is no mention of an individual either as photographer or artist that completed the colouring. I researched the records of other cards in the series and got no further ahead. The only hit in the online records or the UK National Archive was [5] for a card held at the Museum of English Rural Life but with no author details available and a search of the Imperial War Museum Records[6] drew a complete blank.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per the copyright tag, this information needs to be added to the image description on the file itself for the claim to be valid. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Vimy Ridge - Watkins memorial.JPG has a copyright tag for the photograph, but not for the owner of the underlying copyrighted text and the memorial itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Memorial is labeled as being Veterans Affairs Canada, consequently the Canadian government. I think it would be questionable whether a threshold of originality even exists here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The memorial mainly consists of the two paragraphs of text that were photographed, though, and they carry copyright. A Canadian Government copyright tag would therefore be needed here. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For Canada the threshold requires that a work "not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise". There is absolutely no hope of this memorial holding copyright under Canadian law. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine that exist for instance in the UK is firmly rejected in Canada as being too low of a standard for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph is of two paragraphs of text (one in French, the other English). These are subject to copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The text is firmly the "short word combinations" scope for Canada. Further this is a statement of facts which in Cnaada does not meet the requisite level of creativity for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labatt, I don't agree with you about the short word combinations point; Canadian copyright law doesn't give copyright to titles, names, slogans, short word combinations etc., but the items copied here are 104 word paragraphs. While you cannot copyright a fact in Canada, expressions of a fact - for example, a paragraph of text - are certainly copyright. The material would similarly be copyright in the US where the Commons is hosted. The File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg issue still hasn't been fixed either, - the image description hasn't been altered as per the issue raised above, rendering the UK tag invalid. Reluctantly oppose at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The photo of the Watkins memorial isn't so central to the article to base approval/opposition on it alone. For it what I'll do is remove it from the article for now, send a formal request to Veterans Affairs Canada and if they come back with release that can be confirmed via a commons OTRS ticket. Would that be a satisfactory way forward.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hchc2009: Still waiting for a response from Veterans Affairs Canada. I've placed a note on the image page on the Commons but the image is removed from the article until a response is received.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll copy the text to the Jones cigarette card photo. I hope that addresses that concern.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support in terms of sources and academic background; I haven't done a copyediting check though. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As before: feel free to revert my copyediting. I enjoyed this and found it readable, but copyediting it was kind of a tough job, so I stopped reading a little more than halfway through, at Second World War. I'm hoping another reviewer will pick it up from there and make a call on supporting or opposing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did a little more; I made it down to Restoration and rededication. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reading the commentary at the deletion discussion for File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg, I find the arguments against it being free far more compelling than those in favour. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a vigorous motion to delete following the last FAC and the conclusion was to keep, the conclusion having been made by a sysop. I'm not sure more could be expected in terms of a confirming review.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "conclusion" was that life+50 applies; if that's so, absent any other information, this can't possibly be PD in the US, because that would mean copyright expired after 1996 and thus that US copyright was restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately the decision is not my call but I don't make it a habit of questioning such conclusions. Maybe @Jdforrester:, as closing admin, can offer further clarity on that discussion. Nevertheless, the image isn't so central as to merit being such a distraction so I've removed it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • King's position received unanimous support from both sides of the House and—after the Canadian federal election, 1921, there were three major parties represented. What does "both" refer to?
  • both referred to government and opposition. I've simplified the text to simply state unanimous support.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1997 ceremony at the memorial was attended by retired Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and at least 5000 people. Subsequent smaller-scale ceremonies were held at the memorial in 1997 and 2002.—meaning there was another memorial in '97 after BM visited? And were the 5000 Canadians?
  • Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Mulroney ceremony should read 1992 not 1997. Correction made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest adding a mention of the upcoming centenary commemoration of the battle. It seems as if the official programme has not yet been released by Veteran Affairs Canada (UPDATE: found this page), but some additional mention would be good. Possibly of interest (though maybe not suitable for the article) is this.
  • At this point the only possible mention is that Canada intends to hold a 100th anniversary with a service at the memorial on 9 April 2017. I think we should wait until there is more to say.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'Sociocultural influence' section has a 'when?' tag in it.
Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments here as I go through the article; I should be able to finish the review tonight.

  • "The commission committee initially took the position of placing the monument in Belgium on Hill 62": a bit long-winded; how about "The commission committee initially recommended placing..."?
  • "King's position received unanimous support of the House": either "received the unanimous support of the House" or "received unanimous support in the House".
  • "the ruins of the Diocletian's Palace": surely it should be "the ruins of Diocletian's Palace"?
  • "$2,779.18 in present terms": needs an "as of" date; perhaps "in 2016 dollars"?
  • "Immediately following the Second World War very little attention was paid to the Battle of Vimy Ridge or the Vimy Memorial, having been overshadowed by more contemporary events": it's clear what is meant, but "having been" has no subject, since the previous sentence is in the passive voice. How about "The events of Second World War overshadowed both the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the Vimy Memorial, and they received very little attention in the immediate post-war years"?
  • "The site's rough terrain and unearthed unexploded munitions": is this what's intended? The munitions have been unearthed but not removed?
  • "The figure of a cloaked young female stands on top and at the centre of the front wall and overlooks the Douai Plains. The woman has her head bowed...": suggest "The figure of a cloaked young woman..." and then "She has her head bowed..."
  • "the names of the 11,285 Canadians killed in France and whose final resting place is unknown": does this refer to both those who have known graves and those who do not? If so, I'd make it "...France, along with those whose..."; if it refers only to those with no known grave, which is implied later in the paragraph, then I'd cut the "and".
  • You have "as a consequence" twice in quick succession at the end of the "Vimy memorial" section.
  • "identified the Moroccan Division as the only divisions where": singular or plural "divisions"?
  • "that is widely published in military and general histories of Canada": suggest "widely repeated".
  • The "Sociocultural influence" section has three "X suggests" within three consecutive sentences; can at least one be reworded? Perhaps run the two sentences quoting Hucker together?
  • "it was so designated, one of only two outside of Canada, in 1997": perhaps "it was so designated in 1997, and is one of only two outside of Canada".
  • Suggest starting a new paragraph at "The memorial is not without its critics"; that's a long paragraph and it would make a natural break.
  • Is the Jane Urquhart novel sufficiently notable to be included? I know nothing about it; I ask because it's common to see novels that mention or include elements of an article's topic listed in that article, even if there is no particularly notability or third party mention of the novel in that context, so I'm just checking to see if another source mentions it. In fact, that sentence doesn't appear to be sourced.

-- That's everything I can see. This is very cleanly written, and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labattblueboy, can you update us on progress with Mike's comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I've struck the points that are already taken care of. If Labattblueboy is busy IRL, I can make a couple of minor tweaks to address the few remaining points, and I'd be glad to support then. It would be a pity to see this fail when it's clearly on the verge of promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly, Mike -- it's been open so long already I don't mind waiting a little bit longer to try and put it to bed in the best way possible... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I went ahead and fixed what I saw as the remaining issues, and am now happy to support promotion. Labattblueboy, if you feel anything in that edit is a mistake, ping me if you'd like to discuss. Regardless, it's a fine article, and I'll be glad to see it acquire featured status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had previously completed some but I was working our of a poor internet connection on a tiny phone and so am very thankful for Mike's remaining edits.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It's high-quality work; glad I could help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, I re-added the Urquhart sentence, and provided a reference, in this edit. I raised this with Mike on his talk page and he was fine with that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2016 [7].

No Me Queda Más[edit]

Nominator(s): – jona ✉ 19:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song recorded by American Tejano music singer Selena for her last fully recorded album before she was shot and killed a year later. This song holds very dear to me as it brings back nostalgic memories of my mother while growing up. I've made a major overhaul a few months ago and updated the article and subsequently asked the GOCE to copy-edit it. After that, I re-read the article a few times in the weeks following the c/e to make sure the article is indeed ready to be nominated at FAC. I hope you guys enjoy reading the article as much as I had writing it. Best – jona ✉ 19:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cartoon network freak[edit]

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak (talk)
Lead
  • and produced by Selena's brother-producer -> ,while production was handled by Selena's brother and producer
  • Done.
  • follows the ranchera storyline of a woman in agony after the end of a relationship. -> portrays the ranchera storyline of a woman in agony following the end of a relationship.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • nonconsecutive -> non-consecutive
  • Done.
  • her third successive number-one song -> remaining her ...
  • It wasn't her last number one song on the chart, the current further shows the singer's US number-one streak during her peak and if I add "remaining", would imply that this single was her last number one.
  • and became the most successful U.S. Latin single of 1995 -> with it becoming the most...
  • Done.
  • ranked the ninth-best Tejano recording -> who ranked it?
  • Done.
  • The music video -> An accompanying music video
  • Done.
  • have since recorded -> have since recorded cover versions
  • Done.
  • Tito Nieves, and the Mexican pop -> Tito Nieves and Mexican pop
  • Done.
  • and Nieves' version peaked at number seven on the U.S. Tropical Songs chart -> while Nieves' version charted at number seven on the US Tropical Songs chart
  • Done.
Inspiration, writing and production
  • a mariachi -> a mariachi track
  • Done.
  • The group -> Following this, the group
  • Done.
  • interview Selena's -> interview, Selena's
  • Done.
Music, theme and lyrics
  • with ranchera and flamenco influences -> ,incorporating ranchera and flamenco influences into its sound
  • Done.
  • at a moderate -> at moderate
  • The a is needed as it wouldn't make any sense to the reader to say "and moves at moderate 95 beats per minute".
  • "desperate", "sentimental" -> "desperate" and "sentimental"
  • Done.
  • and music critics -> while music critics
  • Done.
Critical reception and performance
  • Rename section into "Critical reception and impact"
  • Done.
  • and Paul Verna -> while Paul Verna
  • Done.
  • fans and are Spanish-language counterparts -> fans, with them being Spanish...
  • If I add that, it would read as if the fans were Spanish-language counterparts rather than the songs in question.
Chart performance
  • Rename section into "Commercial performance"
  • Done.
  • For the aspect, it would be better if you would unlink all the red links
  • Done.
  • Fix for the entire article: U.S -> US
  • Done.
Music video
  • The music video -> An accompanying music video; unlink "music video"
  • Done.
Credits and personnel
  • Credits adapted from Amor Prohibido liner notes. -> Credits adapted from the liner notes of Amor Amor Prohibido
  • Done.
Overall

@AJona1992: With my issues being resolved, I'm now willing support to this FAC. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

  • File:No_Me_Queda_Mas.ogg: FUR for this article should be expanded
  • File:Selena_No_Me_Queda_Mas.jpg: FUR does not adequately explained why it is necessary to include this image - what information is it intended to convey? Needs expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I added the album cover FUR template to the cover art that provides a more understanding than the previous method used, while also expanding the sound file with additional information that may had been missing. Thanks again for your comments – jona ✉ 12:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just the second point remaining. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I took another jab at it and tried it in my own words, I hope that my explanation for the purpose of the cover art has fully satisfied your concerns. Thanks – jona ✉ 14:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er...jona, you're editing the fair-use image that I didn't have concerns with. File:Selena_No_Me_Queda_Mas.jpg is the one at issue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that :/ I have removed the image and tagged it orphaned for deletion as it does not convey any necessary information the reader can gather without reading the article; the caption was addressing the singer's dress which did not provide any value to reader. – jona ✉ 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EditorE[edit]

OK. The article looks pretty good from a quick scan through, but after looking at a few parts of it a little more, I have a few comments:

  • I'm not so fond of how the Billboard.biz citations are formatted. Billboard.biz is still Billboard magazine, and it is published by Prometheus Global Media. The publisher for these sources are missing in the cites, and should be added. Billboard.biz should also be changed to Billboard.biz.
  • Done
  • The Alt description for the cover is decent, but not perfect. It should include a mention or the background and that the photo Selena is in is covered by a frame and is titled. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • I'm also gonna have to be picky with the English, since this is, after, a FA nomination. Starting with the lead, you need to put the period in the quote. In this case, its the quote of "nothing but happiness"
  • Done
  • "children's singing competition" Did the source specify which competition? If it did, the name of the competition should be added.
  • Added
  • The infoboxes and charts lists for two of the cover versions of the song are unnecessary. Since there isn't a lot of chart peaks that the cover versions, they should be removed and any bit of commericial performance info should be handled by the prose. The subsections are also unneeded in this case, given that there's not a lot of info on both covers.
  • Done
  • The year-end and all-time chart lists needs to be scoped.
  • Done

editorEهեইдအ😎 22:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorE: Thank you for your comments, I have fixed all issues. – jona ✉ 23:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorE: Have I satisfied your concerns above? – jona ✉ 14:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but I might still have more, so stay tuned. editorEهեইдအ😎 18:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, looking forward to it. Best – jona ✉ 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DivaKnockouts[edit]

Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts (talk)

Lead

  • "You should mix up how you refer to the song. "No Me Queda Mas" appears so many times in the lead (7 times) it becomes redundant. Especially when it's used in two sentences back to back. Ex: "the song", "it", etc.
  • Done
  • "Be consistent on how you refer to the Billboard charts. For the Tropical Songs chart you have it as "US Tropical Songs" but the Regional Mexican Airplay doesn't have the US in front of it.
  • Done

Inspiration, writing and production

  • The info box says the song is a mariachi song, but this section claims the song was meant to be a mariachi song, so is it a mariachi song or not? The source makes it seem like it isn't.
  • The plan was for it not be a mariachi song, I am only going by what the critics wrote and they called it a mariachi track; despite the company's efforts to have it "sweetin" by Silvetti. – jona ✉ 14:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception and impact

  • Link Bidi Bidi Bom Bom, as it's the first time it's used in prose and delink it the second time it is used. (I took care of this.)
  • Thank you =)

Commerical performance

  • Stay consistent with how you refer to the billboard charts. Is it Hot Latin Tracks or Hot Latin Songs? In the lead, you use Hot Latin Songs. In this section you use Hot Latin Tracks, and later in this section you use Hot Latin Songs.
  • Done

Cover versions

  • You should arrange these in chronological order. You go from Archuleta performing it in 2010 to someone recording it in 2005.
  • Done
  • When did Graciela Beltran record her's? I'm guessing 2003 based on the source's date.
  • Done
  • You need to add that Lopez performed the tribute at the 2015 Billboard Latin Music Awards. Also, include its chart performance.
  • Done
  • Palomo's chart performance is confusing. The lead says the song reached number six on the Regional Mexican Airplay but this section says "it reached number eight." Also, what chart did it peak at number 19 on?
  • Fixed
Best, DivaKnockouts 03:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by magiciandude[edit]

Resolved comments from magiciandude (talk)
  • Done
  • Did the song rank on the Latin pop or Regional Mexican airplay year-end charts in 1995?
  • Only RMA in 1995, added – jona ✉ 17:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The year-end chart in 2011 is not an "all time charts". It's just Billboard ranking the songs in the past 25 years to celebrate the Hot Latin Songs anniversary.
  • Adjusted statement. – jona ✉ 17:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that, I added it. – jona ✉ 17:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories such as "Tejano music songs" and "American Latin music songs" are already listed on "Selena songs". Why is needed here?
  • Removed
  • "Flamenco songs" isn't really appropriate since it's listed as an influence and not as a genre. *Remove the "procession and succession" box as they aren't appropriate for song articles since 2010.
  • Done
It's an otherwise well-written article from my point of view. Just fix those issues and I'll be glad to give my support! Erick (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Magiciandude: Thank you Erick for your comments, I have fixed all issues. Best – jona ✉ 17:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you have, support. Great job! Erick (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great work with this! It is a very comprehensive and well-written article. This definitely deserves FA status. Aoba47 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism[edit]

  • is a song recorded by American recording artist Selena for her fourth studio album, Amor Prohibido (1994). → is a song by American recording artist Selena from her [...]
  • while production was handled by Selena's brother-producer Since production is already mentioned, is producer really needed? Plus, I'm almost sure the term you used doesn't exist.
  • Its lyrics express unrequited love Perhaps express an unrequited love.
  • Avoid "with verb[ing]" constructions such as with the singer wishing her former lover and his new partner "nothing but happiness." Can "nothing but happiness" be paraphrased?
  • I rephrased it to wishing for the best. – jona ✉ 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • during the publication's quarter-century celebration Is this necessary?
  • Removed from lead. – jona ✉ 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An accompany music video (also incorrect by the way, should be accompanying) → A music video
  • It received the Music Video of the Year Add award at the end.
  • I'm confused. Reading Billboard I understood that the original version was remixed for commercial purposes, while here it says that there was never an "original" version.
  • The "original" version was released during the early distribution of Amor Prohibido while the "sweeten" version replaced it a few months later; where the front-cover reads "includes new version" of No Me Queda Más. – jona ✉ 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Prism | (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

  • This nom has been open a long time, @EditorE and Prism: do you have any further comments?
  • It's been several years since the nominator's last FA so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- unless one of the reviewers above has done so and is prepared to clearly sign off on it, if not you can list a request at the top of WT:FAC.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Consistent formatting and sufficient details – The formatting is consistent across the board.
  • Reliable sources (books, academic journals, expert websites) – All the sources are reliable. I just have one question about “El Nuevo Diario”. Could you please clarify the site’s background and expertise? It looks reliable and credible, but I just want to double-check (especially at this level).
  • According to their about me page, they consider themselves to be a "commercial company" whose articles are targeted to the culture and activity of the Dominican Republic and their people inside the island and elsewhere worldwide. They have also published books and magazines under their publishing company. – jona ✉ 00:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense to me. According to the above information, it definitely passes as a reliable source. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thorough referencing – Everything is thoroughly cited. The only sections unreferenced are the parts about the synopsis of the music video, which do not require citations.
  • To the best of my knowledge, there is not any close paraphrasing or any improper use of sources or sourced material
  • Spot-checking – While I am not an expert on this song, I found no signs of problem during the spot check. Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Thank you for your review, I have answered your question above on El Nuevo Diario. Best – jona ✉ 00:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, I am glad that I could help in any way possible. That should be it for my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Aoba for source review and spotcheck. Could I ask you to list the citations you checked for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing? It's something that many spot-checkers do; I ask because I just checked a couple at random, FN22 and FN23 for the statement ""No Me Queda Más" was praised by music critics, who considered it one of Selena's most successful singles", and both seemed to relate to a performance by Jennifer Lopez without clearly referring to the success of the single. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: FN#22 explicitly says "Selena's hits "Bidi Bidi Bom Bom," "Como La Flor," "I Could Fall in Love," and "No Me Queda Mas." while FN#23 said it is her "most beloved hits", but I see what you're saying. A google search brings up a biography book on Lopez where the author said the song became "an instant classic", Ilan Stavans (who is sourced in the composition section of the article) named it a "hit", but besides a speculative assumption there are no other mention of the single being one of her most successful (other than the ranks by music critics). – jona ✉ 15:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I will do a thorough check of the sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, and I will post any suggestions/comments/questions by the end of today. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I apologize if I made any mistakes. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AJona1992:@Ian Rose: I apologize for the delay. I have listed my comments below:

  • Reference 65 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/hillary-clinton-abuela-factor-n485226) is used to support that Clinton's use of Selena's music was well received, but according to the source, this decision was criticized with the emergence of hashtags like "Hispandering" and "Not My Abuela" so I would recommend revising this. I might add something along the lines about a mixed reaction to Clinton's attempt to appeal to Latino voters through Selena's music.
  • I revised that Hispanics gave her a mixed response by using her music. – jona ✉ 23:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I have struck out the above comment as you have addressed.

These are the only two issues I could find while checking through the sources. I was unable to access the sources that require subscriptions, but I will go on good faith with those few sources. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The link works correctly now. I am not sure why I kept getting a different one earlier. I have struck out my comment as you addressed that as well.

@AJona1992:@Ian Rose: Everything looks good, and the two points I brought up were addressed and corrected where necessary. I did not find any evidence of close paraphrasing and the sources are accurately used in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes (2)[edit]

Hi guys, just glancing at the Critical reception and impact section again, I think polishing is needed before we consider promoting the article:

  • "No Me Queda Más" was praised by music critics, who considered it a hit single for Selena. -- I don't think critics "consider" something a hit, it is or it isn't, and that should be discussed in the Commercial performance section anyway.
  • You use the word "calling" five times in five sentences -- more variation of expression is needed. @Mike Christie: I think you've recently written an essay on "critical reception" sections, would you mind having a look at this one and either CE or offer suggestions for improvement (feel free to look over the whole article, this just caught my eye)...

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look this weekend; I think I'll have time today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the section once more and tried polishing it some more, hope it is looking better for the both of you and is up to FA standards. – jona ✉ 15:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Ajona1992, take a look at this essay, which is what Ian was referring to; it's just my opinion and not any kind of Wikipedia style guide, but I hope you will find it useful. I've taken an initial look at the reception section in this article and I agree with Ian that it could be improved. Here are some thoughts.

First, you have several sentences at the end about awards and top lists; those could be usefully split off into a small paragraph about the awards, with an introductory sentence such as '"No Me Queda Más" received several awards and accolades.' I think those last few sentences are fine.

Here are the key words from the quotes (other than the long one from Burr): "romantic", "popular", "instant classic", "evocative", "bonafide hit", "one of Amor Prohibido's biggest hits", "key hit", "world music flourishes". Four of these ("romantic", "popular", "evocative", and "world music flourishes") are descriptions of the song, and the others describe its success. How about restructuring the section as follows?

  • Positive comments about the song
  • The song was a hit from Amor Prohibido
  • It received several awards and accolades

Here's a draft; how does this look?

The song was well-received, with reviewers describing it as "evocative", "romantic", and "bittersweet"; Quintanilla's use of "world-music flourishes" on the song was noted approvingly by Michael Clark. Ramiro Burr felt that the lyrics, about "finding the strength to walk away", evoked "the pain of love and the tone of redemption". The song became an "instant classic", according to Roger Burns, writing in Icons of Latino America. Other reviewers agreed that it was one of Amor Prohibido's most successful singles releases, with Lisa Leal of KVTV commenting that the song is a Spanish-language counterpart of the Beatles' 1965 single, "Yesterday", in fan popularity.

"No Me Queda Más" received several awards and accolades. It was the Song of the Year at the 1995 Broadcast Music Awards, while Vela received the Songwriter of the Year award in 1996. Its video was honored Music Video of the Year at the 1995 Billboard Latin Music Awards. "No Me Queda Más" was ranked as the ninth-best Tejano song of all time on Ramiro Burr's top-ten list. It has appeared on several critics' "best Selena songs" lists, including BuzzFeed (at number one), Latino Post (number four), and Latina (number five).

I've cut specific mention of some of the reviewers, because I don't think the reader really needs to see them inline; the footnotes can give the details. I compressed several points ("key hit", "one of the biggest hits" and "bonafide hit") into a single sentence without direct quotes, as I don't think the quotes were adding anything that we can't say with paraphrases.

Are Michael Clark and Ramiro Burr worth naming? They both wrote in the same newspaper, I gather, so perhaps we should just give the name of the paper rather than their name?

How does this look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented the draft into the article, Ramiro Burr is a well-known Latin music critic than Michael Clark who happened to just write an article on the singer. I found another comment on the song by a reviewer on the San Antonio Current where one said it was "overwhelming [sad]", but after reading your essay and re-reading the draft, it's best to leave it out of it since we already have a laundry list of critics who basically said the same thing about its lyrics in the composition section. There is also a MAC cosmetics line bearing the songs name but I found it to be too promotional and left it out of the article. – jona ✉ 17:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you found the draft useful. Ian, would you like me to review the rest of the article, or was it just this section you wanted another opinion on? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Mike, I think that'll do, the reception section was the main thing that seemed to need more work, and it looks greatly improved now -- tks also Ajona of course. One last thing though: in the Music section, I believe we should be attributing inline the quotes in the sentence Selena sings the song "in a low, sober voice", in a "desperate" and "sentimental" way. In the rest of the paragraph we give names or at least the generic "music critics" as the sources for descriptive quotes, should do the same here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I attributed the two authors of the quotes you mentioned above in the section. Thanks – jona ✉ 12:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Jona. Sorry, my last glance through raised another query in my mind: critics have described "No Me Queda Más"' lyrics as "torchy", "mournful", "piercing" and "heartbreaking" -- I can imagine lyrics (i.e. the words of the song) as well as vocals being described as "torchy", "mournful" or "heartbreaking", but lyrics being described as "piercing" sounds a little odd. Is it really the lyrics that all these critics refer to, or is it in fact the vocals, or a mixture? If a mixture, perhaps the simplest solution is to just drop the word "lyrics" from the sentence, and it will make sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: He called it a "piercing ballad", here is a free text version written by the same editor. – jona ✉ 15:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that link -- "piercing ballad" sounds to me like a description of the song as a whole, not the lyrics alone, so my suggestion (unless anyone has a contrary opinion) would be dropping "' lyrics" from the sentence I quoted and then you have all the bases covered and nothing jars. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I have removed "lyrics" per your suggestion. Thanks – jona ✉ 23:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does anyone have a problem with my edit changing (English: "There's Nothing Left for Me") to ("There's Nothing Left for Me")?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your edits and support. – jona ✉ 11:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2016 [8].

