Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2018

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2018 [1].

---

1867 Manhattan, Kansas earthquake

Nominator(s): ceranthor 22:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This article has been a long work-in-progress. I recently expanded it a great deal, and it received an insightful peer review from Eddie891, FrB.TG, and Pseud 14 here. Besides one broken external link (waiting on the USGS to get back to me about restoring the page), I think this is ready. I look forward to feedback! ceranthor 22:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'm a simple person. I look for little in a article. Besides great quality, comprehensiveness, and good prose. Good work! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. ceranthor 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support an interesting article. I had never heard of it. Just a few comments.

• "According to a report in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, the frequency between earthquakes within the state is between 40 and 45 years.[11] " do they give a lower limit on the Richter scale for this?

The article says "There were 2 moderately strong ones—on April 24, 1867, and January 7, 1906. A frequency plot reveals that a moderately strong earthquake occurs in the state approximately every 40 to 45 years." So it doesn't look like they explicitly define the limits. ceranthor 00:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I might find some way of conveying to the reader that minor quakes don't count.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I added "moderately strong". ceranthor 03:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• "interfered with the stability of " I might simplify to "otherwise damaged".
• " newspaper cases" What is a newspaper case?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• The source refers to "cases" that "shook in a newspaper room". I changed to "cases holding newspapers". ceranthor 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think I've encountered the term in connection with typesetting, which may or may not be relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• "sunk by 10 degrees.[25]" can you clarify? Did it become tilted at 10 degrees? A whole acre?

Changed to "sunk by 10 degrees, forming a perpendicular wall tilted at 10 degrees on each of its sides." Source says "a whole acre sank 10', leaving a perpendicular wall of 10' on all sides." Could mean inches, I suppose? ceranthor 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That makes more sense. I was thinking that if an acre of land is flat but tilted at 10 degrees, one end is going to be at least 70 feet higher than the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

​A single quote (actually, a prime) means feet not inches Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. I'll fix that when I have a few minutes free - busy weekend! ceranthor 21:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Reference 13 is missing its newspaper. I'd update the 2010 accessdates throughout.

Thanks for the support. I am working through your comments now. ceranthor 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Everything that I didn't reply to should be addressed! ceranthor 00:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, swell. Good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my peer review. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the peer review, and for your support. ceranthor 22:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. ceranthor 23:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my comments at the peer review. --Pseud 14 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Pseud. ceranthor 16:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Minor comment: Haven't read through the article, but happened to notice a sentence beginning with "Originating at 14:22 local time, or around 2:30 local time". Did you mean to say "Originating at 20:22 UTC, or around 2:30 local time"? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That seems like something I messed up. I will double check that now. ceranthor 22:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I think I fixed this. Good catch! ceranthor 22:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! --Usernameunique (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 7: March 2 1867 – year should be 1987, surely?
• Refs 13 & 15: require page numbers in lieu of links
• Ref 26: is returning 404 error

Otherwise the sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton, first two comments have been addressed. For the third, I'm assuming you mean ref 15 for the 404 error. I have contacted USGS about the page and am awaiting a response. If I don't hear within the next few days, I think I can pull the same info from other sources. Thanks for your comments. ceranthor 00:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I got my knickers in a twist – it was 13 and 26 that required page numbers (now supplied) and 15 that returns the 404 error. Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries - I understood your intention. Haven't heard from USGS yet, so I'll probably end up replacing ref 15. Will keep you posted. ceranthor 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Replaced, as it appears the USGS site was taken directly from the existing Stover & Coffman 1993, p. 236 source. Should be taken care of, but please let me know if I missed anything else. ceranthor 03:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2018 [2].

---

Loss of MV Darlwyne

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on this on and off for about 18 months – the desperately sad story of a joyous, celebratory sea trip that went tragically wrong and claimed 31 lives. The boat was unlicensed, overloaded and ill-conditioned, and carried minimal lifesaving and emergency equipment, a man-made disaster if ever there was one. Yet nobody was prosecuted, and the general British public, intoxicated by the country's World Cup football success that weekend, scarcely noticed – except in Cornwall. SchroCat and Linghzi have helpfully added key locations to the Cornwall map, and others provided helpful comments at a recent peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review All references appear to be of appropriate quality and are consistently cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Support I gave my comments at the peer review. The article is of high quality.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Another from the PR, where my comments were satisfied. A further readthrough shows no remaining issues for me. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Yet another peer reviewer checking in. My comments at PR were few and minor, and after rereading for FAC I find no more points to query. A comprehensive and v. readable article, well and widely sourced. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my opinion. (Later: now signing my comments, a day late. Thank you Linzhi for mentioning the omission.) Tim riley talk 09:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• S What Tim riley said. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

My thanks to all the above for their help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support this moving and beautifully written article. I was not moved to suggest any prose suggestions during my read through, this is high quality and emotively written prose of the first order. Ceoil (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Two small points, can we say who John Phillips is/was, and the coroner reopened the inquests - should this be singular. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Banks does not give further information as to who this John Phillips was – I can't find any internet presence for a designer/sculptor who would fit the circumstances. As to inquest/inquests, both are technically right. There was a single session, but as required by law, 31 separate verdicts were recorded. I'm inclined to leave it. Thank you for your interest and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I also searched around on John Phillips and didn't find anything. Ok to assume "local artist" as is implied. Ceoil (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Darlwyne.jpg: is any information provided about the provenance of this image in Banks' book?

• Unfortunately, there isn't. This seems to be the only authentic image of the Darlwyne and it appears on several websites as well as Banks's book. For example BBC, Telegraph], both published online after Banks's book. The image on the front of the book, showing a boat similar to Darlwyne wallowing in heavy seas, is a pastiche. On the evidence available the image is not free, hence the fair use rationale. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• File:Cornwall_UK_location_map_placenames.png: could the lab cut down the amount of bluespace in this image? This would allow easier reading of the placenames without inordinate scaling. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• I will take this up with my helpful associates. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support – I have read it and reviewed. I find a fully sourced, comprensive article. Excellent.BabbaQ (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am most obliged, and glad you appreciated the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Note to co-ordinators and anyone else passing by. I shall have very little if any online access during the next few days, so in the unlikely event of further comments being added here, there'll be a delay before I can reply. sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 [3].

---

Andrew Jackson

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson was one of the most prominent Americans in the early 19th century. As a young lawyer from Tennessee, he helped the territory gain statehood and served briefly in both houses of Congress. He later became a Federal judge and commander of the state militia. During the War of 1812, Jackson led an army that defeated first the Red Stick Indians and later the British at New Orleans, securing the American frontier and granting the country one of its greatest military victories at the time. His controversial invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 was done without explicit orders, but the end result was the acquisition of that territory by the United States. From 1829 until 1837, Jackson served as president. He led a popular movement consisting largely of poor workers and farmers against what he saw as undemocratic control of government by the elites. Jackson replaced officeholders, preserved the union during the Nullification Crisis, waged a successful war against the Second Bank of the United States, secured favorable agreements with foreign countries, instigated the forced removal of thousands of American Indians, supported slavery, and recognized the Republic of Texas. Amongst historians and the general public, Jackson is extremely divisive. His reputation has fluctuated considerably, and scholarly assessments of his life and presidency in particular are remarkably varied. Display name 99 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

image review

• Suggest scaling up the Indian Removal Act map, Democratic cartoon, and Panic of 1837 images

I scaled up the Indian Removal Act and Panic of 1837 images, but decided against doing the same for the Democratic cartoon. That's mainly because it aligns so well with the 1832 election map. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Flag_of_Tennessee.svg could do with half as many copyright tags

I got rid of two of them. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Andrew_Jackson_bust.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Andrew_Jackson_Tomb.jpg