Science-Fiction Plus[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last attempt by Hugo Gernsback, the creator of the first science fiction magazine, to compete in the field. Science-Fiction Plus was an anachronism; the field had matured since Gernsback's heyday in the 1920s and 30s. It failed quickly, and Gernsback never returned to the fray. There are only seven issues of the magazine, so the sources are a little thin, but the article covers everything I was able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moisejp[edit]

Publication history:

  • "but he did not return to the field for nearly seventeen years, when Science-Fiction Plus appeared": suggest to specify "return to the sf field" for extra clarity.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in theory should have given Gernsback a marketing edge": probably better to mention in the text the writer whose opinion this is.
    I think this doesn't need attribution -- it's not controversial (i.e. it's not a matter of opinion) in the world of magazines that slick format is a marketing advantage, so I think if I attributed it inline it would give readers the wrong impression. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if you said "So-and-so notes that in theory this should have given Gernsback a marketing edge"? "notes" sounds closer to a statement of fact than a verb like "argues" but it still takes some edge off the "should have"—which jumps out at the reader as sounding like an opinion—even if, as you maintain, it's not an opinion. Not all readers (myself included) will have a background in the world of magazines to that know that this isn't a controversial statement. I just think if you can gently attribute it somebody with a verb like "notes", you could have the best of both worlds. Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; I've gone ahead and attributed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and if the circulation of the new magazine had been comparable to that of his other titles it would have been profitable despite the more expensive slick paper": here too.
    I also don't feel this needs attribution; I don't think this is opinion. Slick paper was definitely more expensive; what's really being cited here is that the circulation Gernsback hoped for would have been enough to cover the extra cost of the paper, and that seems like a factual statement to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point. If it was me, I might consider here too trying to reword it somehow to make it all the more clearly not sound like an opinion. But I think some of the other instances need it more than here.
    I've left this one alone for now but I'll have a think about rewording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contents and reception:

  • "it evolved away from his focus on facts and education, and became more mature": I'm not sure what "mature" implies here; also may be better to specify the writer whose opinion this is.
    I cut "and became more mature"; I think it would be a digression to explain this and the important point is that sf was no longer focused on education. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The editor, Sam Moskowitz, also had a long history in the field, having helped organize the First World Science Fiction Convention in 1939, and he too had strong views about what constituted good science fiction, though his views did not always coincide with those of his publisher": quite a long sentence, with lots of clauses. Possibly consider breaking it up into two sentences?
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moskowitz was the one in charge of obtaining stories, and he succeeded in acquiring work by many of the best-known names in sf, including Clifford Simak, Murray Leinster, Robert Bloch, and Philip José Farmer, but he also bought many stories by writers from the early years of the genre, such as Raymond Gallun, Eando Binder, and Harry Bates." Also a little long, with three independent clauses. But if you feel it's a matter of preference, I won't insist.
    This one I'd like to leave as is, because the "but" construction is what makes it long, and that's necessary for the "result" statement in the next sentence. I don't see an easy way to shorten it because of the lists of names. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The result was a magazine that felt old-fashioned, despite its smart appearance: in Ashley's words, "for a magazine to be 'slick', it didn't just have to look slick, it had to feel it, but in the case of Science-Fiction Plus all that glittered clearly was not gold"." Consider specifying whose opinion it is that it "felt old-fashioned". The quote from Ashley does not precisely support this. Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on the fence about this. The only two sources that spend time discussing the magazine in detail are Lawler and Ashley, and they both support this; Ashley calls the magazine "archaic" and Lawler describes it as "an anachronism". From my own knowledge of the field, I would say this is uncontroversial -- that is, nobody knowledgeable about the field would disagree. However, it is an opinion, even if it's one shared by all the sources. If I attribute the statement to Lawler and/or Ashley, I'm concerned that the reader will think it's not a unanimous opinion, which would be misleading. Any suggestions on how to handle this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would say it's safest to attribute it to them here. Again, maybe you can use a softer verb like "note". And even if you used a verb like "comment", which implies a little bit of opinion, I really don't think readers are going to think deeply, "Ah, 'comments'—so maybe lots of other people disagree with this opinion, and it actually wasn't old-fashioned." It's probably more likely that if you leave it as it is, sophisticated readers are liable to think, "This sounds like the opinion of this writer of this Wikipedia article. I wonder if it's true." Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a good point; I've suspected the writer's opinion at work in articles I've read. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, and the copyedit; your commas look good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome! I have at least one more comment:
  • "The artwork was of variable quality ... Paul's work had not improved over the years. Alex Schomburg, who was also a frequent contributor, did provide some high-quality covers." This is definitely opinion, and as much as or more than any other instances in the article, I would strongly urge you to attribute these inline. Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your changes are very good. Here are some final mini-suggestions, and then I'm going to try to do a source check:

  • "The editor, Sam Moskowitz, had been a reader of the early pulp magazines, and published many writers who had been popular before World War II, such as Raymond Gallun, Eando Binder, and Harry Bates. Combined with Gernsback's earnest editorials, this gave the magazine an anachronistic feel." It may be okay as it is, but for extra clarity you could spell out what "this" refers to: for example, "this use of early writers". But if you don't think it needs it, I'll leave this to your judgement.
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gernsback believed from the beginning of his involvement with science fiction in the 1920s that the stories should be instructive,[8] although it was not long before Amazing Stories had begun to print fantastical and unscientific fiction to attract readers." So this was after he lost control of it in 1929, not while he was still involved with it? Either way, it could be good to specify this.
  • I found the answer while doing a source check. On page 54 of The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the beginning to 1950, it says "When Gernsback began serialization of 'The Moon Pool' in the May 1927 Amazing he faced the dilemma of introducing a story that was, by his definition, a fairy tale and not science fiction." In the Science-Fiction Plus Wikipedia article, the next sentence is "During Gernsback's long absence from the field, it evolved away from his focus on facts and education." But it might be good to clarify that this trend began while he was still publisher. (Or does "it" here refer to "the field", not to Amazing Stories?) Moisejp (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to the fiction, Gernsback included departments such as..." I'm not sure if I would use the word "departments" here; "sections" sounds more natural to me. But if you are very comfortable with "departments" please disregard. Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to leave this as is; "department" is the most frequently used term for this in the sources, and I think it does the reader no harm to acquire this sort of vocabulary by the usage in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source check so far:

  • All of your online sources match what is in the article, and I couldn't find any instances of plagiarism. The information sourced to pages 50, 54, and 91 of The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the beginning to 1950 (available on Google Books) also matches. In the next couple of days I'll check (or spot check) any other sources that happen to be available on Google Books. Moisejp (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now completed my source check of all sources that are either available online or on Google Books. (In the end, I didn't have access to any more than what I mentioned just above.) I am very happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support, and for fixing the mess I left behind; I changed it to "sf publishing" because he did continue to publish non-sf magazines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed but ile:Science_fiction_plus_195303_v1_n1.jpg gives an incorrect date. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by starship.paint[edit]

  • I hope to take a look at this within the next week! starship.paint ~ KO 12:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category says this is an American magazine but not the text.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does reference 2 provide backing to the claim at the height of the pulp magazine era?
    I switched this to the "SF Magazines" article in SFE3, which is explicit about this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the picture for Frank R. Paul's cover for the last issue (December 1953) of Science-Fiction Plus have a caption at bottom left saying "M___ by Michael Fischer"? Although later I noticed Paul's signature on the bottom right...
    That's the title of the story being illustrated -- see here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioning The Golden Age of Science Fiction seems irrelevant unless a clearer link is established to "unscientific fiction"?
    The intended point is that science fiction moved on after Gernsback left the field in 1936 -- his idea of what an sf magazine should be was relevant in the 1920s, but by the time he launched SF Plus, the genre had transformed itself. He and Moskowitz were harking back to pre-Golden Age SF, which is why the commentators describe the magazine as old-fashioned. Is this not clear in that paragraph? I've moved the sentences about the five-pointed star to the end of the paragraph, as I think they interfered with the flow of the argument; is that better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donald Howard Menzel. James H. Schmitz and Eric Frank Russell also wrote stories published in this magazine - as seen from the pictures of the covers. Are they worth mentioning?
    The main mention of the featured authors is in a sentence comparing the best of the new writers with the old guard. I checked Ashley; he does list Schmitz as one of the good new writers, so I added his name. Lawler lists most of the writers, but doesn't single out Russell in any way, and doesn't mention Menzel at all, so I think there's no particular reason to add them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pictures of the covers list Gernsback as the editor, not Moskowitz?
    Moskowitz was managing editor, and actually bought the stories and assembled the issues; that's the usual description of an editor's job, regardless of the specific title. However, editors also usually write the editorials, so I've clarified who did what in the bibliographic details section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pictures of the covers list the tagline "Preview of the Future". Is this worth mentioning?
    Neither Lawler nor Ashley mention it, so I don't think it's necessary. I did a Google Books search to see if there are other critical mentions, and only found passing references in books focused on other topics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. I take it that the mention in "The Generation Starship in Science Fiction" is one of the passing ones? starship.paint ~ KO 13:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I think so -- it's just a mention of the magazine that includes the subtitle; it makes no critical comment about the subtitle. However, I took another look at Lawler and realized that in the publication history data he appends to his article he does mention the subtitle, so I've added it to the bibliographic details section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we use single quotation marks for 'Spacebred Generations' / 'Strange Compulsion' / 'Nightmare Planet' / 'Freedom of the Race' to distinguish from quoted phrases in double quotation marks?
    I would rather leave this as is -- use of double quotes for short story titles is standard formatting. See "The Open Boat", for example, which is an FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the pictures appear in Häpna! only in 1954, or did you mean Häpna! was first published from 1954? It's not clear.
    Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a link to Ashley (2004). Also one for de Camp, one for Moskowitz. That's all for now. starship.paint ~ KO 09:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for these. I didn't use the de Camp one as it points to the 1975 revised edition, rather than the 1953 edition I used, but I've added the other two. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. I don't have time left today to take a look at all the new changes. Another day then! starship.paint ~ KO 13:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, I'm done, all issues addressed! I am not an expert in this article's fields, but I believe it meets the criteria. Support. starship.paint ~ KO 12:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian Rose[edit]

Recusing from coord duties as I enjoy the history of sf magazines even though I hardly ever read them...

  • Not much to copyedit, reads well as usual.
  • No dab or dup links.
  • Structure and level of detail in keeping with similar articles.
  • Taking Nikki's image review as read.
  • Sources look impeccable, just a couple of formatting queries/suggestions:
    • For the last citation to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (FN12), shouldn't we have Gollanz as publisher as well?
      Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it fair to ask for publishing and access dates to be written in full rather than in that template-y format?
      I used that format because I was getting some kind of error when I used the full dates; I remember being baffled by that. Whatever I was seeing, it's not happening now, so I've changed the dates (and added a missing source date). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's quite common to use authorlink (on first appearance) in the cite book template -- do you prefer not to?
      No, just habit; I should try to get in the habit of adding these. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the absence of an ISBN, could we have the OCLC for Science-Fiction Handbook?
      I can't find the 1953 edition there -- this only shows 1975 and later. I haven't done much searching with Worldcat; is there something I'm missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Try here -- page three of the WorldCat listing. Tks for changes! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's it, well done as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support; and I'm glad you enjoy the articles! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Andy, I'm available to do a prose review if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. I'm offering only because this one is growing whiskers. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Thanks for the offer but looking through this, I don't think additional review should be necessary. --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2016 [9].

The Boat Races 2016[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Boat Race article... I've brought three or four to FAC before with some level of success, and I worked on keeping this one up to date, so much so that it was posted to ITN within hours and promoted to GA within days of the actual event concluding. As ever, I'm eternally grateful for each and every comment made here in an attempt to improve the article to something Wikipedia can be proud of. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like a high quality article. I do think it misses on the economics of the race. I assume there is no monetary prize, but maybe this should be spelled out since pretty much every sports competition out there has a prize. Also, the article misses on the TV coverage: broadcast outside UK? viewers? paid rights? Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Nergaal. This year's race has scant sources about the broadcasting, we have the usual 250,000+ spectators along the Thames but I'll need to do some digging to see if there's anything out there regarding the international viewing figures - as you know these are typically ridiculed (estimates range up to the 100s of millions), and they are absolutely impossible to gather with any credibility, but I'll look. Regarding prize money, etc, that's a good question too, and I'll see what I can find. Thanks for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could be vague along the lines of "was broadcast live in X countries, including y, z, and w". Nergaal (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some stuff about the broadcasters, online streaming and lack of prize money. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support considering the content; but I think you should mention China's CCTV also broadcasting it live. Nergaal (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map (using |upright= rather than fixed px size)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Oxford-University-Circlet.svg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't edit Commons, perhaps you could do the honours. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Does {{PD-US}} apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You just told me it did. And to tag it as such. I'm not an image copyright expert. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, let me clarify: the image needs to have any US public domain tag. {{US-PD}} would be correct if this particular design predates 1923 - does it? That's the part I'm unsure of and was hoping you would know. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, I didn't upload it. I'm not the person to ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A few to start with, more to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "while the women's race saw BNY Mellon's subsidiary Newton Investment Management as sponsors": I'm never entirely happy with the use of "saw" like this. I think the repetition of "sponsored by" would be justified.
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was announced that the sponsors would be donating the title sponsorship to Cancer Research UK": The phrasing seems a little awkward here. Maybe something along the lines of "would donate the prize money to"? (Although I realise it wasn't prize money... hmm)
    Reworded a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that this year's event was to be retitled": Maybe "that year's"?
    Tweaked, not exactly the same as your suggestion, but an improvement I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, the coaches section plods a little, but I think that is unavoidable and the section is undoubtedly necessary.
  • "Umpired by Rob Clegg, the Oxford boats, Scylla and Charybdis took part in a "phenomenal race"." As written, it looks as if Clegg umpired the boats rather than the race
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As conditions worsened past Chiswick Eyot,": Conditions worsened in what way? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what the source says, and I can't find any other sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I got another souce (albeit OUWBC) which describes a strong headwind which caused rough water, and it was these conditions that "worsened", so I've incorporated that into the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, I have responded to each, and look forward to your further review. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: Sorry for the delay, real life a little hectic at the moment! Sarastro1 (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "With the umpire having to warn both crews for encroachment": Can we say what encroachment is in this context.
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cambridge were considered the favourites to win for the first time since the 2012 race": The old favourite: considered by who?
    As usual, the bookies. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second segment from the Mile Post to Chiswick Eyot saw further clashes between the crews", "The second race saw the crews rowing back from Chiswick Eyot to the Finish Post" and "Oxford also saw three participants with Boat Race experience return": Saw again. Sorry!
    De-sawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor point that may not be obvious to everyone: Should we explain the purposes of the trials and the practice races? Not everyone may know why there were so many different races before the main ones.
    Trials are less obvious so I've added a sentence preceding the subsections. Practice races seem self-evident to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any media coverage after the event, or comments on the race in general afterwards?
    That's in the Reaction section. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is looking good overall. Perhaps my only issue is the lead; it seems a little brief and does not perhaps summarise each section of the article. Could we expand it a little? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Will work on the lead now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarastro1 lead expanded a touch, is there anything else there you'd like to see which isn't currently suitably covered? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good to me now. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

In general, this article looks well written and covers the races well. A few niggles:

  • I agree with Sarastro1 that the lead section seems a bit inadequate.
    Still working on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oxford went into the race as champions" - The subject of the previous sentences was the generic boat race, so you need to specify here that you are talking about the 2016 event.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Cambridge led overall with 81 victories" - It's a pity to use "led" for the overall score as well as the crews' positions in the race.
    I know what you mean but could you suggest an alternative? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"but Cambridge had amassed 81 previous victories to Oxford's 79"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word "amassed" revolts me, perhaps the sentence works as well without it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Ping me when you are finished with the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to be consistent on how you use apostrophes in "men's reserves'" and similar places throughout the article.
    Have tried. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the former becoming the first female official of one of the men's races in history." - This could be better expressed.
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was a former Great Britain Olympic coach" - Using the past tense makes it sound as if he is dead.
    Reworeded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CUWBC's trial was conducted between Twickenham and Tideway in rough water and windy conditions." - This took me by surprise as I at first thought it referred to locations on the river rather than boats.
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goldie had lost both races against an alternate Oxford Brookes crew earlier." - I don't think the article explains the term "Goldie", nor in fact "Isis".
    Included in Background now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly for "Blondie"
    Included in Background now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oxford's crew also contained hree participants with Boat Race experience" - typo.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oxford's Isis beat Goldie in the men's reserves race, their sixth consecutive victory and eighth in nine years, by two lengths in a time of 18 minutes 55 seconds." - This sentence needs rephrasing.
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the crews passed below Hammersmith Bridge two seconds down," - Which team was two seconds down?
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " while Oxford remained in the rough water, losing some of their advantage. Oxford were eight seconds ahead by Chiswick Steps and continued to pull away." - Contradictory?
    Seems so. Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably the worst I have experienced on the Tideway" - The Reaction section mentions the conditions being bad, but I don't see mention of this in the main text. Perhaps we could have a sentence or two earlier in the article describing the weather conditions (and tide if significant).
    Weather noted, wind and water. Tide not noted in RS.
  • Support I am happy with the alterations made and support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – In honor of Britain's fine Olympic performance, I read through this one several days ago and was happy with it, but decided to wait until Sarastro's review was done. I noticed one little glitch that I fixed, but other than that the article is well worthy of the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and cheers for fixing the the the thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment -- I think we're just looking for a source review for formatting/reliability now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • Unless I'm missing the rationale for linking or not, I think we need some consistency whether newspaper titles are linked in the references
    All consistent now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Boat Race Company: This might have come up at previous reviews, but what makes this reliable (and I'm sure it is, just checking)? Also, do we need the External Link if we are using the site as a reference? (I'm always vague on the rules for this one)
    They are the organisation which runs the event, such as Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or The Nobel Foundation. I don't see why their reliability should be called into question, unless there's something truly controversial in the text I've written and used their sources to verify, if so can you specify please? As for the EL, it links to the homepage which is not used as an inline reference, so, again, I don't see any problem with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. (And just asking rather than questioning their reliability) Sarastro1 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point, Ref 29 does not quite go to where it says: it goes to the "live" page, but the information cited is at the bottom of that page which has a different title
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources fine for formatting and reliability. Spot checks not done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all addressed and/or responded to above. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I won't hold up promotion but could you pls check the Build-up section for overlinking? Craven Cottage is the worst offender, showing up twice using Ucucha's checker, meaning it's linked three times in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Had I known such a tool existed, I'd have been using it forever. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2016 [10].

Wrestle Kingdom 9[edit]

Nominator(s): リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) and starship.paint ~ KO 04:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2015 professional wrestling event. It has been an FAC three times and failed every time due to lack of reviews. It has also undergone peer review once. Whether you are familiar with wrestling or not, I invite you to share your comments. Plus, I will review an article of yours to the best of my ability if I have not done so already. starship.paint ~ KO 04:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Good888, Freikorp, James26, Jo-Jo Eumerus, GaryColemanFan, MPJ-DK, Wrestlinglover, and Mike Christie: - notifying all previous reviewers, could you please help out again? Thank you! starship.paint ~ KO 04:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed the version with FA3 and the qua?ity has not degraded since then, SK transferring my support over to FA4.  MPJ-DK  10:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per my previous review. Prose is fine, sources seem reliable; did not do a spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to make an image review this evening. I don't know of the subject matter enough to comment on other aspects, sorry! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, here we go:
  • File:Wrestle Kingdom 9.jpg: Non-free, which is appropriate here. WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#4, WP:NFCC#5, WP:NFCC#6, WP:NFCC#7, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9 appear to be met, for WP:NFCC#10 one may want to go into more detail on how each of the previous point are met - I can tell, but the text ought to specify I think.
  • File:Jeff Jarrett.jpg: Free file, using it to show an individual with importance in preparing the event seema OK to me. Caption is backed by the article text. Good EXIF, the uploader has given some information here which makes own work plausible, for the sake of my laptop I am not going to check his other uploads. File exists all over the web in lower resolution, or on a "site suspended" page.
  • File:Kazuchika Okada at BCW East meets West.jpg: Free file, using it to show a character in the section on storylines seems OK to me. Caption is backed by the article text. Good EXIF, the uploader has given information consistent with this being an own work on Commons and is an administrator on Commons, some other uploads of Tabercil have the same EXIF. Can't GIS the image as it's too large.
  • File:Kyle O'Reilly and Bobby Fish.jpg: Non-own work free file, caption is backed up in the article text. Showing the starting competition in the section for it seems OK image use. Good EXIF, FlickreviewR checked the license, can't check the other uploads by the Flickr uploader though although they seem to be of the same theme. File exists all over the web in lower resolution, one same resolution display has no detail and the other postdates the Flickr upload.
  • File:Shinsuke Nakamura at BCW East Meets West.jpg: Free file, own work by Tabercil like the image of Kazuchika Okada. Caption is backed by article text, image to illustrate the person who is the first mentioned in the section seems OK. Same considerations regarding uploader and EXIF as the photo of Kazuchika Okada. This image can be GIS'ed, all other copies seems to be in lower resolution but the seach display appears to be broken.
  • File:Hiroshi Tanahashi at BCW East Meets West.jpg: Another free file by Tabercil, same considerations as the other two in regards to EXIF and uploader. I note the change from active to passive voice in the caption vis-a-vis the article text; showing Tanahashi in a section where he is explicitly mentioned seems OK. GIS doesn't seem to work.
  • File:BULLET CLUB 2015.JPG: Free file, showing a follow up event in the section on aftermats seems fine to me. Caption is backed by article text. Good EXIF that matches othe ruploads during that time of the uploader, another file uploaded by the uploader was tagged for deletion and kept on Commons because no reason for doubting the license of the file was given. Other uploads are also about pro wrestling. File exists elsewhere on the web in lower resolution, one same resolution image postdates the upload and the other apparently references a source also postdating the upload.

All files seem to have good ALT text. Pardon for the somewhat copyvio-paranoid approach to individual files.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: - thank you for the detailed image reviews. You don't need to apologize for the thorough check! I have updated the description for File:Wrestle Kingdom 9.jpg. Is there anything else that should be changed? starship.paint ~ KO 12:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I did analyze the uploaders and their contributions quite extensively. One could consider that paranoid or bad faith-y. Anyhow, the updated non-free use rationale seems good to me.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrestlinglover Review
    • Support No more important issues left to me--WillC 06:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
  • Background
    • "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014, to take place at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015." → "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014, and scheduled to be held at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015."
  • Storylines
    • " on October 13, 2014, at the NJPW King of Pro-Wrestling event" - Remove comma
    • "November 8, 2014, NJPW Power Struggle show." - Remove secondary comma
    • "A previous singles match between Nakamura and Ibushi during the 2013 G1 Climax was ranked the "Best Bout of the Year" by the Tokyo Sports newspaper." - Not sure why this is relevant to this event at all.
      • Because the WK9 match received 2015 Pro Wrestling Match of the Year from Observer readers. The 2013 match also received accolades, so it is worth highlighting. starship.paint ~ KO 13:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "were booked together at Wrestle Kingdom 9." - Kind of jargony
    • "January 4, 2014, NJPW Wrestle Kingdom 8," - Comma
    • "and the two former high-school classmates named their team "Meiyu Tag"" - Backstory not needed here. Just that they teamed. High school is irrelevant
      • It's relevant when you consider (meiyu means "sworn brothers" in Japanese)...? starship.paint ~ KO 13:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-show
    • " Tama Tonga scored the first elimination, of Captain New Japan. " - Awkward wording. Explain he threw him over the top rope. Shows how people are eliminated.
    • Link New Japan Rumble to battle royale
  • Undercard
  • Main event matches
    • No issues found. I'll check more later.
  • Reception
  • Aftermath
  • Results
    • Personally I'd capitalize the match names. They are official match names afterall. Otherwise, everything looks in order.
      • I'm against this stylistically. The PWTorch source for times in that section didn't capitalize them in the report either. starship.paint ~ KO 13:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also
    • It has everything I could think to include. You got the right links and all the necessary portals.
  • Notes
    • Looks good until I read the article. This is useful and I like the inclusion.
  • References
    • First reference is used way too much
      • It's the primary source, NJPW. In this case the primary source is the most reliable source for official things like official match times, official attendance etc. starship.paint ~ KO 09:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Credentials for pro wrestling dot net please
    • Ref 24, 42, 43, and 45 are used an awful lot
      • 24 is a preview of the incoming storylines, since there are multiple storylines this is used a lot. 42, 43 and 45 source what happens in each match. Since there are multiple matches, these sources are used a lot. starship.paint ~ KO 09:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beyond the above, all other references check out and I see no other issues but these.
  • External links
    • An aesthetic issue, but I'd rewrite GFW link to look more professional
  • Images
    • No issues I can see of at this time.--WillC 07:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it time and time again that I'd review this article and if it isn't one thing it is 7 that prevents me from upholding that statement. I will complete the review this time so that this can finally be an FA. This is reminding me of Lockdown (2008).--WillC 08:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "using a source too much" an issue? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 16:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same argument as Wikipedia:Citation overkill is trying to make.--WillC 05:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that refers to an over abundance of citations for ONE sentence, not multiple uses of the same source doesn't it? I did not think that is what you said?  MPJ-DK  09:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting the argument, not the policy. The argument is basically using a few references to source an article hurts its professionalism and style. Same idea. Using the same source 27 times makes it look under reported and kind of not notable. I've dealt with the issue being brought up in FA and FL but I couldn't remember what was referenced. I found that and it basically had the same argument so I directed to that area.--WillC 04:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you WillC. So there are 7 things keeping you from reviewing? At first I thought you meant reference 7. I agree with MPJ-DK's view of citation overkill. starship.paint ~ KO 09:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apartment hunting, house construction, school, other tasks, bills, family, etc. Statement for citation stuff is above.--WillC 04:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wrestlinglover: - our replies are above! starship.paint ~ KO 13:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wrestlinglover: - thank you for the review. I believe we have addressed/replied to your comments! starship.paint ~ KO 13:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will check shortly and add the last two sections if I see any issues. So far, it looks like all concerns are addressed.--WillC 08:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article is neutral, well written, and everything is cited to reliable sources. I'm really not familiar with wrestling, so I won't try to give a full review, but it looks like it meets the FA criteria to me. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GaryColemanFan Review

**"Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014, and scheduled to be held at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015." - Including the second date is confusing. It's unclear if the company decided on January 4 to hold it at the Tokyo Dome, or if the company decided to hold a January 4 event at the Tokyo Dome. This also leads to confusing with "That day" in the next sentence (which should also be followed by a comma).

**"by Marufuji which pinned Iizuka" - "which" seems like a strange word choice

**"Sakuraba used a kimura lock on the entrance ramp" - during the match, or as Suzuki was coming to the ring?

**"he lost consciousness, when the referee stopped the match" - seems like it should be "and" or "at which point" instead of "when"

  • Reception
    • "Jason Namako of Wrestleview.com" - It was just Wrestleview in the previous sentence. Is there a difference?
    • "James Caldwell of the Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter..." The last two quotations in this paragraph are introduced with colons, which makes it feel kind of disjointed. Could one of the quotations be worked more naturally into the prose (e.g. "The IWGP Heavyweight Championship match received five stars, with Caldwell stating, "There's nothing better...)
    • "cut through the language barrier" for American wrestling fans and likened" - a comma after "fans" would help
    • "Powell described the following matches as overtaking each other as the night's best as the event progressed: the "very physical" Ishii-Makabe, then Naito-Styles, then Ibushi-Nakamura" - en dashes, and "the following" sounds a bit strange--perhaps "several"?
    • "Philly.com" was capitalized earlier; this should be consistent
    • "openly crying after his loss to Tanahashi" in a main event which was "just as much a spectacle" - I would use a comma after "event" or use "that" instead of "which".
    • "He wrote that to call the Nakamura-Ibushi match" - en dash
  • Images
    • Things look good, but I've always been told that image captions that are complete sentences should end with periods (i.e. all of the images from "Main event matches" to the bottom").

Overall, the article is really well written. I have no concerns about neutrality, stability, etc. A bunch of the commas are optional, but some seem necessary for the reader to understand easily. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I've struck everything that's definitely dealt with. There are a few small things that I've left for now. I looked through some other featured wrestling content, and the italicization of English move titles doesn't seem to be standard--this may be a question to as the Wikiproject about. I'm out of town for the weekend, but I'll take my laptop with me so that we can change or discuss the remaining concerns. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck everything except the move names, and I'll wait to see how that discussion goes. I know that FACs are often closed in the middle of discussion with no warning, though, so I will Support. The remaining issue is not serious enough to prevent promotion, and I am confident that we will follow up when the discussion at WT:PW has run its course. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I agree with Gary and Ribbon that the italicizing of English move titles is strange, regardless this is up to WP:FA quality.LM2000 (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2016 [11].

Rare Replay[edit]

Nominator(s): czar 23:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With a month to go, we are approaching the first anniversary of this compilation of 30 video games by Rare and its predecessor, Ultimate Play the Game. If you're a FAC regular, you might already know that a few of us have been working to improve each of these 31 articles as a Good Topic set, and now that (1) they're all at GAN and (2) we're in the home stretch, I thought it would be nice to try to put a crown on the parent topic in time for its first anniversary on August 4, 2016. Maybe you'll agree?