Added. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like there are some template issues - the former is now showing a USGov tag for the photo, which doesn't seem to mesh with the original information? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Must have put that in there by accident. It's out now. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Andrew_Jackson_Portrait.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Andrew_Jackson,_by_Ralph_Eleaser_Whiteside_Earl,_c._1788_-_1838.png, File:WilliamCRives.png, File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, File:Isaac_Brock_portrait_1,_from_The_Story_of_Isaac_Brock_(1908)-2.png

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

For File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, is there an earlier publication to support the new tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag. The photographer is unknown. The source cited is a book from 2000. I have no publication date earlier than that. But everything's cited, so I don't think there should be a problem. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the life+70 tag currently in place, we do need an additional tag indicating the work's status in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:JacksonAssassinationAttempt.jpg: source links are dead, tagged as lacking author info

Added new link. Regrettably could not find author info. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:USS_Porpoise_(1836).jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag

Added new link and tag. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:US_$20_Series_2006_Obverse.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info, and can you confirm it meets point 1 of the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with this one. I can't find a URL that shows a bill with the same serial number. The "author" is obviously just the US Treasury Department. Not sure what else can be done here. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. The immediate source is a user-generated scan, and the original source is a design from the Treasury - we just need to write that out, with details (eg. which design version) to make things explicit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have responded to all of your above points. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Initial comment: There's an awful lot to trawl through here, which will take some time. Meanwhile, a couple of general points could be dealt with:

• Format: Five columns for the citations is too many – it squashes the information unnecessarily. I'd recommend reduce to three, or four at most.
• Many (if not all) of your page ranges show hyphens. These should be converted to ndashes.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll be back with a more detailed report when I've gone through the list. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Nit: It's just setting the width of the columns (I have 9 columns across), it'll be as many columns as your resolution can support. That said, 15em is a little tight, so I just amped it up a tad to 22em. SnowFire (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI: I'm a college freshman and finals are starting to hit this week. So please give me some time with coming up with responses and implementing recommended changes. Display name 99 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thank you for your review. Your comments have been addressed. Do you think you can get to the rest of the review anytime soon? Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at it now. Expect comments in a day or so Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Detailed sources comments

Here are my comments from my first pass of the source section:

• Although you say you've replaced the hyphens in page ranges with ndashes, you've not done this thoroughly – there are many hyphens still present.

Done Hoppyh (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Try 143, 148, 236 Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. These weren't there at the time, and I have to remember to put dashes in the correct format when adding new sources. Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 17: how is this a high quality, reliable source?

The biographical info on Remini I have reviewed indicates he is a widely published, award winning academic on Jackson and other presidents. Hoppyh (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hoppyh, he was referring to something else. The citation numbers got changed up a bit after he did his initial review. What was previously citation 17 came from an online source that I ended up removing. But thanks for your help on the article. Display name 99 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Hoppyh (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 20: appears identical to the source in ref 3

Looks ok. Hoppyh (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I replaced one of these sources. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 25: These genealogy websites are not generally considered as reliable. Try to find anopther source.

I think this is now #24 and I believe we can remove the sentence which utilizes this ref. Thoughts? Hoppyh (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I decided to keep the sentence-it's important contextually. But I did get a new source. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 36: page range requires pp. not p. (There may be others similiar, take a careful look)

Done. All look good. Hoppyh (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 39: This looks on the face of it to be a university source, but on examination it seems to be a student project. Read this. I thus have doubts about its quality and reliability

Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 43: I don't see any reference to "The Andrew Jackson Foundation" which you name as publisher

Changed to "The Hermitage." Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 91: appears identical to 31

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 117: The publisher appears to be "ThoughtCo". I don't know where "About Education" comes from

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 139 and 140: Titles not represented in the source

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 147: What makes this a high quality, reliable source?

Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 149: Link not working

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 153: needs subscription template added

Added journal template. Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 160: A page number is required - the book has 1,928 pages

Removed. Unable to find relevant information in source. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 162: Needs publisher. Not "Books.google" which is merely the online facilitator. Who published the book?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 164: Not working. I get "The Andrew Jackson site has been retired from pbs.org."

Source replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 177: Syrett needs a "p." A publisher is required for "President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832"

Syrett removed. Not needed. Publisher added. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 180: p. range format inconsistency

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 181: Website blocked - "potentially dangerous content"

Not sure what to say here. I tried it and did just fine. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's 174 now. I'm still getting the "website blocked" message, but the archive link now takes me to the source, so perhaps it's some local temporary hitch. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 203: Publisher details missing

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 213: Not working: "404 File not found"

Click on where it says "Archived." Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Now 206: that's not good enough, you should use the working url as your main link. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 218: Not working – repeated timeouts

It works for me. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Now 211: I'm still getting timeouts on the main link, although the archive link works. See my comment re 206. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 219: Who publishes this?

A website is given. That should be enough. They don't all have clear publishers. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know the publisher you shouldn't use the site, as you can't confirm its reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Now 214. At the bottom of the site, the name "Robert S. Summers" appears. Summers is a respected law professor. Also, the only thing that this source is used to cite is cabinet information-names, years, positions, etc. All that information is verified in a host of other sources. But none of them that I've seen sum it all up in one place like this one. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 224: "James" Catron?

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 243: Page reference missing

Added. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 250: Page reference missing

Source replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 253: Why is "Masonic Research identified as publisher? I can't see nay reference to it.

Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 254: The format seems wrong in terms of title and publisher

Can you explain a bit more? Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Now 247: someone has dealt with this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 255: Publisher details missing

Publisher added. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 263: Publisher details missing

Removed per terrible formatting and the fact that another source seemed to take care of the information. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 264: provides insufficient detail

Removed along with text in question. Unable to verify. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 265 and 267: Similar format issues to 254

I can't say I see the problem here either. Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

What was 265 seems to have been removed or replaced. What was 267 is now 257. Author's name is in the wrong format (should be surname first); the title should be "2-cent Green Andrew Jackson", and the publisher should be "National Postal Museum, Smithsonian Institution". "Arago" is the database name, not the publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 268: publisher details should not be abbreviated.

This source has been removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• More generally: there are issues relating to italicization. Some of these appear to arise from the frequent confusion of website name ("work") with the publisher, i.e. the owner of the website. However, before tackling this, I advise you to tackle the lengthy list of specific queries, above. Give me a ping when you think you're through.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I have responded to all of the points you have made. Thank you for your patience. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've indicated inline the few points where there are still issues outstanding. On the italicization issue there still seems to be work required. In general, a publisher should be italicized if the item arises from a print sourse , e.g. the title of a newspaper or journal, but not otherwise. Thus "Northern Ireland Tourist Board", "State Library of North Carolina", "Yale Law School" etc should not be italicized. There are other similar cases that need adjusting. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I've removed italics from those sources as well as some others. Let me know how it looks. If there's still work that needs to be done in this regard, please either let me know or fix it yourself. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've given a great deal of time to this review, and "fix it yourself" strikes me as a little brusque, even rude. It's your responsibility to get your sources right, not mine, and this needs to be done with appropriate care. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Well wow; that was uncalled for. You seem to have taken the position that I was somehow ordering you to make certain edits to the article. Obviously not the case. If you feel like cleaning up pieces of it here and there, you're welcome to. Otherwise, please tell me where improvement is needed so that I can do the work of fixing it and getting this article to FA quality. That's all that I said. By the way, simply saying "Not good enough" in your response above might also be interpreted as brusque or rude. Now, Brianboulton, do the italics look fine, or is more work needed? Thank you for your assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Having spent eight hours – yes, I mean eight hours – on this review, checking every reference at least once, not to mention having to manoeuvre around various ref number changes, etc, I feel somewhat inclined to take umbrage at comments such as "fix it yourself". OK, I accept you didn't mean it to sound ungracious. I'm finished here – as things stand, I'm happy to sign the sources off, and any final tinkering can be done by you after the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

Good to see all the hard work that has gone on here.