The compilation of 30 games span a 30-year history across consoles from the ZX Spectrum to the Xbox 360. They include 80s classics that defined an era of British gaming (Knight Lore, FA), 90s classics that characterized the Nintendo 64 (Banjo-Kazooie, Blast Corps, FA), and, well, some weirder variations in the 00s (Viva Piñata). The compilation was fairly well regarded with many reviewers waxing poetic on their youth. But they also agreed that the games weren't all great, which we can affirm after suffering through writing their reception. But this is a homecoming and this parent article is in great shape, with thorough prose as the most complete treatment of the topic in its short life. I look forward to your feedback. czar 23:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto[edit]

Resolved, no response since July 20

A few comments to get you started:

Lead
  • The lead links to behind-the-scenes, which is a disambiguation page. It looks like of the articles linked, Making-of is the closest, but I don't know that it's quite right.
  • "Rare's Nintendo 64 classics, with Blast Corps in particular, were the communal favorites" I'm not entirely sure what "communal favourites" is intended to mean in this context.
  • "New apogee" sounds odd to me: why not just "apogee"? Actually, why not scrap apogee and just say "high point"? "Apogee" is a needlessly obscure word, especially for an article likely to be of interest to a wide range of ages and reading abilities.
I don't think that "apogee" is needlessly obscure, but I hope a switch to "pinnacle" will suffice—"high point" doesn't really fit the context. (For context, it was high-water mark earlier, but I thought that was, to borrow the phrase, needlessly obscure.)
Personally, I would consider "high-water mark" much more understandable than "apogee" to the average reader, but I think "pinnacle" is fine.
  • "Reviewers were disappointed by the absence of...": I'd say "Many reviewers" or "Most reviewers", since it soon becomes clear that a minority were not disappointed.
Gameplay
  • "Grabbed by the Ghoulies, in specific, was ported to run natively on the Xbox One, receiving a high-definition and framerate update." I'm not sure what is intended by "in specific" here, but something needs to be fixed. Probably you can just cut "in specific" so that the sentence reads "Grabbed by the Ghoulies was ported to run natively on the Xbox One, receiving a high-definition and framerate update."
The idea was to call attention to it being the only game to receive this treatment
Perhaps "One title, Grabbed by the Ghoulies, was ported to run natively on the Xbox One"?
  • Although on that same sentence, "receiving a high-definition and framerate update" reads as jargony.
What would you propose? This is the non-jargon version.
Unfortunately, I can't think of anything. Leave it as it is for now unless someone can come up with anything better, I suppose.
Development
  • "They figured that few companies lasted for 30 years": too colloquial. Maybe "As few companies last for 30 years, Rare wanted to do something unique to celebrate".
  • And on that point, the interview this is cited to says "studios", not "companies". It looks to me like the intended meaning is that few games companies have lasted that long, but the article implies that it means companies in general, where 30 years isn't hugely impressive: Wedgwood have been around 350+ years, Twinings 310 years, Colman's over 200 years, Cadbury almost 200 years. Even in the entertainment industry, Warner Bros. are approaching 100 years, as are Disney and HMV; while Virgin is approaching 50.
  • "Rare Replay's papercraft, theatrical stage theme was intended as part of the celebratory theme, and as a reflection of Rare's character" I don't really understand this sentence.
  • "Rare Replay became part of Rare's plan to celebrate its past and simultaneously announce its future with a logo redesign, new website, and Sea of Thieves announcement.": repetition "announce... announcement". Also, maybe explain what "Sea of Thieves" is and what about it was announced in the article?
  • "The company wrote the titles on a whiteboard and rated each for how it would fit the collection." Okay, but is this really needed? I'd cut it, frankly.
  • "which was their explanation for excluding GoldenEye 007" but we've already been told (twice!) that GoldenEye wasn't included because they couldn't sort the licensing out!
  • "The final opening was intended to invoke players' memories": I am almost certain that "evoke", not "invoke", is intended here.
  • "alongside their new game Sea of Thieves." This is the second time Sea of Thieves has been mentioned, it doesn't need to be linked again. And per my above comment, the fact that it was Rare's new game should probably be moved up to go with the previous mention.
Reception
  • "It reached the top of the United Kingdom all-format games charts, the first Xbox One exclusive to do so and Rare's first in 17 years (since Banjo-Kazooie in 1998)." Personally, I would rewrite this as "... the first Xbox One exclusive to do so, and the first of Rare's games to do so since Banjo-Kazooie in 1998."

Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to finish giving the section on reception a thorough read; hopefully I'll be able to come back to that soon. You should have plenty to get started on, though... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto, really helpful—thanks! I think I got 'em all czar 13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: a few more picky things:
  • "retains the 'authentic' graphical slowdown": possibly explain briefly what this means? I've skimmed the article on the ZX Spectrum and I'm none-the-wiser. (Reading the source article, it appears that what is meant is that the framerate changes depending on how much stuff is going on onscreen, but at least to this non-gamer that is by no means obvious from the article...)
  • The article cites the Kotaku Review of Rare Replay as support for Jet Force Gemini being both a most and a least favourite game; I really don't see how it supports the claim that JFG was a favourite game.
    Yeah, this was a weird one. He said that he had a positive impression of the game apart from his issue with the controls, and that the controls issue was amicable resolved. I had covered the controls issue later in the paragraph but wanted to note the game's overall reception alongside the others. I struck that first mention for now as being less important overall, considering the section's length.
  • I don't think that the article needs to remind us who the reviewer wrote for every time they are mentioned: the worst offender is the construction "Machkovech (Ars Technica)" appearing four times in two consecutive paragraphs.
  • "While Eurogamer liked how the Spectrum emulated the graphical glitches of the original console, Ars Technica disagreed." I'm not sure how much I like this kind of construction: is the reviewer not giving their personal opinion rather than speaking for the publication as a whole?
    These last two are an ongoing struggle. Some FAC reviewers insist on attributing the statements of the review to the writer rather than to the website (i.e., use the source as a metonym). I personally find review sections wholly unhelpful when they do this, as it's much easier for the reader to mentally juggle the publications for whom the reviewers speak than whoever happens to be the human reviewing that day. Otherwise the reader has to track five or more forgettable names that they might never see again after this paragraph (names that are really inconsequential to understanding the topic). I provide both to satisfy both needs, even though I think this is clunkier than, say, just avoiding the author's name after the first usage. While Machkovech wasn't paired with his website four times as far as I can tell, I reduced the most to two. What's your take? Got the rest. @Caeciliusinhorto czar 16:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I don't think it particularly matters whether you cite the reviewers as $NAME or as "the reviewer for $PUBLICATION"; I just dislike the "$NAME ($PUBLICATION)" format. I think you've got the rest. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto, all right, I've given the Reception another general round of edits to reduce the parentheses, per your wishes, but if you are opposed altogether I recommend seeing the discussions for prior FACs such as Blast Corps and Killer Instinct Gold in which the parentheses were an acceptable compromise. Again, I personally prefer using just the $PUBLICATION to ascribe the views, as the singular review is known as the publication's and not as the author's, though I think it's fine to add the author when needed for grammatical concerns. czar 20:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte[edit]

  • Would it be a better idea to reword "but an inevitable absence due to licensing issues" (Reception, third paragraph, first sentence) to "but were absent due to licensing issues"? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to preserve the sentiment that they both didn't like the circumstances and acknowledged that there was little to do about them. (I don't want to pummel the reader with reminders about the licensing, but it was a major point, so I want to make sure its handling by reviewers is in full context.) czar 13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The article exemplifies how a compilation game should be made. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Resolved

Alright, I'll take a look at this article. As someone who's currently sitting at 252/330 stamps in this game, I feel as though I'm obliged to review this article.

Lead

  • No real concerns here, very good job at summarizing the major points. I do wonder about this line however: "Reviewers noted that Rare's founders, the Stamper brothers, were conspicuously absent from the interviews." All of the other sentences about the reception are justified, but since in the actual reception section, you only have one sentence on the absence of the brothers. I wouldn't mind seeing this sentence removed from the lead, since it's already short enough in the reception section.

Gameplay

  • The 30 games span multiple genres, including fighting, first-person shooter, gardening, mining, 3D platforming, racing, and skiing. Gardening and mining are not video game genres. The reference used states that there are games in the compilation centered around gardening and mining, but not that they're the genres. I would remove those two. Also, link fighting game
  • The Xbox 360 games share player saved game and Achievement progress between the consoles via Xbox Live's cloud sync features. Wouldn't it be better to link to Achievement (video gaming)?
  • This unreleased sequel to Kameo was designed with a darker tone than the original. Link Kameo
  • Rare also worked on The Fast and the Furriest, a spiritual successor to Diddy Kong Racing with vehicle customization and track alterations. Rare also began work on new intellectual properties including survival game prototype Sundown and the airplane-based Tailwind. The videos also include trivia behind some game design decisions... Another minor complaint, but I don't like seeing "also" used as the second word for three straight sentences. Try to reword one or two of these sentences without "also"

Development

  • The servers behind some Rare Xbox 360 game functions like piñata, blueprint, and photo sharing were turned offline prior to Rare Replay and thus were not included. I have no idea what "piñata, blueprint, and photo sharing" are supposed to mean. There's no context for what each function is or what games they're from, so it might be best just to remove that part entirely. The sentence still works as "The servers behind some Rare Xbox 360 game functions were turned offline prior to Rare Replay and thus were not included."
  • Rare did not plan downloadable content in advance,[15] but has stated that it would consider the idea.[19] This sentence should be update, as Rare officially announced no DLC for this game back in January

Reception

  • Least favorites included Perfect Dark Zero,[2][22][24][33] Grabbed by the Ghoulies,[3][24] Snake Rattle & Roll,[25] and the early Spectrum games, which reviewers felt had aged the worst.[3][23] Link Snake Rattle & Roll
  • Critics supported the compilation's choice of the Nintendo 64 version of Conker's Bad Fur Day over its updated yet censored Xbox re-release.[2] There is only one critic listed as liking that decision. Instead of saying multiple critics, say Machkovech

References

  • The refs are a bit off in terms of whether they just want the original website, or a publisher as well. For example, ref 1 just states Polygon, while ref 2 states Ars Techia and Conde Nast. Please choose one of the two (unless it's an independent website like Rare Gamer, in which case that's fine)
  • Ref 12, 18, and 19 are missing the date
  • Would it be possible to avoid using a tweet in ref 10? I understand that it's from Rare themselves, but it still seems a bit informal for a featured article to reference a tweet.

Alright, that's all I have to say. This article is definitely well written, especially the reception section. Seriously, in my opinion, that is the best written reception section I've read in an video game article. Once all of the lingering issues are addressed, I'll easily support. BTW, would you mind continuing with the Virtue's Last Reward FAC?

Thanks, @Famous Hobo. I'm not wedded to including the Stampers mention in the lede, but enough reviewers specifically called it out that I felt it was a particularly important highlight. I think I got the rest, if you'll take a look. I'm a bit tied up now off-wiki, but I'd be happy to take a look at other FACs once that subsides (might need a reminder though) czar 07:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo, in case you didn't see the ping czar 04:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, sorry for missing the ping. Anyway, I feel this meets the FA criteria now, so I'm good with giving it a Support. Also, just wanted to remind you about possibly reviewing my FAC. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Resolved

I'll add comments as I go through; should be able to finish tonight or tomorrow morning. If I mess anything up in a copyedit, please feel free to revert.

  • "and the idea to connect Rare's past and future": how about "the idea of connecting"? "idea to connect" isn't very natural.
  • "Rare's Nintendo 64 classics, with Blast Corps in particular, were communal favorites among reviewers": suggest "Rare's Nintendo 64 classics, and Blast Corps in particular, were among the reviewers' favorites". I don't think "communal" means quite mean what you want it to mean, but in any case it doesn't add much and I think can be cut.
  • If "playlist" doesn't have a special meaning in gaming, I would unlink it.
  • Is everything after "Rare Revealed unveils gameplay footage from several unreleased games" about unreleased games? For example, I can't tell if Black Widow was ever released, and I think The Fast and the Furriest was not released but can't be certain.
  • "Alternatively, Jeremy Parish..." -- I don't think you can use "alternatively" in this way; you just mean "on the other hand", right?
  • "Communal" again in the reception section; is this commonly used in the gamer press? If so, OK, but it sounds odd to me.
  • "He noted how the compilation ends around the time when Rare's founding Stamper brothers left the company": I think "ended" would be more natural.

Overall I think this is in pretty good shape; I think the prose is a little flat in places and will try to do a copyedit pass once the minor points above are addressed.

However, I do think the reception section is clunky. I'm hesitant to oppose on that basis, because I don't think other editors would necessarily agree with me, but I'd like to suggest you take a look at an essay I just drafted earlier today. Some of the issues I comment on in that essay are present here. Paragraph two, for example, has a bit of the "A said B" problem. If you disagree, that's fine, and in that case I'll just run through again and make some specific suggestions that I think might help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie, thanks for the review! I've made the above fixes. If you would prefer, feel free to mark passages inline and I'll return to tweak the prose. I skimmed your essay and have a few immediate reactions, but I'll leave that to its talk page instead of getting off-topic. Remind me if I forget? czar 03:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck everything but the "playlist" point above; any reason not to unlink that in the article? I will read through again, most likely this evening. By the way, in looking at your last diff, I was interested to see you've put a "scope" comment at the front of each reception paragraph. I've never seen that done before but I think it's an excellent idea, and I'm going to recommend it in the essay. Is it your own idea, or did you see someone else doing it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Playlist" is a loanword in this context (jargon and not traditionally a video game term), so I thought it was appropriate to link. If you think it's too common a term to link, feel free to remove it. I try to add comments in the code as I'm writing if it'll make my intentions clearer to future editors. I've been doing it for a while in complex Reception sections and imagine it was original but no need to attribute the idea in any event. czar 20:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more quick notes.

  • In the development section it's made clear that although some games were excluded not because of licensing issues, but because they did not fit Rare's selection criteria, but in the reception section it's asserted that they were excluded for licensing reasons.
  • You have "Ars Technica wrote..." followed by "He felt..."; I'd either give the reviewer's name or use "They felt".
  • What's the intended scope of the "Craft" paragraph in the reception section? Why would "Stephen Totilo (Kotaku) called it the best since Valve's The Orange Box" fit there?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, @Mike Christie. ✓ Done. Rare said that licensing issues were secondary in their selection process, but the unsaid story is likely that Rare would have preferred to include its most popular games and couldn't, for whatever reason, due to licensing. That's my speculation based on the sources, but all I can say without editorializing is that sources were disappointed by "inevitable" licensing issues. So it's not like the sources or Rare is wrong—it's just on the reader to put the two together. The "craft" paragraph is about the compilation's design and the quality of its selections. (It's also a transition into discussing reviewer thoughts on the selection process, which was the bulk of the reviews.) czar 20:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK on all the above points. I am going to read through once more for flow before supporting, and if I think I can help with any of the reception section paragraphs I'll post ideas at the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more items; and I've done a little copyediting -- please revert if needed.

  • "similar in function to the NES Remix series": as a non-aficionado I have no idea what this means. If this comment is only useful to readers who already know what it means, perhaps it can be cut?
  • "as was how fun they considered the game": I think this could be rephrased. How about "as was Rare's assessment of how much fun each game was to play"?

-- OK, that really is the last pass. I'll have a go at one of the reception paragraphs next and will post anything I come up with to the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, second one rephrased, but the first isn't meant for aficionados—I'm unfamiliar with anything more than the basics of the NES Remix series but it's an appropriate comparison as a reviewer-observed precursor for the format. I think it's important for contextualizing the "snapshot" feature, even if most readers will glaze over that addition if they're not interested. I'll take a look at your talk page comments in a bit—are you including those outside the FAC or just wanted more space to stretch out? czar 18:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is FA quality. There's a conversation on the article talk page, and that may end up further improving the article, but if it doesn't I still think this is ready to be promoted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I see just one image, but anyway. Non-free image, which is the typical license for boxart of videogames unless they are OTRS-licensed or sometimes free software, and that isn't the case here. File is about the right size to meet WP:NFCC#3 without being unreadable. The detailed (if boilerplate) non-free use rationale satisfies WP:NFCC#10 and seems to explain all other points required (i.e WP:NFCC), and I don't see any violation thereof. The image has alt text, which is coherent with the scope of the image to show the boxart. So I'd say that this file is fine under the featured article criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2016 [12].

Lynx (constellation)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another constellation..but at least it's in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere so Juliancolton and Courcelles can actually see it...though the light pollution might make it really difficult :P. Anyway, I started buffing it for POTD and just kept going. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: It's a wikicup nomination...

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

Some issues that should be easy to fix:

  • The "The GAPS programme with HARPS-N@TNG" reference has a slight mangle in its name. It should be "The GAPS programme with HARPS-N at TNG". Also in this the authorlist looks to be truncated, so perhaps would have "et al" appearing.
Heh, interesting conversion to '@' - fixed now. Fixed authorlist Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Long-Term VRI Photometry of Small-Amplitude Red Variables. I. Light Curves and Periods" reference should have full page numbers: 983–996
In these cases I always use last two digits only. I can't recall where I saw it written on wikipedia, but aligns with Chicago Manual of Style. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Periodicities of the light curve of the semiregular variable star Y Lyncis" reference should have full page numbers: 321–328
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Validation of the New Hipparcos Reduction" reference should have full page numbers: 653–654
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders: From Novice to Master Observer" reference should have full page numbers: 302–307
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 0.5Mj transiting exoplanet WASP-13b" reference should have full page numbers: 391–94
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deep Sky Objects. Amherst,reference should have page numbers 168–169
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H I Imaging Observations of Superthin Galaxies. II. IC 2233 and the Blue Compact Dwarf NGC 2537." has extra "." in title, and no DOI or bibcode. (bibcode=2008AJ....135..291M, doi=10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/291
removed period and added others Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yup/good catch. overhauled ref to proper published one and stats Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Massive Star Burps, Then Explodes" is missing writing date 4 April 2007 and has retrieved date in wrong style.
Fixed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA – Supernova Imposter Goes Supernova" has retrieved date in wrong style.
Retrieval dates fixed & {{use dmy dates}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox meteor showers shows as ?????
oops, had forgotten to check. found and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lost Stars: Lost, Missing and Troublesome Stars from the Catalogues of Johannes Bayer, Nicholas Louis de Lacaille, John Flamsteed, and Sundry Others. with two page ranges referencing several different things perhaps should get two references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
aaand ref split out now....answered all now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in " Discovery of a large-scale clumpy structure of the Lynx supercluster at z∼1.27" "∼" character seems to be non standard, and does not display in my console window, perhaps ~ is the correct character.
substituted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "ALPHA LYN (Alpha Lyncis) and ALSCIAUKAT (31 Lyncis)" reference, the star names are typed in all caps, but there is no separate title on that web page, and the html title is given as "Alpha and 31 Lyn". The html title looks to be preferable in appearance.
lowercased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a person whose name is spelled three different ways: Johns‐krull, Johns-Krull and Johns‐Krull. Best to have them all the same.
streamlined Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two noninfobox pictures have no alt= text. This should describe what is seen in the image, and provide additional information to the caption, especially for people that cannot see the image.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really there are not enough images. Perhaps there could be a sky image of the whole constellation. For each constellation I would also like to see a map with every visible star labelled with its designation, rather than just a spot, as our images on commons have, but this may be more appropriate for the list of stars in Lynx.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there are none that are more detailed than the one in the infobox that are in English - this would be great in English. But might look odd with the infobox one as well. I will try to add some numbers to the infobox one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
see below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
nope/good catch. tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Graeme Bartlett are you happy with changes till now? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the changes made. I will also add a request for retrieved dates for web sites
  • "XMM discovers monster galaxy cluster" needs retrieval date.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where there are huge lists of authors should they be limited with display-authors=10?
am looking for rules on this and can see limits of 3, 6, or none (i.e. unlimited) authors. I like the idea that everyone who does research can get listed somewhere so do like the unlimited option :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also is there any non-astromony information about the constellation such as astrology or popular culture?
Lynx is really obscure...I have done some looking and found nothing so far. One last look yielded Louis Hamelin and his book, yet the book appears to have nothing to do with the constellation apart from the title..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck off the resolved issues I raised. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Graeme Bartlett, in summary, there is no rule for limiting authors to 10, only for 3 or 6, and no consensus on pageranges. I've been using 2 digits for about 10 years, and our MOS doesn't say anything (unless I am missing something..?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lithopsian[edit]

Hard to find anything left that needs changing, but the meteor shower is generally called the September Lyncids, to distinguish from two other very faint showers in Lynx. For images, this could be annotated with star labels, perhaps labels for the stars mentioned in the text. Or this at least labels more than a single star. There are also several deep sky object images that could be added, although there is already one in that section. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett and Lithopsian, what I tried to do a few years ago was alter the infobox map. So for Canis Minor I made File:Canis Minor IAUflamsteed.png..but then I couldn't get it into the constellation infobox due to the coding, so moved it to File:Canis Minor IAU.svg (see history at bottom of that one) but I was reverted, probably because I stuffed some format up. Ideally, I'd like to put some flamsteed numbers on the map in the infobox as it seems silly to have two maps of the constellation otherwise. I am open to ideas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image was reverted on a technicality. It just needs to be in SVG format. The name used by the constellation infobox is hard-coded from the constellation name so it isn't currently possible to use a different image - that could be changed. Lithopsian (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, from this list there are 13 but only one established (the Alpha Lyncids). So I think the rest are of questionalbe notability..yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


(Note to Lithopsian: please use level four (====) for subheaders, as level two messes the WP:FAC page up. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "It was introduced in the 17th century by Johannes Hevelius." The constellation or the name for the constellation? (I assume from what you say below it was the constellation but this should be made clear in the lead.)
I made it a subordinate clause of the previous sentence to minimise repetition - let me know if you think it's too long a sentence now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six star systems have been found to contain planets. 6 Lyncis and HD 75898 were discovered to have planets by the Doppler method, while XO-2, XO-4 and XO-5 were found to have planets that were observed as they passed in front of them by the XO Telescope in Hawaii, and WASP-13 had a transiting planet discovered by the SuperWASP program." Why mention the telescopes which discovered four and not the other two? It does not seem important enough for the lead. "passed in front of them" is linked to "Methods of detecting extrasolar planets", which redirects to "Methods of detecting exoplanets". I think the general link to methods should be from "found to contain planets", and would suggest something like "XO-2, XO-4, XO-5 and WASP-13 when they were [[Transit (astronomy)|transited]] by planets". Similar comments apply to the discussion of exoplanets in the main text.
Agree about removing them from the lead and done. I think they should remain in the text as there were/are only a handful of telescopes detecting planets and they are interesting, notable and different - so I will preserve the links there I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Lynx Supercluster, which was the most distant supercluster known at the time of its discovery." It would be interesting to know the date and distance.
date added - distance for very distant things is tricky to explain as it has to take into account the expansion of the universe and the inflation of the universe itself. Mostly things are referred to in redshift numbers. I am thinking of putting a footnote at fist mention of redshift to explain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spectral type K7III" - can K7III be linked?
I have linked spectral type to Stellar_classification#Spectral_types. K7III means it's an orange giant. Orange giant now links to Giant star (forgot to link and now done so) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only named star is Alsciaukat" - I found this puzzling. Do you not regard Alpha Lyncis and 12 Lyncis as names?
They are designations - it means Proper names (astronomy), which I have now reworded th clarify and linked to. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest giving the magnitude for Alpha Lyncis and Alsciaukat.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The components are a yellow giant of spectral type G8III that is 4.01 ± 2.17 times as massive as the Sun, and an F-type main sequence star of spectral type F8V that is 3.73 times as massive as the Sun." So the mass of one of the pair is known to two decimal places, and the other only as between two and six times the size of the sun?
dunno what happened there or, looking back, how the "± 2.17" got into it. Removed now as can't find how it turned up now.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two are 10.6 au apart" I am not sure how familiar "au" is to laymen. I remembered that is stands for astronomical unit but had to look up what it meant. Maybe spell out 10.6 times as far apart as the earth and the sun?
have unabbreviated - added a footnote to explain distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent whether the distance is given - e.g. for 15 Lyncis but not for 12 Lyncis. (Is the information not available for 12 Lyncis?)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "convectively induced oscillatory thermal" - could this be linked?
have linked convection. The other just means temperature going up and down with oscillations... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lynx's most notable deep sky object is NGC 2419" - most notable but not enough to be mentioned in the lead?
added to lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shapley class II cluster" - another it would be helpful to link if possible.
added a link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a blue compact dwarf galaxy that is somewhere between 17 and 30 million light-years away from Earth." No change needed, but is the approximate distance compared with exact ones for other galaxies because no cepheids have been seen in it?
I suspect somesuch - standard candles are Very Useful Things... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last two paragraphs you sometimes give objects redshift, sometimes distance in light years. (I assume this is due to differences in the sources, but presumably you could convert redshift to light years?) Dudley Miles (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh. see this and this. Need to think about this...sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC) aaand the other problem is the universe model you apply after all that...sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update @Dudley Miles: - have added footnote with link to redshift and Hubble's law with explanation that redshift is used for far distant objects. Could be expanded I guess but that might be better done on target page. It isn't done well on Hubble's law. Happy for input/feedback from readers POV on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think providing conversions from redshift to light years would be very helpful, but I accept your point that this could not be done without a POV selection among different methods of conversion. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks/much appreciated. Will do some reading later and maybe post at the astronomy wikiproject about imporving the target pages on this regarding redshift etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Praemonitus[edit]

Support: my concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I did a quick review and have a few concerns:

  • "LHS 1963" is listed as the "Nearest star" in the Infobox, but that is unreferenced and possibly incorrect. I get a distance of 8.62 pc based upon Van Leeuwen F. (2007).
corrected distance - these nearest stars in constellation were added before my time. Not sure how they come up with them. I guess list of stars sequentially..The star has 41 refs and I was scouring them to see if I could make the case for the star being notable. It has been studied a bit but nothing very unique or unusual about it as far as I can see.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When seen through a telescope, it can be separated into three stars: two very close together of magnitudes 5.4 and 6.0 and a yellow-hued star of magnitude 7.2 a little further away.": This is unnecessary vagueness. I've updated the star's article with the necessary information, so you should be able to use that.
imported/thanks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "oscillatory thermal (COT) mode": this technical term isn't explained or linked.
    • I did some checking on this. The term was proposed by P. R. Wood in 2000,[13] based on a mathematical analysis. Apparently long period variation in red giants still isn't understood very well, so I'm not sure what to suggest here. Perhaps ask at the Astronomy WikiProject? Praemonitus (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • COT stands for Convection-Induced Oscillatory Thermal Mode. Although the modes currently known are all highly damped, it is proposed that a less strongly damped COT mode might account for the long secondary periods seen in many long period variables. Probably shouldn't have its own article, but maybe a mention in long period variable and then you could link to it. Lithopsian (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I had this trouble finding somewhere to link to when I first wrote about it. I just needed some uninterrupted time to do some quiet reading and digesting to add the material. Will do soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC) After looking at that paper, I conclude that this is the simplest way of explaining it...unless I am missing something Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HD 75898 is a yellow subgiant that has a planet 2.51 Jupiter masses orbiting with a period of around 418 days.": this is a lower bound on the mass, not the actual mass.
page 1396 concludes that planet is minimum of 2 Jupiter masses, while calculation is 2.51 Jupiter masses which is not described as a minimum as far as I can tell. So I can say "2.51" or ">2". Have left it at >2 but the abstract might be more what the authors were wanting to say... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson et al (2006) say "M sin i = 2.51 MJUP", so I take that as a lower bound on the mass. (Since sin i ≤ 1, M sin i ≤ M.) Praemonitus (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10.6 astronomical units": should have a '(au)' afterward so that subsequent uses of 'au' are clear.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a globular cluster that is one of the most distant known of its kind at a distance of 300,000 light-years from Earth.": I don't think this is true by a long shot, since globular clusters are being studied around other more distant galaxies. Perhaps the statement needs a restrictive clause? Also, what is meant by "of its kind"?
it is supposed to mean intragalactic globular cluster - rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This same star may have changed from a LBV star to a Wolf–Rayet star shortly before it was observed erupting as hypernova SN 2006jc on October 11, 2006.": how "shortly"?
2 years - added better ref and clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While observing the quasar, ESA's XMM Newton and the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) in Arizona in 2008 discovered the huge galaxy cluster 2XMM J083026+524133.": please clarify that the cluster was discovered by the astronomers, rather than by the telescopes.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sato, Bun'ei; et al. (2008)" and "Nakata, F.; et al. (2004)": these are inconsistent with the other references showing full author listings.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left the quality of the prose to be reviewed by others. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine - it is most important how accessible it is to astronomy-naive folks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Noswall59[edit]

  • In the lead: "Six star systems have been found to contain planets. 6 Lyncis and HD 75898 were discovered to have planets by the Doppler method, while XO-2, XO-4, XO-5 and WASP-13 were found to have planets that were observed as they passed in front of the host star." - there is a lot of repetition of 'planet#' here. It's not essential, but perhaps the wording could be altered to yield smoother results.
I tried this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That reads better, thanks.
  • The history section feels quite timeless; apart from the vague reference to its early use in the 17th century, there are no dates. Could any more specific details be added?
dates added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section still seems a tad brief, but I am not sure what more can be added and it seems fine as it is.
  • Notable Stars: I would link or explain 'Bayer designation'; maybe link 'light-years'; link 'exoplanet'
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Notable Stars: "Lynx's most notable deep sky object is NGC 2419, also called the "Intergalactic Wanderer", a globular cluster that is one of the most distant known of its kind at a distance of 300,000 light-years from Earth" could avoid repetition as: "Lynx's most notable deep sky object is NGC 2419, also called the "Intergalactic Wanderer"; at 300,000 light-years from Earth, this globular cluster is one of the most distant of its kind known, as of 2016".
I had to rejig this whole bit - let me know how it reads now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That reads better to me.
  • Notable Stars: with reference to the Bear Paw's Galaxy, the article says that a theory about interactions with another galaxy "is now considered highly unlikely". Perhaps some brief reference to who considers this unlikely, and how and why, is needed. I am not sure about policy on this though, so it is not essential.
I added it - can go into greater detail on the daughter article pages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that seems better.