Lede:

• I really think that mention of Jackson's leadership of the Democratic Party needs to be mentioned in that very first paragraph. It is of great importance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about that. There are a lot of crucial things that Jackson did which aren't mentioned in the first paragraph or even today. Besides, the Democratic Party of today looks almost nothing like the Democratic Party of the 1820s or 1830s. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Probably a tad too long. It currently stands at 25 lines long (at least in my browser), which is one line longer than FA-rated political biographies of equal (if not greater) importance like Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin. To that end I would recommend trying to get that second paragraph trimmed back a little bit. For instance, we could get rid of material like "(now part of Tennessee)". Other areas of prose could be condensed: "he was appointed a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court, serving from 1798 until 1804" could easily become "he served as a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court from 1798 to 1804". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I cut down on it using a couple of the suggestions you mentioned along with some others. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Born in the Waxhaws, Jackson" - perhaps a tad more on his ethnic background here; "Born in the Waxhaws to Scots-Irish migrants, Jackson"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• "slaveowning" - "slave-owning"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been able to determine if one is more proper than the other. Therefore, I left it alone. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• "winning a major victory at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend" could easily become "winning the Battle of Horseshoe Bend". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• De-link Spain. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Country names are usually left un-linked in articles. It's a sort of convention (although when it was decided I really do not know). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In reaction to the alleged "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Henry Clay and the ambitious agenda of President Adams" feels a bit clunky. How about "Reacting against Adams' alleged "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay,". Shorter and more succinct. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It's shorter because it removes the part about Adams's agenda. If you can find a way to increase brevity without changing content or meaning, that would be excellent. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

But is there much point mentioning Adams' agenda if no further explanation is given at this juncture anyway? We could just refer to Jackson's opposition to Adams without going into any further detail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The end of the lead is to do no more than summarize and at times simply allude to things that are discussed below in greater detail. Details aren't always necessary. Display name 99 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• " thoroughly dismantled the Bank" - perhaps scrap "thoroughly"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it works well. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• "dispossessed the Indians" - probably best to avoid the use of "Indians" in the lede (unless referring to something like the Indian Removal Act) given the disputed nature of the term. "Natives" would do just as well and lacks many of the problems of "Indians". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think they're both fine. I know a guy who met a "Native American." The "Native American" allegedly that people like him should be referred to as "American Indians" because, in his view, anybody born in the U.S. is a "Native American." I don't think it matters. You can't please everybody. Display name 99 (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It's true that it is impossible to please anybody, but it is a huge issue of debate and is unlikely to go away any time soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• "as an advocate for the causes of democracy and the common man" works just as well as "as an advocate for democracy and the common man". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, thank you for taking the time to do this review. I have responded to your comments above. I have not chosen to implement all of the reforms that you have suggested. However, I did manage to cut the lead down in size by a little bit. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, do you think you could please continue with the review? Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. Apologies for the delay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Early life and education:

• "from present day Northern Ireland two years earlier" - I'm wondering if it's better to just say "from northern Ireland" or something like that. Perhaps "British-controlled Ireland"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. Just personal taste. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Waxhaws is linked twice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Whups. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• That third paragraph could really do with further, more specialist citations, ideally from biographical studies of Jackson. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I added one from Remini. I don't want to expand it too much with citations from other sources. That's mainly because it's an obscure question to which we will never surely know the answer that in the grand scheme of things is not all that important. I think we have enough there now. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I definitely think that we will need more specific citation than simply The Washington Post, to be honest. That is an RS, but when sources produced by academic historians are available, we really should be using them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a biographical source to cover part of the information backed in the Post article. But the citation was for Remini 1977, so I'm not sure whether in your opinion that constitutes an improvement. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, checking once more to remind you of this review. Display name 99 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Display name. I don't intend to oppose this article, and admire the considerable amount of good work that has gone into getting it to the stage that it is presently at, although I still have misgivings, particularly with regard to sourcing. Andrew Jackson is a major figure in American political history and large numbers of scholars have written about him, and yet at various points this article relies solely on Remini 1977, or cites press sources rather than academic works. I would really like to see a much denser use of academic sourcing, as for instance can be seen at the Nelson Mandela article. Despite these concerns, I certainly wish you well with the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm doubtful this will change your mind, but I will leave a few comments here anyway, more for the FA coordinators and future reviewers than anyone else. Press sources are used mainly in the Legacy section, which is customary, especially regarding monuments and such. Some articles are used elsewhere, and these typically come from well-established scholars. There is an article from H.W. Brands, a Jackson biographer, that's cited twice, and another from Mark Cheatham, a professional historian, that's also used.