Broadly speaking, I think the article is well-written and seems to provide a good overview of the stars, as well a summary of the constellation's characteristics. The history section is fine, but needs some dates and any other useful material on the history of its usage would be nice to see. The prose is good on the whole, but could do with some tightening in places to avoid repetition and aid flow; a few extra links for non-scientists would be great. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Support: my points have been addressed, the prose seems to be of a very high quality, the article has inline citations for all facts and opinions and the detailed coverage of the characteristics and notable features seems comprehensive to me (although I am no expert). The history sections seems short, but I am aware that this a very obscure constellation and it may well be that this covers all that is available in secondary material. For all of these reasons, I am happy to support this nomination, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pax85[edit]

I am currently working on a review and should have comments up within a day or two. -Pax Verbum 04:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Done.[reply]

  • I'm still working, but there is one thing that I have noticed that needs to be researched right off the bat: In characteristics, it says that culmination occurs on midnight on 20 January. Wouldn't this date shift a bit, depending on the year? Also, the sources I have seen (only two tonight because it's late, but I'd be willing to help find more) say culmination actually occurs in March.
    • Culmination happens every night (or day). A date association with culmination is generally the day on which culmination occurs at midnight, making it convenient to observe the object. This is January for Lynx. Also sometimes quoted is the date on which culmination occurs at 9pm, March in this case. There are small cyclical variations due to a number of effects including the leap year, as well as secular effects of precession, but these are easily ignored since constellations are large areas of the sky that culminate at a particular time over several weeks. Lithopsian (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder if it would be good to make that distinction in the article, since it is likely going to be read by non-astro folks? I altered the wording slightly to make it clear. I know culmination occurs every night, but the current wording may be helpful for non-astro folks (and I had no sleep when I wrote the above)... -Pax Verbum 22:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished up. Overall, a wonderful article. I hope you don't mind, but I went through and made some very minor copy-edits, mostly for prose. I would like to see some more media, both in terms of images and links for non-astro types, but I don't think that the article lacks so much in these areas as to prevent it from being an FA. There is one outstanding issue that needs clarification, in terms of wording:

they look ok, though the quasar discovered was the most luminous known object in all existence when discovered. Fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In "Characteristics": "Hevelius gave it the alternate name of Tiger in his catalogue as well as Lynx, but kept the latter name only in his atlas." To some readers, it might not be entirely clear which is in the atlas. Does latter mean the latter of the two names created (Tiger) or the latter of the names listed in the above sentence (Lynx)?

I hadn't thought of that - ok, I tweaked it to this. How's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! -Pax Verbum 16:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once this is determined, I will certainly give a thumbs–up! -Pax Verbum 23:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The article seems well-researched and written. Thank you for this! -Pax Verbum 16:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • All images are CC licensed or PD, but the two following ones need United States public domain tags on Commons: [14] and [15]. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A nice person has added them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The watermarks on [16] should be removed per Commons guidelines, but that is of course not a problem for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sidney Hall image does not appear to link to the correct image on the Library of Congress site:[17] FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • All of the citations are to reliable sources, no problems there.
  • There are adequate citations throughout the text.
  • Cites are all properly formatted (I made a small edit [pp.-->p.]).
  • Everything is good to go as far as sourcing is concerned. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2016 [18].

HMS Emerald (1795)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 36-gun frigate of the Royal Navy which served with distinction during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Since becoming a good article in August last year, additional information has been incorporated and I have given it a thorough copy edit and checked all sources for possible copyright violation. I believe it is now as complete as reliable sources will allow and that it satisfies the criteria (IMHO) Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks for your suggestion. I have enlarged to 300px. Is that about right, do you think? Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ykraps. For the benefit of readers that rely on special image sizes, please use our image scaling parameter instead of hardcoding the image size. The scale for 300px would approximately be upright=1.36
Remove 300px, and replace it with upright=1.36 (between two vertical bars). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. I have never come across that before. If I can find where it is I will read up on it.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnail sizes, thanks--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax

  • Hi, Ykraps. I made two edit sessions starting here to nudge things along, and will do more in a couple of days. Ping me back when the review is further along so I can !vote on it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay here; I intend to come back to this but real life is a little hectic. Should be able to revisit properly very shortly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for your edits.--Ykraps (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkingfax: The review is further along. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Ykraps. I believe the lead would be more engaging if it had much less minute detail. Leave the minutia for the body. Slash the minutia. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed some trivial detail. See what you think. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I'll start making comments, but don't edit the article yet please, I'm working on it.
  • "a Spanish treasure fleet was", "The British fleet under George Elphinstone were": check the article for consistency on was/were after "fleet".
    Done - Just the one instance, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a number of": search for this throughout; there's some evidence that it's ambiguous, at least as used on Wikipedia. Delete it, or say "several", or be more specific. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - Changed one and deleted another. The precise 'number of' is given later anyway.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 74-gun Leviathan, the admiral's flagship, Swiftsure and a small fireship, Incendiary.": Is that two, three or four ships? Be careful with the wording in your lists.
    There were four ships including Emerald. I see what you mean and hopefully I have now made it clear.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, copyediting this is giving me a headache so I'm going to stop at Caribbean service, about halfway. Hopefully someone will pick up the copyediting from there. I may come back and support later on. It's engagingly written. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your edits and I am sorry it gave you a headache. I reverted one change here as it is more usual to say sail when talking about ships. Or perhaps it's a dialect thing. I'll double check.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm pretty sure it's not limited to a particular dialect. The most high profile example I can think of is at the Battle of Cape St Vincent (1797) where Robert Calder and Benjamin Hallowell count Spanish ships as they appear.[19] Regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "ships"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As a substitute for sail? I'm not sure. I try to avoid using 'ship' as it had a very specific meaning during this period of history whereas 'sail' is a nondescript term for any unidentified ocean going vessel and is routinely used in history books. Where I've used ship as a generic term, I have tried to make this clear by including a description or link to the vessel in question.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    vessel, craft? - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Either could work. I have rewritten the sentence accordingly.--Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All the edits since mine look great. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brigadier-general", "Lieutenant-colonel": Hyphenation can vary a bit; I really can't say if this is okay at FAC or not.
    Hi Dank, can you elaborate here? I've scanned the article but can't see what you mean by hyphen variation.--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't mean it varies in your article, I meant it varies in the wild, so maybe your usage is fine ... but I rarely see those two with a hyphen in military history articles on Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to say, it's an Engvar thing but having checked the three dictionaries I have to hand:The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) and Oxford Dictionary of English: 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198610571. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help) both hyphenate; Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. ISBN 0-00-433286-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) does not. So yes it does seem to vary but providing it doesn't vary within the article, I assume it's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the commas (I think) down to Caribbean service, but the comma usage continues to be substandard after that, and I hope someone will fix the commas before this gets promoted.
  • Otherwise, Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 08:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support. I hope I can sort out your remaining niggles. Best--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Euryalus

  • Nicely detailed, and it's about time there were more featured articles about eighteenth century ships. I have a bunch of comments, so these are a starting point only. Please consider my comments in the light of my justified reputation for pedantry.

Lead, first paragraph

  • Consider “was a 36-gun” instead of “one of the 36-gun” as the current wording suggests the reader is either familiar with Amazon-class vessels, or that Emerald was one of the ones with 36-guns as compared to ones with other numbers.
    Done - I was trying to make the point that all the Amazon's were 36-gun but I take your point and have changed as per your suggestion.--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove “there” in last sentence, as redundant.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Jervis was a knight, but his role in this context was as an admiral – consider changing the honorific.
    Done - again I take your point, although I have referred to him later on as "Admiral" John Jervis. Is the repetition okay do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, second paragraph

  • Suggest rewording second sentence as “In 1797 ’’Emerald’’ was one of ... the crippled Spanish flagship Santisima Trinidad which had managed to escape from the British victory at the Battle of Cape St Vincent.” Reasons: it doesn’t imply Emerald was at the Battle, it notes why the Spanish ship was important, and it gives a year to add context to the paragraph above.
    Done - yes, much better. I'm afraid my leads are always a bit weak. I write them last to ensure that they summarise nicely but by that time my mind is wandering onto my next project.--Ykraps (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalise “Admiral” in “Rear-Admiral” – lower case is generic but this refers to a specific person and should be capitalised (in the same way as commodore as a rank and Commodore John Smith as an individual)
    Done - I was of the opinion that when hyphenated, only the first part should be capitalised but as this has come up before and having failed to find a single example to support my position, I've come to the conclusion that I'm wrong!--Ykraps (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, third paragraph

  • Wikilink “western approaches” as it may not be a commonly recognised term. The eighteenth century western approaches was larger and more southerly than the one mapped in our article on it, but it is close enough to be of value as a link.
    Done - I initially chose not to link for the very reason you have given above but your argument has some merit.--Ykraps (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What we need is someone with an enthusiasm for both eighteenth century maritime history and obscure marine geography, who can expand that article and avoid this issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed we do.

Construction section

  • Instead of “one of the first” ‘’Amazon’’-class frigates, how about “the second of four.”
    I wrote that sentence in that way because, as she was ordered and laid down at the same time as Amazon, I considered Emerald to be joint first. She was launched a little later though (27 days) so I suppose she was second.--Ykraps (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a go at the entire section. See what you think now.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many decimal places in the construction dimensions, suggest reducing to a single decimal place as the text is currently too precise for an eighteenth century craft.
    There is a parameter one can add to the template to restrict the number of decimal places but can't find where it is for the moment.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence – the Winfield ref says she was copper sheathed at Woolwich, which was completed by 12 October. This isn’t really fit-out, which needs only to have occurred before she sailed for the Mediterranean in January 1797. To come closest to the reference, suggest changing fit-out to copper sheathing in this sentence.
    Done - I may have obtained that info from another source but it should agree with the reference cited so I have changed it pending further investigation.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out tonnes burthen in the section, instead of using (bm)
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not essential, but consider adding the names of the remaining two Amazon's, either in the text or as a note. Winfield notes these two were built from fir – do we know what Emerald was principally made from? Am assuming oak, and could probably hunt this down for you if you think it adds anything. Otherwise, up to you but I wonder whether it might be better to remove the reference to fir for the remaining vessels as it begs the question on timbers for the subject of this article.
    As there wasn't an article on Amazon-class, I thought it might be useful to include a bit about other Amazon's so I'd like to keep it if possible. Any info you have on it would be a bonus. I have added a note regarding the names as you suggested. Further thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking re oak/fir for first pair. Footnote looks good on the second pair - I wonder if the apostrophe is in the right place? Not an area I am expert in, it just looks odd the way it is. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't be there at all. I have removed it.--Ykraps (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean service section

  • Winfield and Clowes both spell the captain’s name “Berkeley” – obviously spellings were variable at the time, just highlighting this to make sure we have the most common usage.
    Done - I think that spelling came from another book but again I have changed to agree with the source used.--Ykraps (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph is too long – consider a break after “nearby Lagos Bay with other vessels.”
    Done - good suggestion.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The listing of vessels sent to pursue Santimisima Trinidad - sentence is a bit long, doesn’t explain that ‘’Santisima Trinidad’’ was the Spanish flagship, and as a minor syntax issue suggests Jervis issued the orders to the frigates themselves, rather than the crew. How about
“... entered the bay. Admiral Jervis ordered that three frigates - ‘’Emerald’’, the 40-gun ‘’Minerve’’ and the 32-gun ‘’Niger’’ – begin a search for the disabled Spanish flagship ‘’Santisima Trinidad’’ which had been towed away from the battle. They were to be accompanied by two smaller craft, the 20-gun corvette ‘’Bonne-Citoyenne’’ and the 14-gun sloop ‘’Raven’’.”
  • Again, good suggestion - done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate this is an article on the ship and not the crew, but it may be worth noting historical conjecture that Berkley’s failure to bring ‘’Emerald’’ to engage the Spanish flagship was responsible for his subsequent resignation from command. It’s in both James (referenced in this paragraph) and the “History of the Royal Navy by Clowes (I can drum up the Clowes ref for you if you like).
    If that was the case then I think it's a good idea to include something but all I can find in James (vol ii) is, "Captain Berkeley was much censured for his apparent want of resolution". Unfortunately it doesn't say by whom so that will invite immediate tagging. And, unless I'm missing something, Clowes (vol iv) simply says the motives for his mysterious actions were never made public.--Ykraps (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, not sure what I was reading, then. Give me a little while and will either come back with a different source or strike this. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Various newspapers from March-May 1797 indicate Berkeley was to be court-martialed on Jervis' orders for his failure to capture the Spanish ship, despite her having struck her colours on his approach (so the censure is both by the newspapers and by implication Jervis). However this slightly breathless account indicates the court martial was called off when the captain of Minerve offered a convincing explanation for Berkeley's conduct. So have stopped looking, as the reasons for Berkeley's resignation might reasonably be described as matters of historical dispute. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If we wanted to include something about censuring, we could use the source you've found to say something like, "Berkeley's reluctance to attack infuriated some of his fellow officers who asked for a court-martial. Minerve's captain, George Cockburn however came down on Berkeley's side, opining to Jervis that, under a jury rig, Santassima Trinidad was still capable of making a defence.--Ykraps (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest using the full name (well, the Royal Order name) of Santisima Trinidad (Holy Trinity) on all occasions and not shortening it to Trinidad (Trinity) as occurs in one instance.
    Done
  • The last sentence relates to the subsequent section and should be included there instead of here.
    Done - I was trying to create a link to the next section but it didn't really work.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subheader "Mediterranean service" doesn't work here, as everything down to "Caribbean service" is also Mediterranean. A non-essential suggestion: consider removing the “Career” header entirely and making “Mediterranean service” “Caribbean service”, “Home waters” and “Later career” the new level twos.
    Would you mind taking another look at this? There is very little difference between the two so you probably haven't noticed that the headings between "Mediterranean service" and "Caribbean service" are level three headings. They are sub-headings of the Mediterranean section. I have used the {{TOC limit|3}} template to stop them showing in the contents box which I thought was a bit too large.--Ykraps (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to make it a bit clearer, I've removed the template so the contents box displays all.--Ykraps (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hopelessly" seems like editorial, suggest removing this word.
    Done

Will have a few other comments in another day or so. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean service Uses Terpsichore twice in the last sentence – is it possible to remove or replace the second use of the word?

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 26 April

  • Not essential, but the section could probably do with a sentence or two to set the scene for what we are about to read – for example, why the British were blockading Cadiz, and how many ships were involved.
    There was an explanation further on in the article but I think it should have been given earlier.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and second sentences – on a first read I was uncertain if the Spanish ships captured/destroyed in sentence one are the same ones as mentioned in sentence two. Is there a way to make these two sentences relate to each other a little more. As above, not essential.
    Does the addition of a simple "the" improve it any?--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section could do with a map, if one exists, as there are a lot of place names.
    I would've liked one showing the relative positions of Cadiz, Trafalgar and Conil bay but alas nothing seems to be available. I'll request one at the appropriate venue, if I can find where it is.--Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • “which posed a threat to unwary seamen” seems a bit redundant?
    Okay, agreed. I wanted to convey that it was a hazard the Spanish weren't expecting their pursuers to have the skill or courage to negotiate but as we're not writing an adventure novel...--Ykraps (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Irresistible and Emerald had captured Ninfa and destroyed Santa Elena but ...” suggest removing these words as redundant. It is important to note the silver was delivered, but the rest simply restates what we read previously.
    Done - I was trying to make the point that the victory was a somewhat hollow one but I've reworded and I think I've managed to retain that feeling.--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with previous section, the last sentence (“Later in 1797 ...”) doesn’t really work here and perhaps belongs in the section below.
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a minor FAC transgression I've also made a mild copyedit to this section, directly to the article. Please feel free to revert if you prefer - it was just quicker to make these directly than to type them out here. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, your edits look good.--Ykraps (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second bombardment of Cadiz

  • I like the introductory sentences here as they give necessary context. Am assuming Emerald missed the Battle of Cape Vincent – do we know why?
    Not missed as such; normally only 3rd rates and above fought in fleet actions so she was anchored in nearby Lagos Bay with the other smaller vessels. There is a small sentence saying as much in the previous section.--Ykraps (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here Jervis orders a blockade of Cadiz, but Emerald was already blockading Cadiz in the previous section. I think it was the same blockade?
    I think this has been sorted by moving the explanation further up the page.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which side owned the mortar boats that were captured?
    Done - Spanish.--Ykraps (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    have struck the above, but its not clear how a bombardment of the town leads to the capture of Spanish mortar boats, which were presumably docked (you cannot use mortar boats to defend against ships at sea).
  • Last sentence doesn’t entirely work and might be better located in the following section.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fewer suggestions for the following sections, I promise. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I am happy to have a thorough review.--Ykraps (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria

  • Idle curiosity – are we still with Jervis at Lisbon? Also, I imagine there’s no answer to this but how did we end up with a temporary captain in Proby? Proby was only a Lieutenant at this time – seems a surprisingly large command for an 18-year old.
    Yes, still with Jervis. The ex-Mediterranean fleet was stationed in the Tagus, waiting for an opportunity to re-establish itself. I'll see what I can find out about Proby but I'm not very hopeful.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made it clear that Emerald is still in Jervis' fleet.--Ykraps (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second sentence could do with a copyedit – I know what you’re saying by listing Nelson’s ship next to his name, but breaking up the ship list and putting the destination in between, is a bit hard to follow.
    I've listed the ships together - see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third sentence “became separated from the rest of the squadron” might read better – otherwise it is “Emerald”” herself that becomes separated. Also, “two weeks later” might read better than using a second date in the same sentence.
    As the battle happened over a couple of days, saying, 9 days later, or similar begs questions such as; did she miss just the start or the entire battle? I have kept the dates therefore but rewritten slightly. Again, see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence on going to Alexandria, might be good to explain why. Also, needs the date of the Battle of the Nile as is not otherwise evident why being lost in a storm on 21 May means the battle is missed.
    Done - have added more detail and rewritten section.--Ykraps (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Anemone captured off Alexandria where “Emerald” was stationed?
    Yes. After the Battle of the Nile, Emerald remained off Alexandria for the rest of the year (part of a squadron under Samuel Hood, I believe). Winfield only says where not who with or what she was doing but I remember reading somewhere that she was assisting with the evacuation of French troops. There is a sentence at the end of the previous paragraph which might be better placed at the beginning of this one?--Ykraps (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    James says that Nelson, "...sailed for Naples ; leaving Captain Hood with the Zealous, Goliath, Swiftsure, Seahorse (who had joined on the 17th), Emerald, Alcmène, and Bonne-Citoyenne, to cruise off the port of Alexandria". I vaguely remember reading that she was left to blockade the port, possibly in Clowes but I can't find it at the moment.--Ykraps (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added this information using Clowes.--Ykraps (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Wooden casks” seems odd here – did they build a raft?
    No, as being able to swim was unusual at the time, swimmers among the British crew swam in with empty casks for the French seamen to use as buoyancy aids. Various sources say the casks were small so I am assuming they were empty rum containers as the water would've been kept in large barrels, and various sources (including James) attribute it to a single lieutenant (my mistake, Middy), Francis Fane (Royal Navy officer). I cannot find the original source I used for this section and I am having difficulty opening the Gazette citations to see what they say. I will try to open them from a computer at work tomorrow and have another look.--Ykraps (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gazette says "our people" but particularly mentions a midshipman from Emerald. I have added some more detail and added James as a source.--Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camin needs a first name as will be unfamiliar to the reader (including me).
    Neither the Gazette nor James gives first names and I have so far been unable to find a source that does. I initially left out names as I thought them an unnecessary detail but another editor, User:Acad Ronin put them in later; using the Gazette as the source, presumably.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Clowes doesn't give first names either.--Ykraps (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Acad Ronin has found a source and entered Camin's full name in the form of a footnote.--Ykraps (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not essential, but I would remove “as well as some other passengers” as superfluous.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18 June 1799

  • Only one here - "advance Mediterranean fleet" - in advance of what?
    The source only refers to it as such. At the time, the Royal Navy had withdrawn from the Med and had no permanent presence there. Following the Battle of the Nile, with French force weakened, the British started looking for a permanent base, which they found after the capture of Minorca. I am assuming that Emerald was part of a small fleet sent in advance of the main Mediterranean fleet stationed at Lisbon.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    James also makes reference to Emerald as being part of an "..advanced division under Lord Keith", but is not altogether clear as to its purpose. I have therefore removed the phrase, until a satisfactory answer is found.--Ykraps (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean service

  • Not essential - Did the invasion force also include troopships, or was it solely the listed RN vessels?
    None of the sources list troopships so I assume the troops were carried aboard the vessels listed.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck this, but I doubt the troops were carried aboard the RN ships. Will have a look at the wording, but this shouldn't hold up the review.
    Actually, having double checked, James says, "On the 21st of June, at 11 a.m., Commodore Samuel Hood, with the 74-gun ships Centaur and Courageux, Captains Bendall Robert Littlehales and Benjamin Hallowell, and some smaller vessels, having on board a detachment of the British army under Lieutenant-general Grinfeld, anchored in Choc-bay, Saint Lucie for the purpose of reducing the island..."--Ykraps (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also not essential, but it would be better not to have a one-sentence paragraph here – is it possible to put this sentence on the end of the preceding paragraph instead?
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Diamond

  • Suggest putting the reason for the use of the boats ahead of the first sentence, which explains the effect of using them. Would also be useful to add “Captain” before O’Bryen in this instance – we met him in the preceding section but as this is only the second mention it helps make clearer who he is.

Apropus

  • Minor grammar issue – the schooner and batteries didn’t “see” Emerald – it was their crews/gunners.

Back in Basque Roads

  • Possibly making too much of this section – Is it correct that “Emerald”’s only role here was to stay behind while other vessels engaged? If so this may not need its own section; if not then I’ve misunderstood and perhaps this could be made slightly clearer in the text.
  • Yes, Emerald was left to shadow the French fleet. An important role which I think needs mentioning but I take your point and have shortened the description of the engagement as that is not so relevant.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph typo: calls Stopford Stoppard

Chase of “Niemen”

  • First sentence is a bit long – can this be broken in two? Again I slightly wonder about the need for the section - "Emerald" spotted "Niemen" but then lost her - really this section is about the two captures mentioned in the first sentence.
  • I have shortened this section and added it to the previous section. I agree Emerald didn't play much of a part in those actions but thought they were worth mentioning in order to lessen the gaps in her history and to show where Emerald was an what she was doing at the time (if that makes sense).--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further question

  • Apologies for coming back with a final query, but the lead lists this as a 36-gun vessel but the infobox details 44-guns. Am travelling so don't have Winfield ref with me - if you've got it handy this should be pretty easy to resolve either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    She was a 36-gun vessel; carronades are not counted as guns (if that is what you are doing). This is consistent with all similar articles. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The things you learn, though I note this is inconsistently applied across some similar articles. Still, thanks for the speedy response. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

  • Well done for amassing his much detail on a frigate, which by definition is usually in a supporting role or in minor engagements that barely make the histories. It is certainly detailed enough for an FA; if I had any regrets it would be a) that we have a good history of the ship’s battles but not much on the ship itself; b) that the battles sometimes read like a list, and c) there's occasionally too much detail without context on its relevance. But these are the realities of the kind of coverage these vessels get, and you’ve made the most of what exists. Most of this last set of comments are suggestions only, once you correct the typo etc, support. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I have corrected all the typos I have found, though probably have introduced others. I have also worked on style, converting the passive voice into the active wherever doing so made sense. Lastly, I have added-in all the material that I could find to flesh out what Emerald did outside of the battles. Net-net, I support making a featured article of this article.Acad Ronin (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Reference and source checking by Cas Liber[edit]

  • Any reason why Troude (1867), Vol. 4, pp.74-7 is not "74-77" as other page ranges are not abbreviated?
    Done - I am afraid that ref was added very recently and so wasn't checked when I prepped the article.--Ykraps (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also is it Seaforth or Seaforth Publishing?
    Done - Good question. I have more than a dozen books by that publisher; they all say simply, Seaforth on the spine but inside they all say, Seaforth Publishing. I have changed all to the latter for consistency.--Ykraps (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "Winfield, Rif & Stephen S Roberts (2015) French Warships in the Age of Sail 1786–1861: Design Construction, Careers and Fates. (Seaforth Publishing). ISBN 978-1-84832-204-2" has publisher in parentheses for some reason...
    Done - Again, ref added after article was nominated.--Ykraps (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs otherwise consistently formatted.
  • Earwig's copyvio tool all clear.

I will do more later. After 1am here and I need to sleep. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: To FAC coordinators, see User_talk:Alansplodge#Featured_article_source_review for source review material. I can go review something else now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC) My bad, was test only. Will continue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using this version for ref numbers:

  • FN 9 - used twice, article material faithful to source.
  • FN 54 - used once, article material faithful to source.
  • FN 79 - used once, article material faithful to source.

Most sources offline. Am happy with what I have found so far. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

Oppose: I appreciate that this is quite late in the review, but I don't think we're quite there on prose yet. A quick look revealed several little issues that I wouldn't expect to see at this stage. Overall, I think we're fine, but I think a last polish is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples only from various places in the article:

  • A lot of sentences in the lead begin with either "In" or "She" which makes for repetitive reading
    I have rewritten six of the fifteen sentences I found beginning with "in", and seven of the ten beginning "she". Is that enough do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Emerald was first commissioned in August 1795, under Velters Cornwall Berkeley": Under who? Especially as this is a red-link, it would be nice to know who he was
    Berkley (Wikinotable in that he is mentioned in multiple reliable sources) is most famous for his inaction after discovering Santissima Trinidad. Something he was censured for and very nearly court-martialled. Minerve's captain, George Cockburn came to his defence, however. I don't think he ever rose above the rank of captain and I assume that is because he died prematurely. It is red-linked in other articles and is on my hit-list although I'm not sure I'll have enough for more than a stub. If it's a deal breaker, I can remove it until such an article is written.--Ykraps (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no problem with his presence, but maybe say that he was a captain, and why he was commissioning a ship. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    His commission would have been given to him by the Admiralty. It's quite a usual thing to say and avoids using the word command too often. I've added his rank as suggested though.--Ykraps (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1797, she sailed to join Admiral John Jervis' fleet in the Mediterranean.[1] Although attached to Jervis' fleet at the time...": Close repetition of "Jervis' fleet"
    Fixed--Ykraps (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 16 February, the victorious British fleet and its prize ships entered the bay. Jervis ordered the three frigates, Emerald, Minerve, and Niger, of 40 and 32 guns respectively, to search for the disabled flagship, Santisima Trinidad which had been seen being towed away from the battle.": This is a very long sentence which could be split; also, "which had been seen being towed away from the battle" reads clumsily
    Done - Not split but rewritten and shortened. Clumsy phrasing removed. See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, but I think the sentence works just as well without "previously".
    Done - Okay, as it's clear that the battle occurred two days earlier, I suppose the word's redundant.--Ykraps (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the MoS suggests times are in the format 16:00 rather than 16.00
    Done - two instances found.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice from a quick scan that a lot of consecutive sentences begin with the same words throughout the article
    In addition to the sentences starting "in" and "she", I have changed seven from twelve sentences beginning "on". Anything else?--Ykraps (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nelson is not linked on his first mention in the main body
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout, we seem to be a bit wordy and could stand to tighten up the prose quite a bit. For example, we have "Later, in July 1797, Emerald took part in the unsuccessful attack on Santa Cruz.[1] Admiral Nelson had proposed an attack on the port in April, which had been aborted when the 3,500 troops he had hoped to use were redeployed. Jervis had since been advised that the Spanish treasure fleet was anchored there, and revived Nelson's plan." This could be cut back to "In July 1797, Emerald took part in an unsuccessful attack on Santa Cruz.[1] A planned attack in April, proposed by Admiral Horatio Nelson, had been aborted owing to the unavailability of the troops required to execute it. When Jervis was subsequently advised that the Spanish treasure fleet was anchored there, he revived Nelson's plan."
    Done (sort of) - I didn't like the "...had been aborted owing to the unavailability of the troops required to execute it" as that made it sound like the unavailability was a requirement, so I've flipped that part of the sentence. I've also changed "plan" for "idea" as the word plan crops up in the very next sentence. Again, see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another example of wordiness: "Then in May 1798, on hearing of a large invasion fleet leaving Toulon, Jervis dispatched Emerald, Terpsichore, Bonne-Citoyenne, and the 74-gun Orion to look for the fleet. The squadron, commanded by Nelson in the 74-gun Vanguard, left Gibraltar on 9 May". Why not "In May 1798, Jervis dispatched a squadron of five ships, including Emerald and commanded by Nelson in the 74-gun Vanguard, to locate a large invasion fleet that had left Toulon." I'm not sure we need the names of the other ships, but perhaps they could be added as a note?
    Done - I guess part of the reason for listing the other ships is to provide links to their respective articles, but I've added as a footnote as per your suggestion.--Ykraps (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found these from looking randomly through the article, and I suspect there are many others like this. I suggest another look through the tighten up the prose. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, are you intending to return to this?--Ykraps (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be able to help here, tomorrow, but no promises yet; I need to think about my approach, and how this ties in with the current discussions at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarastro, are you happy with Ykraps's changes? - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I'm still seeing little problems. Normally I'd copy-edit directly, but I'm a little reluctant here for fear of inadvertently changing the meaning. See what you think of these suggestions, and if I'm not too far off base, I could give this a quick copy-edit myself. It's really not far off, I don't think. However, I found these from randomly reading back and forth across the article, without reading too closely. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The sloop Hippomenes, a transport and a further three armed vessels; landed Brigadier-General Frederick Maitland and 700 troops at Warapee Creek on the night of 30 April.": Not too sure why there is a semi-colon here, unless I'm missing something.
    Removed--Ykraps (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While in the Basque Roads in April 1807, Emerald captured the 14-gun privateer Austerlitz. Austerlitz was a brig from Nantes under the command of Captain Gatien Lafont, with a crew of 96 men.": It's better not to end a sentence and begin the next with the same word. It may be better to combine them: "While in the Basque Roads in April 1807, Emerald captured the 14-gun privateer Austerlitz, a brig from Nantes under the command of Captain Gatien Lafont." I'd prefer "a 96-man brig" but I don't know if that would be acceptable; I think giving the number of guns is enough to establish its size, but I've no idea if it is an unusual number of men so perhaps we need to know how many were on board.
    Done - I would expect a 14-gun brig to have a crew of around seventy, a 16-gun to have a crew of eighty and an 18-gun to have a crew in excess of a hundred but crew and gun numbers were subject to change, particularly if the cruise was a long one. I suppose this level of detail is only of interest to the most ardent fan.--Ykraps (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two French sloops; Deux Freres and Balance were taken by Emerald in July 1809. Deux Freres arrived at Plymouth on 26 July. She had had left Rochelle for Guadeloupe when Emerald captured her.": I'm pretty sure "had had" is a typo here, but the order seems wrong (and I'm not sure we need the date of the arrival in Plymouth when we've already said it was in July). Why not "Deux Freres, en route for Guadeloupe from Rochelle when captured, arrived in Plymouth on 26 July."
    Done - Some of this stuff was added after nominating and I'm afraid I haven't proof read it since.--Ykraps (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two days later Emerald captured a second letter of marque": As the first letter of marque is mentioned in a note, this is a little jarring. My preference is to briefly explain what a link will show to save the reader a click, so I would prefer a brief explanation of a letter of marque in the text, but not a huge deal if you'd rather not.
    Done, I think - linked with short explanation and also de-worded a bit but wasn't sure if we were talking about the same paragraph. Take a look and see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later career": Is "career" the best word to describe a ship? Sounds wrong, but is it the convention?
    I thought that was the style but I'm having trouble finding examples. I much prefer the term service, so I've changed to that.--Ykraps (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between February and June 1806, Emerald underwent repairs at Deptford dockyard before being recommissioned under Captain John Larmour. The appointment was however short-lived as Captain Frederick Lewis Maitland assumed command in the first quarter of 1807." Another example of wordiness? What about "Between February and June 1806, Emerald underwent repairs at Deptford dockyard and was recommissioned under Captain John Armour; Frederick Lewis Maitland assumed command in the first quarter of 1807." I think the rest is implied without needing to be stated.
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the time the fireships were ready in the early hours on the 13th, contrary winds prevented their deployment. The British therefore contented themselves with setting Varsovie and Aquilon alight just after 03:00, on the orders of Captain John Bligh, after having removed their crews in boats." Again, I think this could be tighter. What about "Although the fireships were ready in the early hours on the 13th, contrary winds prevented their deployment. The British instead set Varsovie and Aquilon alight just after 03:00, on the orders of Captain John Bligh, after removed their crews." Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - I seem to remember reading that there was an opportunity to deploy them earlier but because the British had faffed about, by the time they were, the opportunity was lost, and it was that I was trying to convey. However, on reading the source, James merely says, "It was very near midnight before the three fire-ships were ready to proceed. The wind then became baffling; and, at 2 a.m. on the 13th began to blow from the south-west, or directly out of the passage to Aix road......as the fire-ships, which had been committed by the rear-admiral on his departure to the charge of Captain Bligh, could not for the present be put in operation, nothing further was done beyond setting fire to the Aquilon and Varsovie" so I guess what you're suggesting fits okay.--Ykraps (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, Any more?--Ykraps (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: I've copy-edited a bit down to "Attack on Santa Cruz", but just a few queries. Please feel free to revert any edits I make if they mess anything up. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted just one. Tons (BM) is a measurement of volume not weight. There was a link, which I've now re-instated, that appears to have been removed during another copy edit. Your other edits look fine.--Ykraps (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of four Amazon-class frigates": I think we need to say what an Amazon-class frigate was
    The original Amazon-class (for there were several) were four frigates designed by William Rule to the particular dimensions and carrying the armament stated in the article so I think all that can be said about it has been. An expanded version (Naiad design) came out in August 1795, of 18 frigates that were (my mistake, just the one) larger at 1,013 tons {BM), had 38 guns and a complement of 284 men. Then a larger Amazon-class came out in 1796, 1,038 tons (BM), 300 men. So there will be enough for a small article at some point. If you want, we could add something as a footnote in the interim.--Ykraps (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a footnote but it's easily removed if you don't think it's an improvement.--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although attached to Admiral John Jervis' fleet at the time, Emerald did not take part in the Battle of Cape St Vincent on 14 February, but was instead anchored in nearby Lagos Bay with other vessels": Presumably Jervis' fleet was taking part in this battle at the time? Why did Emerald not take part, and why was she anchored there instead? I think a sentence or two background on the battle would be appropriate here as well.
    Frigates never took part in fleet actions as they weren't designed for that purpose. Sources don't say why the smaller ships were at Lagos Bay, presumably it was a convenient sheltered location. I have added a few words to say Emerald wasn't powerful enough to join in, and I've added a bit of background. The whole story is a complex business but as the battle is linked in the article, I don't think it needs more. By all means though, see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Berkley in command of the squadron? Otherwise, how could he make the decision not to engage? And was there any come-back on this?
    Yes, hence "his squadron" but if you think it needs better clarification, we could say, "Berkeley, considering the small squadron under his command insufficient, declined to engage and eventually the Spanish ships sailed from sight". He was apparently censured for his lack of action, yes. See your second question about Berkeley and Euryalus' comments, Mediterranean service section, 4th question, for a few more details.--Ykraps (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a footnote here too but again, easy to remove if you don't like.--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a link for marines?
    Yep, done.--Ykraps (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Alexandria section looks to have some short paragraphs (I havent read it properly yet); could any of them be combined? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a go, see if you think it's an improvement.--Ykraps (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarastro1 I've also had a look at the rest for short sentences and wordiness but have a look and see if there's anything else.--Ykraps (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm hoping to have another look later today. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, did you manage to take another look?--Ykraps (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more: Nearly at the end now. I did more copy-editing and have a few more queries, but we're nearly there. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we know what happened to Waller between December 1797 and April 1798?
    No. He may have been on leave but I'm just guessing.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a little more background on the Battle of the Nile would help in the Alexandria section. Otherwise, Nelson's actions and what happened to the Emerald all seem a little disjointed. Again, just a sentence or two would suffice.
    I've added a sentence to say what occurred.--Ykraps (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to Anėmone? Was it rescued, or just left?
    As it was impossible to land, I think it's safe to assume it was left but there doesn't appear to be a record of this.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too keen on "Faced with the might of two seventy-fours" or "attack it piecemeal"; both seem slightly un-encyclopaedic but I can't think of a way to rephrase and keep the same meaning. "Overwhelming odds" instead of "might"?
    I've changed "might" to "overwhelming odds" as per your suggestion. I'm not sure about "piecemeal", "bit by bit" seems even less encyclopaedic.--Ykraps (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What about, "...a section at a time"?--Ykraps (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to overhaul and cross the bow of a 10-gun merchantman": Why would this force their surrender?
    Because the merchantman was hopelessly out-gunned, its only option was to run. Once it had been overhauled, the game was up.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We link prizes earlier, but I wonder if a note would help a bit. I only know what they are from reading Hornblower! Not a big deal either way.
    Do you mean as a footnote or in the main text? If you mean the latter, one thought is to change the text to "captured ships" and link to "prize".--Ykraps (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any suggestion why Emerald went from the blockade of Cadiz to the Leeward Islands? Quite a change to pass without comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably, following the Treaty of Amiens, a blockade wasn't required. The West Indies were of huge importance; 20% of all British and 50% of French trade was generated there, so the loss of these islands would’ve led to serious financial problems for both countries (wars are expensive). When hostilities resumed in 1803, forces were sent there not only to protect British interests but to attack French possessions thus disrupting the trade and consequently the flow of money. It was a tactic that had worked well during the last war.--Ykraps (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) I've added that there was a peace between these two events. Unless you meant something else?--Ykraps (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to mention this in a note without engaging in OR? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think mentioning the Peace of Amiens is original research, if that is all that is required. I've not said she was sent there because of resumed hostilities, I've merely said she went there after.--Ykraps (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sometimes in less water than the frigates drew": The meaning escapes me a bit here.
    Meaning that in some parts of the river, the depth of water was less than the required depth to float the ship properly.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, on 11 December, she put into Madeira in distress": Why? We need a bit more here.
    She lost her convoy during a storm and it's highly likely she was damaged in some way. I have added that she was in a storm but have been careful not to indulge in any OR.--Ykraps (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zulema, Howard, master, arrived in Plymouth on 4 May": I'm lost here too. The rest of that paragraph is also a little sparse and hard to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rewritten that paragraph; see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to finish this one tomorrow or the day after. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In two replies above, you have explained to me what terms mean. The general reader won't have the luxury of asking you, and I doubt the vast majority of general readers will be naval specialists. I think we need to explain these points in the text. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure what to suggest here as I don't see draw/drew as technical jargon. I suppose we could add a footnote giving its dictionary definition of, "Requiring a depth of water for floating" citing The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) or "Requiring a certain depth on which to float" citing Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. ISBN 0-00-433286-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) but I've never seen anything like that in any other article. Or if you don't like that idea, we could link to the Wikipedia article, Draft (hull)?--Ykraps (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the merchantman, I've added that she had nowhere to go.--Ykraps (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My preference on the "drew" would be to reword it in everyday language; "sometimes in less water than the frigates required to float properly", per your definition. Otherwise (and I appreciate that probably sounds wrong to you!) maybe just link it. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I suppose that's acceptable. Incidentally, in places the water was 3' too shallow. Makes you wonder how much power is required to plough a three foot deep trench in a river bed, even if it was only silt. But then I don't suppose you find that sort of thing as exciting as I do.--Ykraps (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, just checking you haven't forgotten this review; you were hoping to finish it by the 4th.--Ykraps (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Something came up in real life, I haven't forgotten but I might need a few more days. If I haven't got back to this by the end of the week, consider my oppose struck. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments: I've struck my oppose. Just a few last queries. I'll have one last look when these are addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • We use battery a couple of times in the article. Is there a decent link for it?
    Yep - linked to Gun battery--Ykraps (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British ships anchored, with springs": Can we clarify for the general reader?
    There doesn't appear to be an article that covers this so I've added a footnote.--Ykraps (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While off the coast of Ireland, on 8 October Emerald rescued a British brig consequent on capturing Incomparable, an 8-gun French privateer": Not entirely sure what this means.
    It simply means that as a consequence of Emerald capturing the privateer, the brig was rescued. I've now just put "by".--Ykraps (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deschateurs had no option but to strike. The subsequent court-martial absolved Deschateurs of any liability for the loss of his vessel and commended him for his conduct.": This is a little confusing. Was he captured? And presumably this was a French court martial?
    Yes - I've rewritten this slightly to clarify.--Ykraps (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thirteen days later Emerald was in company with 13 outward bound East Indiamen and all were reported well at 3°2′N 24°0′W, in the middle of the South Atlantic.": This is a rather odd way to say this. Do we need to know their position so exactly, and why use the phrasing "reported well"? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the reason for giving the exact position is purely because this level of detail is available. She was "reported" because the information came from a secondary source; the transport ship Fanny. I've rewritten this, combining it with the previous sentence and putting the detail in a footnote. See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, thanks for striking your opposition. I have made some changes based on your comments above. Have a look and see if you like or not. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last checks:

  • Could we link ships of the line in the Mediterranean section? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we also link jury rig in the note for that section? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite sure about "unfriendly Arabs"; can we be more specific? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I always thought "unfriendly" was understating it somewhat but it is the term used in all historical sources. What about hostile? --Ykraps (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer hostile, but not a big deal either way. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support with copy-editing disclaimer: I've now edited this quite a lot, which might affect the weight of my support. Even so, I think we're just about there. There are still a few places where the prose could stand a little more smoothing, and I might keep picking away for a day or two. Also, the punctuation is a bit inconsistent, and there might be one or two more bits that need tweaking. However, I think we're close enough now (although another pair of eyes might be invaluable) and the nominator deserves praise for their patience as I've hacked away at this article very slowly, and for an impressive piece of research. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2016 [20].

No. 91 Wing RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays when the Royal Australian Air Force has to deploy a mixed bag of aircraft to support a foreign war it forms an air task group, but in the 1950s it was "composite" wings. This article is about the one established to administer RAAF units in the Korean War, contemporaneous with No. 90 Wing (subject of a recent FAC) in the Malayan Emergency. No. 91 Wing's story is in effect – for those interested – an overview of the RAAF's entire involvement in Korea. Tks for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • All of the images are PD-Australia, but all have dates of after 1946 - are we sure the US copyright would not have been restored? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well they're all Australian War Memorial images that would fall into the same category as say the 1953 picture from the recently promoted Reg Pollard, which passed muster -- happy to finetune the tagging on these if necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does the govt worldwide release notice from the Pollard image apply to all AWM images? If so, think we should include that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe it applies to every AWM image that they've marked similarly to the Pollard shot, which includes all the images in the 91 Wing article, so happy to make consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The AWM has marked all (or at least virtually all) of the images in its online database which are now PD in Australia with a blanket statement that they are PD, which applies worldwide. The AWM "owns" these images, so this in effect is a global release. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Standardised the tagging per above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nikki, would you mind giving the referencing a quick review to hopefully finish this one up? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – very readable, evidently comprehensive, well and widely sourced – and blessedly concise (unlike some other FACs we see now and again, no names, no packdrill). Happy to support for FA. Tim riley talk 16:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life's too short for anything but summary style... ;-) Many tks Tim! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Great work Ian, and given the somewhat surprising failure by the RAAF to ever produce wing histories, this article would have required a lot of work. I have the following comments:

  • "Personnel were preparing to return to Australia" - this implies something like a personnel rotation was occurring when, from memory, the entire squadron was packing up to leave. I'd suggest clarifying this
    • Will change to "the squadron".
  • "Communication problems with No. 91 Wing dogged the evacuation from Yonpo, which was effected through US Air Force support supplementing the efforts of RAAF Dakotas" - what's meant by "communication" is unclear here (does this refer to liaison and supply arrangements?)
    • Radio comms was specifically mentioned, will clarify.
  • "The standard working days for technicians at Iwakuni contrasted with shifts of up to sixteen hours near the front line in Korea" - what "standard working days" means here is unclear. Could this be changed to something like "While technicians at Iwakuni worked only standard business hours, those posted to Korea undertook shifts of up to sixteen hours duration"? Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I always found this problematic to word as the source simply says "normal" working hours without specifying the exact number. I'd hoped "standard working days" got the meaning across without using the expression "business" (as Defence was much less of a business back then!) but if we can't think of anything better I'm prepared to change it as you suggest, Nick.
      • "Standard RAAF working hours" perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine with that -- consider it done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for looking Nick -- yes, this one was even more of a challenge than No. 90 Wing because of the additional units involved and it was only when I contacted the kind folk at RAAF Historical Section, Canberra, that I got conclusive evidence that Transport Flight (Japan) was officially under 91 Wing's control for a short time, something I'd figured but wasn't certain of until very recently... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Nick! Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Little confused by the format being used for newspapers. You've got NLA listed as publisher, but then are using place of original publication for location, correct? The way this is presented doesn't make that clear. You could simply omit locations since they're all in the titles anyways, or you could use |via= for NLA instead
  • All of the References but one includes location - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Nikki -- these citations go back to when NLA's WP citations employed "<location>: NLA", before the "via" parameter, which of course makes more sense. That said, I agree the location is redundant in all these cases so have dropped it while adding "via", so should be consistent and logical now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems to cover the subject quite well. A few points:

  • "It left behind its main support elements at Iwakuni." there's an extent to which the phrasing here is redundant.
  • It is a bit isn't it? Will trim...
  • "Elements of the US Far East Air Forces command favoured the establishment " elements? possibly "Officers"
  • Fair enough, will tweak.
  • Was the South African government veto apartheid-related, or something similarly racy?
  • Good question but the source didn't say -- perhaps just a little declaration of independence from the government of the time...
Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for stopping by! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2016 [21].

Millipede[edit]

Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important invertebrate group. Much of the article was expanded over the years to a high standard by Animalparty with whom I have been in contact before nominating it. I think the article is clear and well written and have been polishing it up. I look forward to your comments for further improvement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This is an impressive article, but before adding my support I think the text needs to be put into consistently British or American English; at present it is a mixture of the two. I think there is more BrE – I spotted "armoured"; "behaviour"; "characterised"; "colonised"; "coloured"; "defence"; "faeces"; "metre" and "moult" – but there is a modest sprinkling of AmE too: "defense"; "discoloration"; "favored"; "hemorrhoids" and "specialized behaviors". In theory, following WP:ENGVAR, the article should stick to the variety of English used in the first version in which such a variety can be identified after due research in old revisions, unless there is a consensus to the contrary, but I very much doubt that anyone will object if the nominator simply decides whether it's to be in BrE or AmE and amends accordingly. But it really must be one or the other and not a mishmash of both. Otherwise I have nothing but praise, and look forward to supporting. – Tim riley talk 09:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article seemed to be predominantly in British English so that is what I have adopted, made easier by the fact that my spellchecker is in British English. I have dealt with the words you mentioned but there may be others I have missed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I know little about the subject (though I know a lot more now than I did before reading this article) and I defer to any experts, but this seems to me a comprehensive and authoritative treatment of the topic. It is highly readable – quite an achievement in such a technical subject, I'd say – and widely referenced, well illustrated and judiciously proportioned. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 16:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Agreed that this was quite readable. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look fine. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An impressive aritcle of readable scholarship. I have a number of minor prose quibbles (you don't have to accept them all):

Lead
  • "fused together as one" – last two words redundant
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "defend themselves with a variety of defensive chemicals..." – no need for the repetitious adjective
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among myriapods, millipedes have traditionally been considered most closely related to the tiny pauropods..." – I'm not knowledgeable in this field, but instinct suggests that a "the" should be inserted before "most"; am I right?
I don't think so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution
  • "entirely" extinct? Wouldn't just "extinct" do?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics
  • "eleven to over one hundred segments"; any reason not to use numerics, as earlier in the sentence?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Head
  • "Their true function..." – why not just "Their function..."?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "secondarily lost their eyes": could this be clarified for the general reader?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Predators and parasites
  • I'm wondering if "are believed to" could be rendered a bit more authoritatively – as worded, this seems rather vague.
The source says "... a likely dietary source of such alkaloids" so I had better not be any more definite. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other inter-species interactions
  • I notice you use the word "simply" in this section – about the fourth use within the text. In most of these cases the word adds little, and you might consider dropping it.
Removed three uses. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interactions with people
  • "have even been reported" → "have been reported". As with "are believed to", above, there is imprecision here as to who reported this.
Removed both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In popular music (including names of albums, songs, and artists) millipedes are poorly represented compared to other arthropods." This bit of trivia sits uneasily within the article; is it really worth keeping?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Living groups
  • There needs to be consistency in how you introduce people. Here, you use both the accepted BritEng form ("the French zoologist Pierre André Latreille" and "the German naturalist Johann Friedrich von Brandt"), and the AmEng form ("Dutch biologist C. A. W. Jeekel" and "American biologist Richard L. Hoffman"). As the article appears to be written in British English, you should standardise to the Brit form.
Done. Thank you for your comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to supporting (feel free to ping if I don't return soon). Brianboulton (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm very happy with your responses. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
's was a question about reviewing the files used in this article. I don't see much wrong with the location of the files bar the recommendation to use WP:ALTTEXT. I see some collage images which cite the copyright license of the collage as the license of the file with the highest-number CC-BY or CC-BY-SA version, which seems to be correct under commons:COM:Collages. I shall look at the copyright status and use of the other files tomorrow.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Make that another tomorrow - too late today.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - taking a look now, notes below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Millipedes are arthropods forming the class Diplopoda, which is characterised by having two pairs of jointed legs on most body segments. - GIven the class name is not well-known, the first clause doesn't really say anything to familiarise the reader with the subject. How about, "Millipedes are a group of arthropods that are characterised by having two pairs of jointed legs on most body segments." - then add somewhere, "they are known scientifically as the class Diplopoda, the name derived from this feature." or something similar. Anyway, maybe not exactly this but something like it.
An excellent idea! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
molecular studies - needs a link
Silurian geologic period - I'd not use the adjective "geologic" here
Millipedes also include the earliest evidence of chemical defence - "Millipedes also bear/possess/have/exhibit the earliest evidence of chemical defence" (i.e. choose a verb here, or another)
link cyanide.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As classification and evolution are intertwined, it makes no sense to me to have the former stuck right at the bottom. I'd take the first sentence of the classification section and place in etymology. The classification section I'd move up and combine with evolution (placing it above evolution and making evolution a level 3 header within classification. The last two sentence of evolution are more about diversity and would go well combined with material on total number of species.
I have made the changes you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, reads well. I need to think if anything is left out but impresses as comprehensive on first two reads.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. 'support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • The individual photos are fine, mainly from Flickr, Commons users, or CC licences journal articles. But there are problems with most of the images that have been modified, as explained below. FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the journal illustrations modified by Animalparty need tweaks in their info templates. This one[22] should have the original info under source and author, since it is only modified by the uploader, not created from scratch.
@FunkMonk: Before I move on to the others, have I done this one correctly? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Animalparty could still have a "modified by" credit under author, though... FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with this image[23], the original journal source needs to be linked, and the license changed, as a compilation is not "selfmade", but simply a modification of images.
I am clueless about this. One part of the compilation is in the public domain while the other part has an "Attribution 2.5 Generic" license, so I have used the latter for the compilation, is that right? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline linked below has a similar example, see this file:[24] Seems to me you did it right... FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with this photo compilation:[25]
Done this one? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say so! FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with this compilation[26], and I can even see some of the original images have different licenses than the one listed on the compilation, so as mentioned above, read this guideline on compilation licences and tweak accordingly on all compilations: commons:COM:Collages
Done? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the image under "Interactions with people" have to do with that subject? Also, the species is not identified, so its value here is limited. Perhaps a more relevant image can be found?
Thank you. I have changed the image mentioned in your final point, and will see what I can do about the other points tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes look good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have read this article multiple times even before it was nominated for FA and wondered why it wasn't at that state. Excellent writing, comprehensive and interesting, will definitely make a great addition to the FA list. Hopefully its meaner cousin reaches this stage someday too! Burklemore1 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Burklemore1. I'll think about the meaner cousin! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK[edit]

  • Consistent formatting and sufficient details - OK.
  • Reliable sources (books, academic journals, expert websites) - OK (1 question below).
  • Thorough referencing - OK (1 question below).
  • As a layman I can't fully judge factual accuracy. But spotchecking a few bits of information showed no signs of problems - OK.
  • Ref #2 - diplopoda.org. Could you clarify the site's background and expertise? It looks like an expert site, but unfortunately I can't access all pages at the moment (have added an archive just to be safe). Related to that question: the entire section "Burrowing" is referenced by this source. For an acknowledged expert site that's no problem. Otherwise it would be better to add more diverse sourcing for this section. GermanJoe (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: Making sure you saw this. --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed your source review, GermanJoe. Thank you for pinging me, Laser brain. I don't know who is behind the Diplopoda.org site so I have removed it and replaced it with my Invertebrate Zoology text book which covers all the material, as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick fix, a text book is probably the most straightforward solution. All OK then. GermanJoe (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2016 [27].

Heffernan v. City of Paterson[edit]

Nominator(s): Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a recent US Supreme Court decision regarding First Amendment protections of public employees. The first amendment protects the rights of public employees, and the Court has previously held that being fired or demoted for political speech or political association is unconstitutional, but in this case, Heffernan was fired not for what he did but what his employer mistakenly thought he did. The Court had to answer whether public employees are protected when their employer bases their decision on factually incorrect information. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that employees are protected in this situation. I'd also like to acknowledge Daniel Case, Neutrality, and Notecardforfree for all their efforts in getting the article to this point. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "A line of cases going back to 1968's Pickering v. Board of Education holding that the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech permit public employees to speak out on matters of public concern, even criticizing their employers, as long as they do not do so disruptively.": Something's wrong there.
As the writer of that sentence, how so? Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the verb? - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Actually, I ultimately decided to move those sentences to the "legal background" section, where I think they belonged (once we get to Heffernan's case, we don't need details of a precedent unless they are specifically discussed by a judge to distinguish it from the instant one). And I did some prose-tightening as well. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Notecardforfree[edit]

First and foremost, I want to apologize to Wugapodes for not posting this review sooner. I completed DYK and GA reviews for this article, and I am very happy to see that it was nominated for FA status. I think this article is very close to satisfying the FA criteria, but I have a few recommendations for improvements:

  • In the "Legal background" section, for the sentence that begins "These protections not only prohibit the government ...." I think you should include a citation at the end of the sentence. Although the assertions in this sentence are unlikely to be challenged, the incorporation doctrine has been the subject of substantial debate in academia (see, e.g., this Yale Law Journal article), and I think it is generally good practice to provide attribution to any idea or concept that you found elsewhere.
I think I addressed this? Take a look and make sure. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me. Thanks for adding this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the legal background section, I would consider creating separate subsections for (1) the discussion of the first amendment and cases; and (2) the discussion of section 1983.
I'm hesitant to do this because the current discussion of section 1983 is only one paragraph and I think subheadings for a singular paragraph are overkill (the TOC quickly becomes overwhelmed). If by this you mean to expand the discussion, then that's another matter. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after thinking this over a little further I think this is fine the way it is. The arrangement of the paragraphs gives this section a nice flow; I am generally biased toward including more section headings (rather than fewer), but I think this section is good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When discussing the majority and dissenting opinions, make sure all descriptions are in the past tense (the Justices made the arguments when the opinions were published; they are not currently making those arguments at this very moment).
I think I have corrected the problem with the tense. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section looks good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At some point in the "Opinion of the Court" section, you should explain that the case was remanded to the Third Circuit for further proceedings.
Wow, duh. Added. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the citation to the slip opinion, is there a reason why you provide a link to the Justia page for the article rather than the PDF of slip opinion? I would recommend linking the citation to the PDF of the slip opinion, since errors occasionally occur when articles are posted on Justia. In a few years, when the case is published in the United States Reports, we will need to update citations to the version that appears in the U.S. Reports, but we son't need to worry about this now.
Yes, the citation is produced by {{ussc}} which links to the Justia text by default. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. In that case, I would leave it as-is. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the sources written by Trelease, and Blum & Urbonya books? If yes, these citations should use smallcaps (see this guide).
Fixed. The guide you linked said to put the whole citation in small caps, but that seemed weird to me, and the guide I looked at only said to put the title in small caps. I coded {{bluebook book}} to only put the title in small caps, but if that's incorrect let me know and I can adjust it. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it done both ways (and I have been inconsistent in my own writing). However, most law reviews will place an author's name in smallcaps. See, for example, footnote 6 in this article and footnote 13 in this article as examples where the author's name is in small caps (cf. citations to chapters with separate authors, such as the citation to Bennett in footnote 13 of this article). For the purposes of this article and this reivew, I think it is okay to only place the book title in smallcaps. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the Hudson article published in a journal (called First Reports)? If yes, the name and volume of the journal should be included in the citation.
Fixed. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if any of these comments are unclear or if you have any questions. Thanks again for your fantastic work with this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: Addressed all of them. I have addressed of them one needs your attention and one might? The two citation problems I will look into, I think it's a problem with the citation template I wrote so I need to take a closer look in the morning. The first item on adding a citation will likewise take a day or two; I need to look at the sources again because I forget where I got it (if I got it? a number of people helped on this and I forget what I wrote and what others wrote). And don't apologize for the time, there's no deadline and the fact that you took the time to, again, read through the article and give feedback more than makes up for any perceived delay. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the citations. They were apparently manually written rather than using a template (probably because the template didn't exist until a few minutes ago) which explains the problems. They should be fixed now. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: Many thanks for your excellent work. I am proud to give this nomination my full support. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "In order to adequately discern the limits of the government-as-employer's discretion, the Court developed a framework": I'm not sure "discern" is the right verb here -- it implies the framework was constructed so that pre-existing limits could be seen. How about "distinguish"?
  • "the department acted on the belief that he had, and the department should have demoted him on the basis of that erroneous belief": surely "should not have"?
  • I'm not sure if this is important, since I have no background in law, but when you mention some of the organizations filing amicus curiae briefs, wouldn't it make sense to indicate which side they argued for?
  • In the last paragraph of the "Oral arguments" section, I don't understand the relevance to the case of the distinction between apathy and neutrality. For this to be relevant, wouldn't Goldstein have to argue that Heffernan was apathetic, rather than neutral? I don't see such an argument mentioned in the article. Or am I misunderstanding this?
  • "Because employees thinking of engaging in protected activity will be equally dissuaded by an incorrect dismissal as by a correct dismissal, both reasonings should be considered in violation of the First Amendment" is uncited.
  • "For the dissent, even if the dismissal was for the wrong reason and harm was suffered, the dismissal cannot infringe upon rights he never exercised" is uncited.
    • That and the preceding sentence are both from the same page, so I moved the preceding citation to the following sentence to avoid using the same citation twice in a row. I think this makes it more clear, but if you'd prefer both sentences be cited, let me know. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's everything I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Let me know if you have any more. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. I will read through again tomorrow to see if I can spot anything unless before supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reread the article and have made some minor copyedits; please revert if necessary. I'd suggest getting rid of the volume 578 link in the "See also" section; it's already linked from the infobox. That's a minor point, of course, and doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- reviews for image licensing and source formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support—I don't feel qualified to judge citation formatting in the style used in the article, so I'll have to leave that to others. I personally believe that the style in use conflicts with provisions of our MOS, but mine is probably a minority view. In terms of reliability, nothing fails my basic sniff test.

    I did read the whole article, and everything was clear to me, and nothing stood out as needing copy editing at this time. I will note that there is a bit of a formatting discrepancy as both "42 U.S.C. 1983" and "42 USC 1983" are in use; either use the dots or not, but not both please.

    As for images, there are basically only 4 in use: the SCOTUS seal and two portraits of justices fall in the public domain, and the city photo has a Creative commons license. The caption for the Thomas portrait is a complete sentence, but it's missing its terminal punctuation. Should these minor issues get fixed, and should someone appropriately versed in the citation style in use clear it as consistent, then I see no reason why this should not be promoted. Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tks Imzadi. Nikki, could I trouble you to complete the source review? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Imzadi1979 (and sorry I took so long). I changed all USC to U.S.C. since the reporter is cited as U.S.. I fixed the caption. Please let me know if I missed something or you have other concerns. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Eight years later, this protection from dismissal was extended to cover partisan political ideology and affiliation in Elrod v. Burns .[8][8]" - is there meant to be two different citations on this?
  • Should use colwidth rather than fixed number of columns in {{reflist}}
  • Should use a consistent date format
  • FN4: what kind of source is this?
  • FN28: why the time here?
  • Sometimes you're using block caps for publisher, sometimes for work title - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: the sources are in Bluebook style, so some titles (or names of secondary sources) will appear in small caps. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I've been able to tell, that doesn't apply to publishers. Do you have a Bluebook ref? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: By publishers, do you mean the name of a website or a journal in which an article was published? Bluebook usually requires that the names of websites, journals, and books be placed in smallcaps (see this guide). I also made a few other formatting changes per your first two bulleted comments; also, footnote 4 is a book and I removed the time from footnote 28. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, website names and journals are both work titles. If FN4 is a book, it needs page(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am pinging Wugapodes, who I think added the citation to the book in fn. 4. If we add a page # citation to fn. 4, we should do the same for fn. 6. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, on vacation with limited internet and only got emailed about the ping. Thanks to Notecardforfree for picking up what I completely dropped and a big thanks to Nikkimaria for doing the source review. Anyway
-I think I fixed all the date formats.
-FN4 is a book. Smallcaps is used for publishers so I'm not quite sure why the title is capitalized (most likely something I thought was a good idea a few months ago then promptly forgot). I'll look into that.
Should be fixed now. Still not sure why that was there in the first place but at least it's fixed. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-Re: page numbers: I don't have the books with me to look up the specific page, unfortunately, and probably won't for another week unless my vacation plans suddenly involve a library (knowing me though, they might). However I actually found this book from the footnotes of the Second Enforcement Act of 1871 article so it's probably around pg 387 if someone gets to a copy before me and wants to check that.
I think that's everything NCFF didn't fix already. Sorry to have given so little resolution here. I'll do my best to find that page as soon as possible. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got to a library, it was pages 378 and 388 that specifically detail how Grant asked for the second enforcement act: "Finally Grant went to the Capitol himself... Grant called for pen and paper...he called for whatever additional power Congress judged necessary to secure life, liberty, and property and the enforcement of law...Republican leaders in Congress soon produced a new Ku Klux bill." I have edited the page as such. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2016 [28].

Slug (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song recorded by U2 and Brian Eno as part of a side project album in 1995. This is the song's third nomination for FA, as its previous nominations failed as many editors simply felt the article was "too short". Keep in mind, that the song about which the article was written was not released as a single, performed live in concert, or released on a mainstream album. As a result, it was a very obscure track released under a pseudonymn by major artists. I have noted that it is comparable in size to FAs of other lesser-known releases. The article completely details the background, inspiriation, writing/recording, and reception of the song, and I feel that is definitely warrants the status as a featured article. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by starship.paint[edit]

  • Support. I believe the length of the article is not an issue as it is comprehensive, well-sourced and presentable. Bonus points for the pictures, a quote and the sample. starship.paint ~ KO 12:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Review
Lede
  • If Passengers is a secret pseudonym, perhaps that should be emphasized.
Infobox
  • Some discrepancies between this particle and Original Soundtracks 1. So this song was released on 6 November and the album was released on 7 November? Shouldn't they be on the same date? Also, the album says the recording for Westside Studios, London was in 1994.
  • Is there a source for the recording locations... would that be the album itself?
  • How is the genre for the song determined? I see 'experimental' appearing in the body, but not 'ambient', 'alternative' or 'rock'.
Background and recording
  • U2 and producer Brian Eno intended to record the soundtrack for Peter Greenaway's 1996 film The Pillow Book - what soundtrack?
  • U2 spent time in Shinjuku, Tokyo at the end of the Zoo TV Tour in 1993, and their experience in the city influenced the recording sessions. - when were the recording sessions?
  • I believe that all the sentences until ....the bullet train in Tokyo". should be in one paragraph as they are about the album. Whereas the stuff after that is about the song.
  • By early July 1995, the band renamed the song "Seibu/Slug" - so why did the name turn out to be just Slug? Since it was never mentioned in the sources, how about inserting The song was released as "Slug", the second track on the Passengers album Original Soundtracks 1 on 7 November 1995. rephrased from the first sentence of the Reception section into the background section, before Details of the song's recording sessions were documented in Eno's 1996 book, A Year with Swollen Appendices.
Composition and lyrics
  • I thought the line "Don't want to be a slug" should be mentioned...? There should be some explanation of the title of the song, lest people like me think of the mollusc. I wiki-linked to Wiktionary since you didn't explain. Is that all right?
Personnel
Most issues have been addressed. I don't understand your concern about the intention of recording for a soundtrack. U2 and producer Brian Eno intended to record the soundtrack for Peter Greenaway's 1996 film The Pillow Book. That sentence seems fine to me. What soundtrack? The soundtrack for the film - which they never ended up recording. As far as the name of the song, I could not find any source that explains why the name was changed. The closest thing I found was a source that mentions how The Edge still calls the song "Seibu", but I couldn't find a place to fit that in nor did I think it was worth mentioning. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: Thank you so much for your feedback! Out of all the FA nominations this article has had, I can easily say that your feedback has been the most constructive. I've address all the issues so far. Please let me know if you have any other comments. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dream out loud: - You're welcome, I'm heartened to hear that. There's one last issue above at the red text. The Reception section seems fine, the sourcing seems great, my review is almost done then. I don't see problems with length, content is enough for a non-single. starship.paint ~ KO 10:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Last issue addressed. Thanks again! –Dream out loud (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dream out loud: - one more thing I thought of. Since this is a non-single, could you mention the album's commercial success (or lack of it) in this article to get an indication of whether many people could have heard this song. Maybe mention that this was one of U2's poorest albums (according to the album article) and the album's peaks in the American, British and Australian charts as a sample. Two sentences for commercial stuff. starship.paint ~ KO 23:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: Thanks, I didn't want to get too detailed about the album's lack of success since the article is about the song, but I did add one sentence in the reception section. I don't think statistics are necessary so I just added a line mentioning how/why it didn't sell well. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "Lyrically, it is a portrait of a "desolate soul"[1] during", and throughout: See WP:INTEXT. Quoted material has to be attributed in the text (or paraphrased, i.e. not quoted). - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Edge": Two problems here. On WP, BritEng requires "the" in front of "guitarist", which would make it "the guitarist the Edge", which doesn't sound right. Also, one "the Edge" is fine (and it's fine in the infobox), but the constant repetition comes off as affected ... Donald Trump is sometimes known as "the Donald", but imagine how it would sound if you kept referring to him that way. "Edge" alone is listed as an acceptable name in his article, so I've switched to that name, I hope that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "started to "sound better" and described it as a "[l]ovely song" ... they seemed "unfocused" and": I don't get why people make the mistake of quoting lots of completely ordinary phrases. This isn't a fancy FAC rule, this is common sense. Suppose I make a comment that the "article" had many "short, repetitive" phrases and numerous "punctuation" problems. Wouldn't you wonder what the hell I meant by the quote marks? Use quoted material sparingly, and only when it adds something to the narrative more than paraphrasing would. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Thank you for your edits and your comments. I went ahead and removed some excessive quotation marks in the prose; I left ones in where the sentence referring to a quote (e.g. X described Y as "Z"). As a result, I removed the quotes from "desolate soul" so I don't feel a need for attribution. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is very well written and I couldn't find any issues while reading it. There is, however, a FN issue with FN#22, once this is fixed I can support. Best – jona ✉ 12:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last thing, if this song was released on November 7, 1995, wouldn't it be a single or even a promotional single? – jona ✉ 15:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AJona1992: No, the song's album was released on 7 November 1995. There was no single or promo release for this song. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you fixed the issue, I can now give my support. All the best – jona ✉ 20:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moisejp[edit]

  • "As producer, Eno had most of the artistic control during the sessions, limiting U2's creative input on the recordings": I found this sentence problematic. My understanding of the producer title is that its degree of artistic control can be anywhere from total control—someone like Phil Spector (except when he worked with high-profile artists like John Lennon?)—to someone who simply makes suggestions but leaves the final decision-making to the artist. From my limited knowledge of Eno, I have the impression he is perhaps a strong-willed producer who is used to taking quite a bit of control (?), but U2 is a band with a lot of artistic integrity, and I'd expect them to have some say in artistic decisions. I know U2 had worked with Eno before, and maybe part of the story is that they have developed a lot of trust towards his artistic instincts. But the next bit ("which prompted Edge to force the other members of U2 into putting extra effort into arranging the song") suggests maybe they were being complacent (not giving 100%) in the Passengers recording sessions. To sum up, problems with this sentence are (1) "As producer, Eno had most of the artistic control" suggests this is always the case for producers, but I don't believe this is true; (2) "limiting U2's creative input" sounds like Eno "forcibly" kept U2 from contributing much artistically, but it sounds more likely that U2 willingly ceded decision-making (possibly through complacency or respect)—unless there was a big power struggle during the recording sessions, in which case this should be stated more explicitly.

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, thanks for the quotation below. That helps clarify things. I retract the comment above, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which prompted Edge to force the other members of U2 into putting extra effort into arranging the song": instead of "force" would "convince" or "spur" or "encourage" be more accurate?
  • (minor suggestion) "[l]ovely song": If the "[l]" is just because there was a capital L in the original, it feels unnecessary and distracting, and I would just put "lovely song". But if you disagree, please disregard. Moisejp (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
U2 had been working with Eno since The Unforgettable Fire, which came out 11 years before this song, so for the band to make this comment, must have been implying something unusual about the way he was working in the studio. I'm not sure what you "know" about Eno personally, but what is stated in the article is directly based on an except from the cited book. I can't speculate further on this as per WP:OR on the situation at hand, so I basically summarized what I read.
For the most part, the idea was that Brian Eno would be captain of the ship. He'd call the creative shots and, like good musicians, the members of U2 would obey. "The only tracks we really dug in our heels and did more work on and tried to craft," The Edge explains, "were 'Miss Sarajevo', 'Seibu', and 'Your Blue Room'. [...] It seemed obvious to me that they could be great songs, and so I did some extra work and pushed them." –Dream out loud (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I have a few other comments, and I'll try to get them in the next couple of days or so. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As all the songs on Original Soundtracks 1 were written for films, "Slug" is credited as having been written for a fictional German film of the same name." Earlier it says, "Eno suggested they continue recording music suitable for soundtracks, as Eno did with his Music for Films album series." So am I correct in understanding that they recorded a bunch of music that sounded film-y, and then attached fictional film titles and stories to all of them afterwards. If so, I think "written for films" sounds a little misleading. How about something like "Following Original Soundtracks 1's theme of music for imaginary films, "Slug" is credited..."?
  • "the group witnessed gang members who had their fingers amputated as punishment for their misbehaviour": I suspect this just means the band saw gang members who had amputated fingers, and U2 did not witness the act of amputation. But whichever meaning it is, the current wording may be ambiguous. If it's the former meaning may I suggest "the group saw gang members who had had their fingers amputated as punishment for their misbehaviour"; if it's the latter meaning, then "the group witnessed gang members having their fingers amputated as punishment for their misbehaviour".
  • "Original Soundtracks 1 had low album sales compared to previous U2 releases,[22] as its record label Island Records intentionally did not market it as a U2 album." I wonder whether it would be better to remove this sentence—it doesn't seem really relevant to "Slug" itself?
  • I feel the final paragraph is the weakest. It stretches too thinly the idea that some critics have compared it in some way or another to Zooropa. You could extract the general, non-Zooropa bits (from DeRogatis and Stokes) and group them with the other general reviews, and then possibly sum up in one sentence the fact that some critics found similarities with Zooropa, with one or two specifics mentioned as examples? That could be one way to handle the content.

I have at least one more comment that I'll have to get in next time. Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed. The sentence about the low album sales was only added after an editor here in FAC suggested its addition, but I agree it seemed out of place and I removed it. The Zooropa paragraph was also removed with some of its content consolidated above, and other content was reworded to satisfy certain clarifications you requested. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice. There was one suggestion above that I'm not sure if it got lost in the shuffle, but did you want to keep the verb "force" in "prompted The Edge to force the other members of U2 into putting extra effort into arranging the song"? It sounds extreme to me, but do you feel it's justifiable?
  • So here's I think my final suggestion, and it's about the whole article, at least to the end of "Composition and lyrics". There are two time frames in the article: one is closed, basically 1995 around the time of the recording sessions; the other is open, and consists of all of the instances mentioned where band members have talked about their experiences after the fact. By using the simple past for both of these time frames, the article currently unsatisfyingly compresses both times frames into one. So you have instances such as "The lyrics were written in five minutes and are derived from U2's experience in Shinjuku. Bono compared the lyrics to those in U2's 1991 song "Tryin' to Throw Your Arms Around the World"... " I would like to suggest that the present perfect would be more appropriate for this open-ended time frame. This would mean changing:
  • "Bono said that Original Soundtracks 1 evoked" → I see from the Footnotes section that Bono said this in interview in 1995; however, because this time frame is not implicitly or explicitly specified in the text itself, I would argue that here also the time frame is open-ended, and the present perfect is appropriate → "Bono has said that Original Soundtracks 1 evoked"
  • "He said that along with" → "He has said that along with"
  • "The Edge later said he felt his effort" → by using "later" here you have already distanced it from the 1995 time frame, which could be enough. However, if you take my suggestion to use the present perfect in these other instances, for consistency I would recommend the present perfect here as well → "The Edge has said..."
  • "Bono compared the lyrics to" → "Bono has compared the lyrics to"
  • "which Bono described as a "very, very surreal" experience. He said that "Slug" was" → "which Bono has described as a "very, very surreal" experience. He has said that "Slug" was"

I think you could keep all simple past for all of the Reviews section. Moisejp (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more comment. May I suggest the caption of the sound clip could restate a point mentioned in the sound clip's Fair Use Rationale. This would reinforce the justification of the sound clip's existence all the more. The caption sort of does already, but it may not clear to the reader what a "laundry list" is (and the number of things "listed" in the sound clip is too short to be clearly a list); and if "laundry list" does have negative connotations (?), this statement by Catlin sounds subjective. Since you could include anything in the caption, why not, to the extent that's possible, include a clear, neutral, objective-sounding statement that reinforces the FUR? Moisejp (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly "said" is slightly overused throughout the article? The last three reviews all use "said" as do several quotations from Bono and The Edge (including most of the ones I mention above). It shouldn't be too hard to substitute other verbs for some of these. Moisejp (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. All issues have been addressed. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My concerns are all addressed and I'm happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

looks like we still need:

  • Image licensing review.
  • Source review for formatting and reliability.
  • Because it's a few years since your last FA, Dream out loud, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

You can request these at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basic image looking-at by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

  • File:Don Quijote in Shinjuku at night.jpg: ALTTEXT seems OK, wonder about the sourcing for the caption since I am not certain the article text matches. Seems pertinent IMO, I am trusting that the source does explicitly refer to the scenery (not necessarily this one). File properly sourced and licensed - the billboards shown fall under de minimis. No indication on GIS that it was taken from elsewhere (it appears in many other places, but all items are of lower resolution or refer to Flickr or Commons), plausible EXIF. Can't check the other uploads by the Flickr user because Flickr works very badly at low connection speed.
  • File:Seibu-Department-Store-Ikebukuro-01.jpg: Inclusion justified, may be a bit decorative though. OK ALT, caption is reciprocated and sourced in article text. Proper source and license, I presume the artwork in the front falls under de minimis also, the building is covered by freedom of panorama. No clear EXIF, locale of the image is consistent with the other images by the uploader at that date. Image appears elsewhere on the web, in smaller resolution or the same resolution on some websites with no clear dates or with dates that postdate the original upload or referencing back Commons.
  • File:Passengers-Slug-musicsample.ogg: Non-free file, is appropriate here as a license. WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#3 are met (for this article; whether the other use of the file is compliant with #3 could be questioned but is technically not the issue here). Likewise for WP:NFCC#4, WP:NFCC#5, WP:NFCC#6 (using Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples, might want to specify some more information though), WP:NFCC#7, WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10 seem to be OK. The rationale goes into some detail about WP:NFCC#8, some of it doesn't seem to be reciprocated in the article.

That's my (somewhat lengthy) commentary on these files. Take note that this is my first at-length FAC media look at.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notes. I updated the caption for the first image, and update the rationale for the audio clip. I also removed the audio clip from the second article in which it is featured. This should help satisfy all necessary issues. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and source spot check[edit]

  • The formatting of the sources seems consistent.
  • I could find no sources that seem unreliable.
  • I checked all available online sources and could find no overly close paraphrases or instances of incorrect information.
  • Suggestion: In some places, you have multiple pieces of information from different sources, with all of the sources bundled at the end. Would it be better to put each source directly after the particular piece of information that it is relevant to? The instances I noticed are as follows:
  • "The song was written to create the visual of lights turning on at dusk in a city like Tokyo, beginning with 'tinkling' opening notes resembling Christmas lights, and a gradually rising and falling synthesizer rhythm throughout the song.[9][10]" I only saw the second piece of information (about rising and falling synthesizer) in source 10, so presumably the first part is from source 9 (which I don't have access to). Would it be better to put ref 9 after "Christmas lights"?
  • Likewise: "'Slug' runs for 4 minutes, 41 seconds and features a synthesizer rhythm laid over a drum track, with vocals sung by Bono in a murmured voice.[3][18][19]"; "The lyrics are sung in a list-like format and consist of 19 lines, most of which begin with the words 'Don't want';[3][20]". (There may be other instances that I didn't see because I don't have access to the sources—if you agree with my suggestion, please check.)
  • Perhaps having four refs after "Details of the song's recording sessions were documented in Eno's 1996 book, A Year with Swollen Appendices" isn't necessary; a couple seem enough. Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I've gone ahead and moved some of the reference tags around to space them out a bit, as per your suggestion. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2016 [29].

Mr. Dooley[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a fictional Irish-American bartender who was very real to those who lived in the Progressive Era. Mr. Dooley, whose homespun wisdom was generated by journalist Finley Peter Dunne, was noted for sayings that outlasted their creator, such as "the Supreme Court follows the election returns" and "politics ain't bean-bag". I'd like to read what he would have to say about the current campaign. I discovered Mr. Dooley in law school, and was surprised we had no article. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination added early by agreement with a coordinator, for the record.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support By way of disclosure, I did the DYK review, which I have linked here because it covered checkpoints that I already did, such as sourcing and copyvio tool checks. Additionally, the images are all public domain. I have reviewed all the edits done since the June 14 DYK approval. Most of those edits are stylistic changes, the way an editor does when they want the final product to be as tightly written as possible. Some inline citations have been added. I stick by what I said at DYK - the subject of this article is a wonderful piece of Americana, presented in a very enjoyable and professional style. — Maile (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, support, and thoughtful comments. I'm glad, in any case, that a hole in our encyclopedia has been fixed, and we now have a Mr. Dooley article!--05:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Finley_Peter_Dunne_Vanity_Fair_27_July_1905.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added, thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I peer reviewed the article and was v. happy with it. Both pleasurable and instructive to read. Certainly meets FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 13:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, both for the support and for the comments at PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Brianboulton): I missed the peer review, but am reading through now. As usual I have a few prose/punc quibbles, but not much else (I rather like Mr Dooley) Here are my comments on the lead and opening sections:

Lead
  • "and then again" → "and again"
  • "Dunne's essays, which contain the bartender's commentary on a topic (often national or international affairs)..." – "topics" rather than "a topic" which might suggest that all essays dealt with the same topic. Or perhaps replace "topics" with "issues"?
  • "who in the columns owned..." → " who in the columns owns..."
  • I am very dubious of the hyphen in the noun form of "little-noticed"
  • Is "mostly only" acceptable? Seems a bit like "fairly unique" or similar formations.
  • "Due to" always jars. Could this become "through"
  • "hobnobbed with presidents": I don't think that "hobnobbed" is encyclopedic (the Oxford Dictionary styles it as "informal"). And did Dunne mix with presidents other than Roosevelt?
Harding. I've cut the phrase though.
Genesis
  • Semicolon in first line of second para should be a colon
  • "another dialect column" → "a second dialect column", maybe?
  • The parenthetical note "(in all columns but the first, McNeery)" would be clearer as "(in all columns thereafter spelt "McNeery")
  • A second "due to" could be "because of"
  • This sentence seems oddly constructed: "This local fame came with some annoyance to McNeery's real-life analogue, McGarry, who found himself called McNeery, and even stared at by a Swedish immigrant, held by Chicago Irish in disdain". I'd be inclined to drop the staring Swede as inconsequential, and shorten to: "This local fame caused annoyance to McNeery's real-life analogue, McGarry, who found himself called McNeery and held in disdain by the Chicago Irish community".
You misunderstand. It is the Swedes who were looked down upon by the Irish. This helps explain why McGarry took offense.
  • Needs an "and" before "threatening"
  • "as is" should surely be "as was"?
This may be an Atlantic divide, but "as is", at least to my ear, can be used in the past tense, as in "He kept it as is".
  • "McGarry spoke in a heavy brogue, as did his analogue; this was retained in the move to Bridgeport". I'm confused by this sentence; you have previously used "analogue" to refer to the real-life equivalent, now you appear to be reversing the usage. This muddles the mind. It would be simpler to say that McNeery's heavy brogue was retained in the move.
Local man of wisdom
  • "doling out courage by the drink" – could you be clearer as to what is meant by this phrase?
I suppose it is unlikely that anyone heard rebel gunfire while under Dooley-induced influence. Cut.
  • "the home and church" → "home and church"
  • Some tense inconsistencies, e.g. "He interested himself...", "was mentioned...", "He remains..."
Dooley's backstory is in the past tense, what happens "live" in the columns is present.
  • "Dunne biographer Elmer Ellis..." I'm aware of AmEng usage, but still feel that "Dunne's biographer" would suit better, as Ellis was many other things besides.
I've changed it, but note there there is no room for Ellis's bio in either case.
  • "tries to beat some decency into the sodden Grady" – is "beat" meant to be taken literally here?
Yes. I could say "with his fists", but I'd rather not.
  • "made off" → "made of"

More to follow: Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I am glad you like Mr. Dooley. I've done those not noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More:

Mr. Dooley in war
  • Nothing (I made one punc adjustment)
Mr. Dooley in peace
  • It's that hyphen again: "becoming well-known" → "becoming well known"
  • "He then lacked access..." reads ambiguously and would be clearer as "At the time he lacked access..."
National sage
  • "ill-suited" → "ill suited" (One of my authorities for this hyphen pedantry is The Chicago Manual of Style, of which Mr. Dooley was no doubt a sedulous adherent)
  • "a role slightly greater than that in his actual book" – this looks like a sly dig at the immodest Teddy – appreciated, but not really appropriate unless a source made this observation.
Dooley makes the point more than the source, for that is the whole point of what Dooley said. Roosevelt is called ambitious and self-promoting, in a nice way now alas lost. Another joke about Roosevelt's book is that the typesetter ran out of capital I's, but I don't think that derives from Dooley.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in late 1901 when he..." – the pronoun would be better as "the president"
  • Sorry to be so persistent, but do we hyphenate "African-Americans"? Our own article thinks not.
Slow decline
  • "it was finding that inspiration" – perhaps "that initial inspiration"? And comma required after "compose", later in the same sentence.
  • I'm not clear how "unwritten columns" could cause conflict with the syndicators.
  • "these did not generate a great deal of interest." Not clear what "these" refers to. Can you clarify?
  • "Dunne was encouraged enough to agree, in 1926, to do a regular Dooley piece for the weekly Liberty magazine". What was the basis of this encouragement, given what appears to be rather negative backdrop? Perhaps "Dunne was persuaded, in 1926..." etc

Concluding on Sunday, I hope. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the gift of your time. I am up to date I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few final crumbs:

Language and technique
  • The opening sentence of the third paragraph, beginning: "The question then arises..." seems to be written in an editorial voice, along the lines of "It should be noted that..." etc as per WP:EDITORIAL. This should be neutralised.
  • The syntax of "whether he is intended to actually believe that he is a cousin of Admiral Dewey..." is hard to follow and could be simplified to "whether he actually believes that..." etc
  • "attributes quotations he has heard without attribution..." – can we resolve the repetition?
  • "He wrote that Mr. Dooley is intended to be the opposite of the well-informed citizen sought by the Progressive Movement, and that his comments contain more truth than he knows". That sentence would make more sense to me if the "and" became a "yet" or even a "but".
I think it's OK as is. Both parts of the sentence paint Mr. Dooley as ignorant, and there's not enough contrast to justify a "but" or "yet".
I do see a significant contrast – overt ignorance versus unconscious wisdom. But I won't press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "barkeep"? Is that an accepted contraction of "barkeeper" which you have used previously?
Legacy and remembrance
  • "not essential to the popularity" – something like "not essential to the originals' popularity", for clarity

Very interesting insight into your favoured Progressive Era. (Dooley on Trump would be educational). Brianboulton (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed. I've done those except as noted. Yes, we sorely need Dooley, for many things.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Timely and fascinating, a true original for the FA stable. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda[edit]

I enjoyed the article earlier, but gave it a closer look now. Only tidbits:

Genesis - is that a good section header?
Changed to Beginnings.
  • "This local fame came with some annoyance to McNeery's real-life analogue, McGarry, who found himself called McNeery, and even stared at by a Swedish immigrant, a people held by Chicago Irish in disdain." - Can we say "immigrant, a people"?
Do you mean exclude Swedish? That he was Swedish is what offended McGarry, not that he was an immigrant.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's just my limited English, - I'd have difficulty to connect the plural "people" to the singular "Swedish immigrant". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "nationality".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Local man of wisdom (1893–98)
  • After the "Ireland" of his birthplace, there should be a comma, but I wouldn't know where to put it.
  • "He is suspicious of or hostile towards men" - probably correct, but I had to read twice.
  • "Commerce from the fair" - when I read that I had forgotten that it was the World's Columbian Exposition, - perhaps another link? Why a redirect anyway?
Mr. Dooley in peace (1898–1900)
  • "only 5 of the 31 "peace" essays dealt only with the affairs of that neighborhood" - please check double only and it's position.

Thank you for the quote "We need to know that this precocious son of Irish immigrants—those despised bottom-rung unwashed of mid-nineteenth century—somehow developed a voice that was unique and strong ..."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I was not certain how I wanted to end the article, but I came to like it more ... I think I've done as you suggested except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2016 [30].

The Dawn of Love (painting)[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn of Love is a horrible painting, which when initially exhibited in 1828 was described as "an unpardonable sin against taste", and critical opinion has not become noticeably more forgiving in the intervening 188 years. It's arguably the second most significant artwork in Dorset (I'm nominating this as part of the push to improve coverage of the West Country), but that says more about the state of Dorset's museums than anything else. ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The usual very thorough job. No points to make. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this fully soon, but a preliminary comment; is there no higher resolution version of the subject painting available? FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk, I've found a slightly high resolution version on ArtUK, with which I've overwritten the existing version on Commons (I can't see any value in keeping the low-res version), but I suspect that's going to be the best we'll find. After the National Portrait Gallery incident, a lot of British galleries—particularly smaller ones like Russell-Cotes which rely on the sale of reproductions and licensing rights for a significant chunk of their income—aren't going to put anything which can be used to create print-quality reproductions anywhere where Commons can get its hands on it. 800x660 is easily detailed enough that one can make out all the significant detail—this isn't one of those paintings where it's useful to be able to zoom in on individual elements to brushstroke level—so I'm not worried about the image quality. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An improvement, even if bigger can't be found. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strongly influenced by the works of Titian and Rubens, he was unsuccessful in all the Academy's competitions." This makes it seem as if he was unsuccessful due to his influences? Or are the two parts unconnected? A bit unclear.
  • Sort of—the situation is too complicated to describe in full here without overwhelming this article (it's explained at William Etty#Training (1806–21); my assumption is that anyone who's curious enough to want to know more about the context will click through to the main bio). Basically, Etty was a follower of John Opie who was a great admirer of the Italian style of painting using bright colours and making human figures as realistic as possible, at a time when this style was very out of fashion in England, so although all his peers recognised and respected his technical ability he didn't get much recognition or commercial success in the 1810s. ‑ Iridescent 12:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My problem isn't that it isn't explained, rather that it is worded ambiguously... It is in a sense forcing the reader to "chase" links"[31] for them to understand what is meant... Couldn't something brief like "(the styles of which were considered unfashionable in England at the time") be added? That will also help the reader understand some of the criticisms in the reactions section. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded, which will hopefully make it clearer. I'm loath to go into too much detail in the background section; there needs to be some background for readers who've come across this article direct and need context, but I'm painfully aware that a reader with an interest in Etty reading through this series is going to be forced to read what is effectively the same potted biography 13 times. ‑ Iridescent 15:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This painting was extremely well received" Extremely seems a bit hyperbolic?
  • Not really, in context—Etty's own description of the day it was unveiled was "the next day I awoke famous", and it turned Etty overnight from au unknown hack surviving on gifts from his brother, to someone who's work could be described with a straight face as "belonging to the highest class". (Price comparisons from the Victorian era to the modern day are notoriously tricky, but £210—the price Etty sold it for—was roughly 10 times the average annual wage at the time.)
  • "The Dawn of Love was extremely poorly" Likewise. Word seems a bit overused here.
  • Changed the one in the lead to "very" to avoid repetition. I don't think the hyperbole is unjustified here; although Cleopatra isn't his best work and Dawn of Love isn't his worst, in terms of public reception they were certainly the two extreme points of his career. ‑ Iridescent 12:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the reaction of the lower classes to these paintings" What reactions? Or the potential reactions?
  • Implicitly, that rich people could appreciate these paintings as art but poor people were just viewing them for a cheap thrill. A brief summary of this attitude needs to be included in all this series as one can't understand Etty's attempts desexualise nudity and bring it into the mainstream without it; I try to make it as brief as possible so it doesn't get too repetitive for someone reading all the articles in this quite long series. IMO the attitude is best summed up in Vanity Fair's I know only too well how the rough and his female companion behave in front of picture's such as Etty's bather. I have seen the gangs of workmen strolling round, and I know that their artistic interest in studies of the nude is emphatically embarrassing., but that refers to a later work so I don't really want to quote it in this article. ‑ Iridescent 12:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can let this issue go, but just to answer: I don't think repetition across articles about different paintings is a problem if an article is to stand on its own. Many readers might be reading about specific paintings only, no? Doesn't have to be anything long-winded, the current sentence is just a bit ambiguous. The other reviewers here seem more familiar with the series, therefore it might be good to take unfamiliar readers into consideration. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is, sources tend to take it for granted that readers will be aware that "the distribution of lewd material" is an offence under the English common law with the definition of "lewd material" dependent upon the status of the intended consumer, as it's so engrained in English culture; thus, they don't feel the need to spell out the concerns. An explanation of the English common-law definition of "obscene publication"—which (then and now) draws a sharp line between material kept at home for private viewing, and material available for public viewing, and in this period also had religious connotations in that nudity in history painting was seen as associated with Catholicism and thus inherently morally dubious—would fill a good-size book; it was only in 1960 that the "if it's sold to rich people it's art, if it's sold to common people it's pornography" presumption of the common-law was successfully challenged. Plus, the press of the time generally discussed such matters in euphemisms, so criticism tends to be couched in terms like "gratifying only the most vicious taste"; if you're familiar with the language of Regency England you'll understand that this translates as "a cheap thrill for the peasants", but it would probably violate WP:SYN to state it explicitly since it could theoretically be using "vicious" in the sense of "violent" rather than "uneducated". ‑ Iridescent 16:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all my admittedly nitpicky points have been carefully addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Sagaciousphil[edit]

  • Support I've watched the series of these painting articles develop; this one is based on the same sound references that were reviewed/checked during the FACs for Etty's other works. I made a very minor tweak to a date format for consistency. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Read this last night, no edits I want to make. Support. re - "present a challenge", yes but perhaps not in the way he thought. Ceoil (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 10th FAC in the Etty series—I assume that if I were fabricating sources, someone would be gleefully pointing it out by now. Other than a couple of contemporary press reviews specific to this painting (which should be verifiable just by googling the quotations), there's no source in the bibliography for this which wasn't also used in William Etty itself—I don't know if source reviews can be inherited from the parent article in this way, or need to be done afresh each time. ‑ Iridescent 09:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat familiar withe these sources at this stage, and can attest to their quality. The formatting is all correct and consistent. Ceoil (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Along with image licensing checks, source reviews for formatting and reliability are standard procedure before promotion -- tks Ceoil for actioning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2016 [32].

An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A short textbook published in 2010 may seem like a very odd subject for a featured article nomination, but Alasdair Cochrane's first book was actually one of the first books exploring animal ethics from the perspective of political theory, something which has created a real buzz in certain corners of academic ethics/political theory, spawning numerous books, articles, theses, special issues, edited collections and even a dedicated journal. The article is fairly short, but I hope you will agree that it is comprehensive. I must thank SlimVirgin for a GA review, and hope you will enjoy reading the article. All comments are welcome. This is probably a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

Very interesting, will be commenting shortly... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great prose, but I had to do nitpicks ;) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • was one for the first books I think it should be "of" and not "for".
  • "Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series" is linked here but not in the main article. I don't think we will have an article on this topic in the near future, and I am not a fan of redlinks in the lead. Perhaps delink it?
Background
  • It is good to begin with the full name of the author (and link it) when you begin with the main article.
  • The Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics...Garner and Martha Nussbaum. This part belongs more to reception, the time after it was published. In this section we discuss the time before and when the book became a reality.
    • Yes, I had mused on this. I have added a legacy section, which seems the appropriate place to talk about how this was an early example of the kind of work now been done. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis
  • the approaches taken by five schools of political theory A natural question would be – their approaches toward what?
  • Um, should the subheadings not be level 3, with an edit link by their side?
    • They were, but I wasn't a fan of the very short sections. Do you think I should switch them back? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure, I have not seen such subheadings in other articles... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if meat needs a link
  • Of all the traditions considered in the book, Cochrane is most critical of feminism Should not sound like Wikipedia's opinion, better add "According to Garner..."
  • Can we have a few direct quotes from the book?
Reception
  • I think the reviews should be in the order: Garner, Cooke, Seymour, that is the order you list their names in.
    • I've tried to do it a little more thematically; I don't so much like "Review 1, review 2, review 3" in reception sections. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you use blockquotes and where do you not?
    • 30 words isn't a bad rule of thumb; do you think I'm being inconsistent? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, just wished to know how you decide their use. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first of which was the use of the concept of justice May be link "justice" again, it is relevant here and some readers may have missed the previous link. You have similar duplicate links elsewhere.
Other points
  • A better caption for Garner's image would be "Robert Garner, pictured in 2013"
  • Consistent in "open access" tags?
    • I think I am? There are two open access pieces cited; others may or may not be freely available, but they're not open access publications. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the ISBNs should be hyphenated.
    • I've dropped ISBNs in the refs, but I've added dashes for the release versions. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sainsf: With thanks for your comments; I'll get to them properly tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't find any more issues with the prose. Must make an awesome FA, just remember my suggestion about direct quotes from the book. Good luck! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SlimVirgin[edit]

Hi Josh, this is very similar to the version that was promoted to GA. I wonder whether it needs to be expanded a little for FA. For example, I would like to see just a bit more explanation as to why he rejects the feminist positions as providing a basis for obligations to animals. For example:

  • You write that Cochrane rejects "the idea, taken from ecofeminist theorists, that domination of women and domination of animals are both due to an ideal of domination over nature." Whose work does he cite, how would you unpack "due to an ideal of domination over nature," and how does he find their arguments lacking?
  • More needs to be said to explain Adams ("Second is Carol J. Adams's argument that exaltation of meat-eating serves to oppress women") and why Cochrane rejects her arguments.
  • It isn't clear what "Third is through the use of language" refers to in this context and what Cochrane is rejecting.
  • Re: objectification. "Cochrane … argues that the oppression of women and animals are not necessarily linked." How does he argue that?
  • The section concludes: "Of all the traditions considered in the book, Cochrane is most critical of feminism," citing Garner, but Garner doesn't say that. He writes that Cochrane is "harsher on the claims of some traditions—the feminist care ethic in particular …"
    • Ok, interesting. Sainsf raised different concerns about the sentence, so I've dropped it entirely. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for taking the time to offer some comments; I'll reply to your suggestions properly tomorrow. As an initial reply, I'd certainly could expand the synopsis section, but I wanted to keep it brief. Do you perhaps think I should expand the coverage of all chapters, or do you think I should focus in on feminism given reviewers' comments about Cochrane's coverage? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would say all the sections could use some clarification (not necessarily expansion). Looking at utilitarianism, for example, you would have to be familiar with the arguments to understand that section. Why is it historically important for animals, what does it mean to say it has an egalitarian nature, and why is that a strength? I think it needs to be unpacked so that readers not familiar with it will understand.
There is also this: "He closes by arguing that, if the book's claims are correct, treatment of animals should be considered one of the most pressing political questions today." That was something I asked about during the GAN. It really isn't clear which of the book's claims it refers to, and why those claims would make treatment of animals one of the most pressing political questions. SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, this is very valuable; I'll have a rejig and see what I can do. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, J Milburn.

  • The Bibliography was throwing one CS1 hidden error but there turned out to be more like 10 cite templates that needed work with the authors and editors as seen here.
  • Bullet point 15 in the Bibliography is in plain text and should be converted to a cite template.
Converted. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Converted again from non-citation style to citation template style per WP:CITEVAR. Changed it from cite book to cite journal per Josh.

I will be happy to review this further when the FA review is further along. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Thanks for your efforts, but I'm afraid I have reverted your edits. Unless I'm missing something, you're "cleaning" things by changing my citation style, which is not something which should be done without discussion. I use citation templates to help with consistent formatting; they're not an end in themselves. If you're really concerned about my use of the templates, I'd rather just drop them altogether. (Relatedly: The plain-text reference would throw up errors if I put it into a citation template, despite the fact that "forthcoming" is the correct date, and the DOIs you tagged as dead are fine- perhaps there's something wrong with your script?) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a note to anyone watching, Checkingfax has reverted me again, and promised an explanation. I am not happy with the citations at this time, but await the explanation. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't easy to see what was changed, because Checkingfax has added whitespace under the headings, which throws the diff off. [33] SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The two things that are bothering me are mentioned on my talk page. (By the way, I have not yet finished dealing with your comments, Sarah; I stepped away from the article for this evening to give Checkingfax time to respond. Thanks for your patience.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of advancing this review, I'm willing to leave Checkingfax's changes (including the change to the article's citation style), but I am still not satisfied that his/her actions were appropriate. Conversation about this continues on my talk page, but does not need to clutter up this page. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Josh. For the record I did one rollback. I immediately contacted you on your talk page to avoid any panic or extra chatter here. I promised to restore your minor edits that got bombed in the process and I did when I got back from my appointment. There were a couple of resulting issues which editor Sainsf, you and I collaboratively remedied. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox checklist[edit]
  • Alt text: Pending
  • Citation bot: Passed
  • Disambig links: Passed
  • External links: Passed
  • Redirects: Passed
  • Reflinks: Passed

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fascinating article, very well written and evidently comprehensive. It is a good sign that I am left with no idea where, if anywhere, the nominator's sympathies lie between the various competing theories. Very happy to support. Three exceptionally minor comments, which don't affect my support:

  • Background and publication
    • Mildly surprising, and not especially welcome, to see the American "advisor" instead of the English "adviser", but if that's the man's official job title so be it.
  • Academic reception
    • I wasn't quite sure why we have "On the other hand" before S O'Sullivan's comments. The four words led me to expect a hostile review to follow D Dombrowski's favourable one, but both are enthusiastic.
  • Releases
    • To avoid the possibility of WP:DATED, I'd be inclined to change "The book is available in paperback..." to "The book was published in paperback..."

That's my lot. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. The references in the version I looked at (at 13.24 today) look fine to me at first glance, and I don't imagine that if any change is needed it will be anything more than minor tweaking, to fit the nominator's preferred layout. A most stimulating read. Tim riley talk 12:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Tim; thoroughly appreciated. I followed Cochrane with "advisor", but it's not an official title. I've switched it. I've dropped "On the other hand", and made the change concerning "available"/"published". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs
You have "Cochrane 2007b" as a ref, yet there's no "Cochrane 2007a". As far as I can see, there's only one source for Cochrane in 2007 (the PhD thesis). Do you not have a handle (hdl) for the thesis? Singora (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good catch; there was a 2007a, but I hadn't added it to the bibliography. It's there now! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image

  • Would suggest changing the Cochrane and and Garner captions to either "X, pictured in 2013" or "X (pictured) in 2013"
  • "File:An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory.jpg: I wouldn't call iStockphoto.com a "cover artist" - do you mean the site is the source of the owl image? Suggest rewording. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Nikkimaria; the captions have been changed, and I have clarified that (per the book's back cover) the cover image belongs to the website. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • Is there a reason why refs 26 and 42 are formatted differently to, say, 25 and 40?
  • Refs 50, 51, 53 and 55 use a hyphen which will need to be changed
  • Missing page number for ref 54
    • It would be "passim", but that's a but old-fashioned; I'm citing the book as a whole. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Note 2" finishes without a closing citation

I'll read this today and offer nitpicks later. CassiantoTalk 08:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Sorry I didn't get round to this. It appears you didn't need me anyway. A glowing example of how a FA should be done. Nice work Josh. CassiantoTalk 21:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

Interesting read, thank you. Having just read the introduction of the textbook, I think something is missing from this article. The textbook's introduction brings the issues to life whereas this article just says "animal rights". I think the article would be more interesting if it expands on it a little bit, maybe just a sentence or two. Either in Synopsis or background.

Happy to make an effort, but could you clarify this? You want me to expand a bit more on the book's introduction? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear. I'd like to see a bit more on the topic of animal rights. The textbook does bring that topic to life right away in the introduction. What kind of issues are we talking about? Edwininlondon (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments below:

  • nonhuman or non-human? In the body it has the noun as non-humans. Should also be consistent with non-ideal or nonideal
    • I'd prefer nonhuman but non-ideal, except in direct quotes, but given Cochrane's thesis's title, I've gone with non-human. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • introducing his interest-based theory of animal rights - how many times can you introduce something? and wasn't it actually introduced in his thesis?
    • I take your point. I've tweaked this a little.
  • series's or series'?
    • Series's x for "x belonging to a single series" and series' x for "x belonging to multiple series". (Similar for species; it's an unusual case of a word ending in s for which the singular and plural form are the same. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alasdair Cochrane, (pictured) in 2013 --> I find the parentheses quite odd
    • Very odd; if I introduced that, I wasn't thinking straight. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • after which Cochrane defends the account both against arguments in defence of speciesism and against critics --> could benefit from a rewrite, hard to grasp what he defends against
    • I've made an effort; the topics are very familiar to me but not necessarily to others. Could you let me know if that's clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the captions seem not balanced: Adams gets a full sentence, Garner nothing but a name. I'd aim for a middle ground, e.g. along the lines of "Robert Garner, a political theorist who reviewed Cochrane's book". I don't think think pictured in 2013 is necessary;if it was 1963 then yes.
  • Maybe keep the order of reviewers consistent in Academic reception: Garner is mentioned first but then Cooke's review is first given.
    • I try to address critical responses thematically, rather than review-by-review. I may not have been fully successful here; I will have another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cooke considered Cochrane's own.." --> I got confused here since Cooke's review had already been dealt with, so why are we going back to Cooke?
  • "Seymour argued that Cochrane's critique was superficial or "[missed] the point entirely". --> this leaves me wondering why. Any chance a succinct summary of arguments can be given?
    • Good point; no fix made yet, but I'll definitely look into making this change. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Releases --> Would Formats be more appropriate for a book?

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this; I'll get to your comments soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again; replied inline. I'll get to making the fixes I've held off in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • I wonder if the "Feminism" section has too much text without immediate citation. Perhaps some additional citations to cover the large block of text in there would be a good addition? Also, this section consists purely of one long paragraph; perhaps consider division into two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the subsections in "Synopsis" only demarcated by bold text rather than with the three "==="? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Garner said that the book came "highly recommended"; he considered it "a very fine book"," has "book" repeated in fairly quick succession. How about replacing the first instance with "work", "volume", or "tome"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for this; I'll get to your comments in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates and reviewers: Thanks for waiting; I promise I will give the comments the attention they deserve. Things are all over the place for me right now (I'm moving house today, for example, and I am at the very end of my doctorate) so, although I'm about, I'm not necessarily in the right headspace to make these corrections. Thanks again, Josh Milburn (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

I note you are a bit busy in real life at the moment, so no rush! I read the article with interest and have a few minor comments: -

  • The sentence starting "After introducing the purpose of the book ..." is a bit long and complex and I had to go back and read it again to establish what the "history of thinking" was all about.
  • "Chapter three considers utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, Cochrane argues, ..." - This could be rephrased so as to avoid repeating the word "utilitarianism".
  • "This is the claim the domination of women and animals are both due to a patriarchal elevation of the "rational" over the "natural"." - This sentence would benefit from an additional "that".
  • I ask myself the question "Who is a featured article on a book meant for? Is it for the knowledgeable who understand the implications of the terms used (as this one does), or is it for the general public who lack the specialist knowledge?" As a member of the latter group, I would like to see some brief explanations on the topics utilitarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism. For example the sentence "Chapter three considers utilitarianism." could continue as "Chapter three considers utilitarianism, the concept that ..."
    • In general, the prose is excellent and the subject comprehensively covered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I am happy with the alterations made and now support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Josh, I'd like to wrap this up and I've seen a few edits from you around the traps, could you just address Cwmhiraeth's points? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian; so sorry about this. I have literally just moved halfway around the world to Ontario, so my time is all over the place; I'll make every effort to find an hour or two to put into this in the next week. I confess that this took longer than I had anticipated due to the citation issue, otherwise I would have held off nominating. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, we can wait. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made the changes suggested in Cwmhiraeth and MBO's comments (including expanding on what is meant by "communitarianism" etc. as suggested by Cwm- a good idea!) and added a little about the introduction, as suggested by Edwin. Hopefully, the various expansions and clarifications will have responded to SV's concerns. Again, I thank all the reviewers for their comments and patience! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2016 [34].

Interstate 275 (Michigan)[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a highway in Michigan, as most of my nominations are. However, this one is special. Depending on which government agency you ask, you'll get different answers at how long this one is. Additionally, it has some special history related to a cancelled northern segment that was partially revived under a different highway designation. Imzadi 1979 → 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria, even with the changes made since then. Dough4872 00:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Will211[edit]

Just peeking in, I was looking at sources and reference number 12 comes up with a 404 error, so that will need to be fixed. Will211|Chatter 02:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Will211: thanks for that. Archived link added, so that's good to go now. Imzadi 1979 → 03:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by starship.paint[edit]

  • Support - my concerns as a non-expert in this article's field have been addressed below. I have also checked all the online non-map sources and the article text relating to those sources. Again, I hope that you will review my FAC in return. starship.paint ~ KO 12:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll get to reviewing this article within this week. Disclaimers: I'm not American, I don't edit road articles, and I hope you'll check out my own FAC. starship.paint ~ KO 02:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Imzadi1979: - Why did you consider my edits as bad linking practices? As a non-American editor, these Wiki-links would have been greatly useful. Plus another revert. Per WP:REPEATLINK, it is okay to link at the first occurrence after the lead. starship.paint ~ KO 03:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Exit list, the reference/link provided seems to be insufficient, in the sense that it doesn't link to the I-275.
  • For the Bike trail infobox, Trailheads 16 along improved trail north of I-94 8 along unrefurbished trail south of I-94 is unsourced.
  • Also, what bikes are the bike trail intended for, bicycles, motorbikes? It should be the former based on reference 12. Trail Use: Cycling - Trails, Hiking, In-Line Skating, Jogging, X-C Skiing This could be added to the infobox - place "biking" with "cycling", the common term.
    • @Starship.paint: it is unnecessary, and bad form, to link to "US" in that first sentence. It's such a general topic that linking to it is normally WP:OVERLINKing. Even linking to the more specific topic of "US state" is still not a good idea when we can point our readers directly to the most specific topic, "Michigan", which is already linked. Given the title of the article, and the other mentions of that specific state already present, we don't need to display it when linking to the county name lower in the article. And lastly, "I-75" redirects to a national-level article instead of the state-level (and frankly higher quality) article on Michigan's segment of Interstate 75.

      As for the next reversion, the clarification attempt falls flat by omitting part of the township name. (Berlin is a separate location on the western side of the Lower Peninsula was renamed to Marne during WWI.) In short, your edits did not actually improve the text.

    • As for the exit list, that mapping source can't point to any specific highway, yet it's been used in nearly 30 other FAs on Michigan's highways without issue.
    • I've copied the footnote from the body text over.
    • In American English, "bike trail" itself implies bicycles, not motorcycles. The latter have to use the same roadways as cars unless they're "dirt bikes" that use "ORV trails" (off-road vehicle trails). As for "biking" in American English, it's synonymous with "cycling", so no change is necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 04:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are common in American English but maybe not in other dialects of English. In my country we use "cycling", I have never heard "biking". In this case I would err on the side of clarity than WP:OVERLINK, this is an educational website after all. starship.paint ~ KO 02:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interchange with I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) on the border between Plymouth Township and Livonia is where the FHWA considers I-275 to end - I do not see this in the source.
    • The FHWA source does not note an overlap between I-96 and I-275, while it does note other overlaps between Interstates in the "Overlap Miles & Route" column, as in where it says "5.84 Mi. on I-480" for I-271. That source also gives a total length for I-275 of 29.97 miles, and if you compare that with the MDOT source material, that is about a half-mile longer than where I-96 and M-14 cross the I-275 mainline; the extra half mile would be the part of I-275 that extends north of that freeway crossing to where I-96 merges in. Imzadi 1979 → 17:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I believe it would be better if you weave in "The FHWA source does not note an overlap between I-96 and I-275" into the article text. starship.paint ~ KO 02:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second phase was completed in the latter half of 1976, when I-275 was extended north from Schoolcraft Avenue (and the incomplete interchange with the future route of I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) to the I-275/I-96/I-696 interchange in Novi. - is this sourced to the 1977 newspaper? Just checking.
New extension plan
  • After the January 1977 cancelation of M-275 as a full freeway, the State Transportation Commission explored building the highway as a parkway instead - the Parkway Would Replace source doesn't support this. It was the state highway department which proposed a parkway. When the source was published, the state highway department had not even recommended the parkway proposal to the commission, so the Wikipedia text is inaccurate.
  • The Oakland County Road Commission, local land developers, and local politicians supported building a highway along the route of M-275 to open up the area for development. This sentence is out of place. Should it be inserted before the previous sentence? Both the previous and the next sentences talk about the potential parkway.
  • In September 1977, the commission ordered MDOT to study the parkway option - I feel that this fragment is also inaccurate according to the Official Seek source. The commission did not discuss the parkway proposals Wednesday, but made it clear it would consider a north south trunkline highway in the area. It ordered the highway department to study other possible developments, including improvements in local roads... Is a "north south trunkline highway" same as a parkway? Also, "improvements in local roads" is not mentioned in Wikipedia.
  • After many years of inactivity, further work began along this same route, - why did work begin at that time?
  • The section infobox lists that M-275 existed for 10 years despite it being never built? That doesn't make sense to me.
  • The section infobox wrote that M-275 ceased to exist circa May 1985, but is that mentioned in the article text? I do see that By May 1985, MDOT had relinquished ownership of right-of-way in West Bloomfield Township, but I do not understand if this equates to M-275 ceasing to exist... actually I do not really understand this fragment. Could it be explained better?
I-96 overlap
  • After it was completed, I-96 was routed to run concurrently with I-275 between Novi and Plymouth Township - is the Proposed Trunkline Numbering source supposed to be citing this fragment? If so please insert the cite. The next source is the 1955 source, chronologically it should not be able to cite this fragment.
  • @Imzadi1979: please see my comments above! starship.paint ~ KO 07:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Starship.paint: tweaks applied to address the above. Imzadi 1979 →
      • @Imzadi1979: all fully addressed except one ... MDOT had relinquished ownership of right-of-way in West Bloomfield Township, ending any further progress at building the roadway - it would be helpful to know who the right-of-way was relinquished to. starship.paint ~ KO 04:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Starship.paint: the article does not say to whom the ROW was relinquished. Perusing the MDOT Right-of-Way File Application for Oakland County, the only ROW segments mapped out in West Bloomfield Township are from the aborted Northwestern Highway Extension, showing the ROW the department apparently retains from that along with parcels they sold off. So in short, I can't answer that question beyond any informed guesses which would constitute OR. Imzadi 1979 → 05:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Imzadi1979: Alright then. It would be good if you found another source to add on information, but if there is nothing in other sources, so be it. I will add another comment at the top... starship.paint ~ KO 12:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments here as I go through the article; I'll probably only get a little done this morning.

  • Suggest either marking on the infobox map the section of the highway that is not agreed by both authorities to be part of the highway, or else (less preferable) indicate in the caption which version of the route is shown.
  • "running parallel to the east of Haggerty Road": suggest "running parallel and to the east of Haggerty Road".
  • "This interchange is where I-275 meets I-96, which merges from the east on the Jeffries Freeway and turns north to run concurrently with I-275. From the west, the M-14 freeway merges and ends. MDOT still considers the freeway north of here part of I-275, and signs it as such.". I think some rephrasing is needed here. The first sentence unconditionally says I-275 is concurrent with I-96 on this stretch; the third says only MDOT considers this to be the case. I think this can be condensed.
  • Is there signage north of the I-96 interchange that says "I-275"? Does MDOT or FHWA control the signage?
  • "It was not well-maintained originally, but it is being improved": suggest a date qualification for the second half of this sentence, per WP:ASOF.
  • "the state originally planned it to follow almost all 60 miles (97 km) of I-275 at the time": this is much longer than the stated length of I-275 given in the lead. If this is because the length refers to the original plan for a longer freeway, I think that needs to be clearer. Also, this paragraph says the bikeway runs along "a 44.1-mile" stretch, substantially longer than even MDOT's given length.
  • The FHWA length is given in the lead as 29.97 miles, but the cumulative length numbers in the table jump from 29.417 to 31.217 -- shouldn't one of those numbers match?
  • Also suggest adding a comment in the Notes column of the table to indicate the intersection at which the FHWA considers the freeway to end.
  • "William Swanson in MDOT's highway planning unit stated that the original planned route for I-275 would have instead been used for I-75 itself, with the I-275 number applied to I-75 through Detroit": I don't quite follow this. Is Swanson saying that had the original 1958 numbering plan been followed, this would have happened? I think what's confusing me is "original planned route for I-275", because the previous two sentences don't seem to refer to anything like that -- they refer to a north-south freeway later marked as I-73.
  • This is just a suggestion, not necessarily something you have to do for FAC, but I noticed you were relying on old state highway maps to deduce when sections of the highway opened. Have you considered using old newspaper reports via newspapers.com? For example, I just had a quick look and found an article in the Holland Evening Sentinel for 10 January 1976 (page 12 according to newspapers.com, but "Page Nine" according to the numbering in the newspaper itself) that discusses what sections are opening when.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: fixes applied for the above except the map (that's in progress). Since MDOT owns and maintains the highway, they erect the signage, and yes, they sign it as I-96/I-275. The edits just applied should clarify and reflect that fact. Imzadi 1979 → 03:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your fixes look good; I'm still going through the article and should finish tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Latest replies:
  • I tweaked the I-96 interchange row in the table to use a range of mileposts, listing the MP for the point where eastbound M-14 crosses the I-275 mainline, and for the point where I-96 westbound merges in. There's still a minor discrepancy in the numbers to the hundredth of a mile, which could be variations in survey methods between the two sources. I added the note as well.
  • Other revisions have been applied to address your other comments.
  • Whenever possible, yes, we use old newspapers, however, they haven't always been available/accessible when the initial research into the articles has been done. That article you found is great, except that it's about scheduled, not actual, openings. If it said a segment was to open within just a few days, then I could use it, but it's months before the planned opening. That means any number of delays could have popped up in subsequent months, rendering its statements less useful for our purposes because it can't account for unforeseen events. Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All struck except for the question about the 44.1 miles quoted for the existing bikeway -- doesn't that mean it must extend beyond I-275 at one end or both, given that the MDOT length is only 35 miles? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: well, that source seems to be out of date in terms of the length. Even with the extra length to loop well around the I-96/M-14 interchange, along with the extra length to follow the outsides of the various entrance and exit ramps, all of which would make the bike trail longer than the paralleled section of freeway, the southern end has been truncated out of Monroe County completely, shortening the bike trail to just 31.6 miles. Also, it seems that the official access points have been severely curtailed as well now that the full length has been paved by MDOT. All in all, I updated that stuff to reflect 2016 sources. At this point, I'd be willing to entertain any suggestion to move that entire section out into its own article, much like M-6 (Michigan highway) and its associated bike trail (the Frederik Meijer Trail, née M-6 Trail). Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments (edit conflict; I see you're commenting on length above so I'll read that next).

  • I'm having a bit of trouble relating the description in the second half of "Original plans" to the exit list. Per the prose, the first four miles ran from "Ford Road to Schoolcraft Avenue (just south of the Jeffries Freeway interchange)". Schoolcraft Road has only been mentioned once to this point in the article, and that mention "North of the Middle Branch of the River Rouge in Plymouth Township, I-275 crosses Schoolcraft Road" doesn't tell us much about where it is. I fairly soon figured out that it had to be north of Ford Road, since Plymouth Township is north of Ford Road in the exit list. Then I had to go back and figure out what the Jeffries Freeway was, since that's not mentioned in the exit list either. I think just adding "Jeffries Freeway" in parentheses in the notes for exit 29 would do it: "Southern end of I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) concurrency".
  • I spent a few minutes with Google Maps reading the second paragraph of "original plans", and referring to the exit list, and it became much clearer. How about a long linear map of the freeway, oriented vertically in the article, with the exits numbered and intersecting roads identified? I think that would make it a lot easier to follow the prose.
  • In the section on the cancellation of the northern segment, have you made it clear to this point what that segment was proposed to be? The original plans section only seems to mention a plan to run it to Davison in passing, in the comment about a possible switch of numbers with I-75. How about starting this paragraph with "The Michigan Highway Commission canceled the northern section of the highway, originally planned to run from Novi to Davison, ..." or something like that? With any additional details about the route that are available. Though it appears that it can't actually be Novi-Davison, since Davison is 60 miles north of Novi so that wouldn't match the original total planned length of 60 miles, mentioned in the bikeway discussion.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the Holland Evening Sentinel source (note 18) it's interesting that the article doesn't mention Davison so perhaps the plan was no longer to go that far north -- in fact, they don't mention Genesee County. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it from me for tonight; I thought I could finish the review this evening but I'll pick it up again in the morning, if I have time. By the way, no need to ping me when you reply; I have the page watchlisted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't add that parenthetical to the exit list notes: the Jeffries Freeway isn't concurrent with I-275 at all; I-96 leaves the Jeffries to follow I-275. However, I can tweak the prose in the history. As for a map, I can't make that as that is outside of my capabilities. I would also note that the other FAs on Michigan's highways lack such a map, and that prose edits should be enough to work around without such a map.

Sorry, I made a typo. The northern endpoint would have been between Davisburg and Clarkson, not Davison. Imzadi 1979 →

I've struck the non-map points above; your edits address them well. I don't think I'd oppose over the map, and I take your point that previous FAC reviews of similar articles haven't required a map, but wouldn't you agree a map would be beneficial? This is an article about a geographic (albeit manmade) feature, after all. The map in the infobox is useful in giving the location, but the detailed course of the route is described in the article body with numerous place names and road names, and a map would render much of the discussion easier to follow for a reader unfamiliar with Detroit. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Major intersections table does provide a lot of what a map would accomplish. --Rschen7754 14:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but speaking as someone who spent time making sure I understood the route and the sequence of construction, that table was no substitute for having Google Maps open on a second screen. If you're not convinced, let's wait and see what other reviewers think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Mike Christie - a map would be easier for understanding than the text or the table. Of course, it is not compulsory for FA status. starship.paint ~ KO 10:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My only reservation is that, as discussed above, I think a map would benefit the article. I don't think that's worth opposing for, since the article is comprehensive without it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

All good. --Rschen7754 07:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • "The interchange with I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) on the border between Plymouth Township and Livonia is where the FHWA considers I-275 to end as they do not not any overlap with I-96" -- who is "they" and what should be there instead of "not not"? I just spotted this in passing, someone should walk through the prose once more before we promote.
  • Also how are we sourcing the exits table -- is everything covered in the text?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • They = FHWA, Ian Rose. As for the exit list, the same way every other FA on a highway does it: the map source for the specific mileposts can verify the basic details of everything in the table, from the counties/locations to the intersecting roads and the various notes about interchange configurations. Imzadi 1979 → 00:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ian Rose: I also fixed that type ("...do not note...") you noted earlier. Imzadi 1979 → 06:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I think I raised a similar point above. How can I use the map source for the specific mileposts to verify the basic details of everything in the table? As a newbie to this I have no idea how to do it and verify for myself. One of the options of Text Search? Map Search. This disconnect needs to be patched. starship.paint ~ KO 09:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Starship.paint and Ian Rose: this would be something that needs a wider discussion than just this FAC because there are 27 articles, all FAs, that use that same source in that exact same way.

          Now, as I understand basic citation policy, we actually do not require a source for absolutely every fact in an article. According to WP:V, essentially information has to be verifiable, not verified. Statistics need an inline source, which is why the milepost column is explicitly cited, but generally non-controversial details do not. The same source can also verify the specific locations (county plus city/village/township) for each interchange, but so could any number of other atlases. ANY map from a competent mapmaker can verify the intersecting roadways, whether that is the paper MDOT map, Google Maps, zoomed in views from the MDOT PRFA map, or any other reputable map. The notes on specific interchange configurations, because they would require a finer scale view, would require either Google Maps or the PRFA map with the dynamic scale capabilities, but I can't fathom that the verifiability or accuracy is being disputed for such mundane details, many of which are already mentioned in the Route description section. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          Since I supported above, I'll just comment here that I agree with Imzadi1979 on this. This information is verifiable, and the source given is reliable; if some specific fact requires a reader to go and look at a milestone or interchange sign to verify it, that's still verifiable. Direct observation (e.g. measuring distance between interchanges and recording it) wouldn't be acceptable, but I don't see that here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the milepost column is explicitly cited, then how can I use the MDOT Physical Reference Finder Application source to find the milepost? Could you just guide me on how the 5.454 number for Ash Township was found? starship.paint ~ KO 01:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: to determine the MPs for a Michigan highway:
  1. Load the MDOT PR Finder Map application.
  2. Click "Base Map" on the "Map Search" section.
  3. Use the Map tools to pan and zoom to the desired point of the subject highway.
  4. Once there, use the "PR/CS" tool located under "Identify" and click the northbound lanes of the highway on either side of the cross road. This will highlight a roadway segment, giving the PR (physical reference) or CS (control section) mileages. The Beginning Mile Post (BMP) for the segment will be highlighted on the map with a dark blue circle, the Ending Mile Post (EMP) will be highlighted with a red square, and each will be noted in a popup box that will appear. Depending on while side of the cross road you clicked, you'll want the BMP or the EMP to get the milepost for that crossroad's center line. For the road at exit 5 in Ash Township, the milepost is 6.297. As noted below, the southern terminus of I-275 is actually MP 0.843, resulting in a milepost for that exit of 5.454.

A few notes are in order. First, these CS mileages reset at county lines, and based on historical highway reroutings, they may even reset within a county. If we work south to north or west to east and do the necessary simple additions and subtractions, we can correct for these resets to get the overall cumulative mileages, which is how the milepost signs on the sides of the highway are numbered. Second, concurrencies can flip the direction in which mileages increase; in this case, I-96 runs in the opposite direction to I-275, so a little basic math is needed to reverse the numbers to get what I-275's mileposts would be. Because every major public road in Michigan is within this mapping tool, not just the state highways, we can find the needed mileages for any state highway, county road or city/village street. Imzadi 1979 → 02:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the detailed information. Two questions then. 1) Why not cite the Base Map URL instead of the main page URL? 2) How about adding a note saying the Identify -> PR/CS functions were used to calculate the mileposts? starship.paint ~ KO 05:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Starship.paint: I could switch that link (and then change all of the other articles for consistency), but I don't quite see the point in doing so because that is just one way to get to the subject highway. You could also text search by road name, input a route number of "I-275" and select an appropriate control section to jump to the terminus or another intermediate location. For someone in the know looking at the Control Section Atlas, he could search for a specific CS by number to locate the terminus. Or search by route number and exit number to zoom to a specific interchange. In short, there are several equally valid ways from the PRFA home page. As for adding a note, that's really too much detail to attempt to shoehorn into a single citation since you're leaving out a bunch of easy-to-follow, but still important, steps by focusing on the tool only. If there really were a burning desire by others to actually verify the mundane math, I could always post a synopsis at WP:USRD/MI, but honestly, you're the first to ask for instructions in the 8 years I've been using the tool for this purpose. Imzadi 1979 → 06:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2016 [35].

Peter Martyr Vermigli[edit]

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vermigli was an influential but lesser-known Reformation theologian who has experienced a renaissance of scholarly interest. He was born in Italy and converted to Protestantism after meeting Italian reformers. He fled the Inquisition in his forties and spent time with Bucer in Strasbourg, Cranmer in England, and Bullinger in Zurich. J Milburn conducted a thorough review and passed the article recently at GA. JFH (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • Great work in general.
Thanks!--JFH
  • The opening sentence does not state Vermigli's nationality. I appreciate that this might be a complex issue (Italy not yet existing as a state, etc), but could we not refer to him as Florentine? Doing so helps to situate him in a particular geographical context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done I don't have a problem calling it Italy. My sources call him Italian and it was referred to as such as a region before becoming a state.--JFH
  • "Vermigli was attracted to the priesthood from an early age." - maybe "Catholic priesthood". I know that that seems obvious for anyone familiar with the region and time period in question, but some readers may not be aware of the Catholic hegemony of the region and might suspect that it was also inhabited by Protestants or pagans or whatever. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lent and Advent" - I'd recommend adding a link to these two events. Many people who live outside of Christian communities will not be familiar with them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done--JFH
  • "There he learned Hebrew from a local Jewish doctor to read the Old Testament scriptures" - i'd go with "There he learned Hebrew from a local Jewish doctor in order to read the Old Testament scriptures". It'll just make it that little bit clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the script I use to convert to Oxford English excised this, but I've found no evidence this is a British/American issue. I agree it helps. --JFH
  • " learned from Vermigli. Vermigli had learned" - "learned" appears twice in quick succession. I'd recommend replacing one with a synonym. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done --JFH
  • "arguing that the Jesus' words "this is my body" at the institution of the sacrament" - this doesn't really make much sense to me ("the Jesus"?). COuld it be clarified? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definite article was a typo. I also clarified that this is at the Last Supper. Does that help enough or still unclear?-JFH
  • Thomas Cramner is linked to about four times throughout the article; only two are permissible, that in the lede and the first mention in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found three and deleted one.-JFH
  • " has argued that Peter Martyr Vermigli, Wolfgang Musculus, and Heinrich Bullinger " - we really don't need Vermigli's whole name here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done-JFH
  • "regarded by New England Puritan divines" - what is a divine in this context? If possible, could we have an explanation or a link? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Old-fashioned word for theologian, fixed-JFH (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the basis of the text and comprehensiveness, I am happy to give this my Support. Good work, JFH! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, all images of Italian buildings should explicitly account for the copyright status of the building as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a PD-old-100-1923 to File:Le balze, veduta su badia fiesolana.JPG, as the building is well over 100 years old. I hope that was the right move, as I've never dealt with building photos before. Thanks for the review. --JFH (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was, but you'll need to do something similar with File:Basilica_di_San_Frediano_Lucca.jpg as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, that's now done too. --JFH (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comments: watch out for overuse of "reform" and its variations ("Reformation"), especially in para 1 of the lead and para 2 of Legacy. Similarly the "Christ's body and blood" three-peat in the lead. "Peter Martyr Vermigli (Italian: Pietro Martire Vermigli, born Piero Mariano Vermigli"—rather than begin the article with three repetitions (basically) of his name, could you move the second two to a footnote?—indopug (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this was helpful, and your edits improved the article as well. --JFH (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "decision to flee for Protestant land": this reads oddly; wouldn't "to Protestant lands" be more natural?
How's "northern Europe"?--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The prohibition was removed on Vermigli's appeal to Rome, with which he received some help of powerful friends he had made in Padua": suggest "from powerful friends".
Done--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like his earlier post in Spoleto, the monks of the San Frediano monastery": needs some rephrasing; the monks are not like his post.
"Like at" OK? --JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made it "as", which I think is a little more formal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He set up a college based on humanist principles of education and the model of the newly founded St John's College, Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford.". Suggest "...of education and modeled on the newly founded..." to avoid choosing between "model" and "models", since there are two models given.
Done--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite a papal meeting with the Emperor in Lucca in 1541": why is this meeting relevant to Vermigli?
The idea is he's reforming Lucca right under the pope's nose. I changed the sentence a little in case it wasn't clear that Vermigli is there at the same time. --JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vermigli was summoned to a Chapter Extraordinary of the Lateran Congregation": I think, after reading through the paragraph, that Vermigli did not obey the summons, but fled instead, but it's not completely clear on first reading; he might have attended and then fled. I think this could be made a little clearer.
Done--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several initially suspicious Protestant leaders": what were they suspicious of?
Clarified--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the chair of Old Testament": can you confirm this is the correct title for the chair? It sounds less natural than "the chair of the Old Testament" or "the Old Testament chair", but since it's the title of a post, not just running prose, I didn't want to change it myself.
The source uses "chair of Old Testament". "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are often referred to as fields of study. See for example: [36] --JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The disputation put Vermigli at the forefront of debate over the nature of the Eucharist": suggest "forefront of the debate".
I don't want to suggest there is one coherent debate, so I used "debates"--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vermigli succeeded the chair of Hebrew from Konrad Pellikan": suggest "Vermigli succeeded Konrad Pellikan as the chair of Hebrew".
Done--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fifteen editions of the Loci Communes spread Vermigli's influence among Reformed Protestants": can you say over what period these editions appeared and this influence was exerted? If these fifteen editions came out over the next twenty or thirty years, that's a very different influence than if they appeared over the following 150 years -- in other words, were they a key text of the theological debates of the time, or a long lasting standard work? Or both?
I've added the year-range for the editions. I think the legacy section also addresses these questions. --JFH (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- I've completed the review; the above points are all I could find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much for these comments and your copy-edits. --JFH (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

I know nothing about the topic area so can at least look at it as a neophyte/layperson and offer suggestions on accessibility hopefully (and prose). Comments to follow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

most well-known - why not "best-known"?
King Edward died in 1553, and this was followed by the accession of Mary I of England, - looks odd to refer to Eddie as "this"....

Other than that, the article reads well and is accessible to someone like me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've addressed your comments. --JFH (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and (presumably) comphrehensiveness - nice read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I probably should've caught this earlier, looks like we still need a source review for formatting/reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just checked - the references are formatted consistently. I can do spot check of sources in several hours unless anyone beats me to it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Cas, Jf's previous FAC a few months ago was spotchecked so I was thinking more the reliability of the sources (and formatting, which you've done, tks) but of course a spotcheck is always welcome if you can manage it too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sources (peer reviewed journal articles and books) all look reliable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 134 faithful to source.
  • FN 131 faithful to source.
      • Most other sources are Brill or Questia subscriptions AFAICT, which I didn't pick up, so will leave to Coords what they want to do. Much of what I sawin the one source I checked is consistent with teh general article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2016&oldid=736310004"