Regarding the perceived partiality towards Remini that exists in the early part of the article, I do not believe it is quite as extreme as the editor indicated. For instance, the entire Dickinson affair is cited to the Brands biography. Remini isn't even included until the 11th citation. Nevertheless, there were some spots in which I realized that I could diversify the citations by including references to other works. Therefore, I did add in some citations to other books about Jackson, namely the ones written by Snelling, Parton (Volume 1), Brands, and Meacham. It is important to remember that Remini's work, being three volumes, is more detailed than the single-volume 21st century biographies written by Brands, Wilentz, and Meacham, and thus can easily be cited more. That's basically all I have to say. This article passed a detailed source review, so hopefully this won't emerge again as a major problem. Display name 99 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I'll be doing a full review, but a couple of initial comments from near the end.

• I'd question the description of Richard Mentor Johnson as unpopular. Possibly among some. "Controversial" might be a better term. "Rumpsey Dumpsey" always had considerable support, especially in the West, and with the Whig candidates in 1840 masquerading as "regular guys", Johnson did fill a need there. Yes he had the biracial mistresses and daughters, but most people didn't know that. They liked him as an Indian fighter and "Colonel Johnson shot Tecumsey".

OK. I changed it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• More could be said about Jackson's role in getting Polk the nomination. It was Jackson who told Polk, after Van Buren's letter opposing the annexation of Texas, that he could be elected president.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I expanded this article's discussion of the 1844 election, including the incident which you just mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in whether you capitalize the "The" in "The Hermitage".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I tried not to capitalize it except at the start of sentences and in citations. I found one instance where I had deviated from this and fixed it. If you see any other cases of the "The" being capitalized aside from the exceptions which I just mentioned, please feel free to fix them. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Andrew and Robert were eventually captured by the British in 1781" I might cut "eventually"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "After a time," I would substitute "Later that year,"

Done.

• "After nursing Andrew back to health, Elizabeth volunteered to nurse prisoners of war on board two ships in the Charleston harbor, where there had been an outbreak of cholera. I might toss an "American" in front of "prisoners" (assuming) and similarly "British" before ships.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "n 1781 he worked for a time in a saddle-maker's shop.[19] ... He taught school and worked for a time as a saddle-maker." Is this a duplicate?

Yes. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I might use pipes to read law and admission to the bar

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "before the petition for divorce was ever made." "even" for "ever"?

I think "ever" works fine. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

""In 1794, Jackson formed a business with fellow lawyer and planter John Overton, overtly buying and selling land which had been reserved by treaty for the Cherokee and Chickasaw.[26] Theirs was a frank avowal; they, like many of their contemporaries, would deal with lands within Indian territory. Most of the transactions involved grants made under the 'land grab' act of 1783 that briefly opened to claim by North Carolinians all of the Indian lands in that state's transmontane west." I might rephrase as"In 1794, Jackson formed a partnership with fellow lawyer John Overton (you haven't mentioned Jackson being a planter yet), dealing in claims for reserved by treaty for the Cherokee and Chickasaw tribes. Like many of their contemporaries, they dealt in such claims although the land was in Indian country. Most of the transactions involved grants made under the 'land grab' act of 1783 that briefly opened Indian lands west of the Appalachians within North Carolina to claim by that state's residents."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I suspect the one-paragraph subsection could be combined with the one following. Possibly "Tennessee politician and land speculator"?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and one of the most powerful men in the state. Jackson became attorney general in 1791," Some clarity is needed. Tennessee wasn't a state yet.

Correct. Changed to "territory." Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "At that time, most men were members of the militia." "white men", surely.

Added "free" in front of "men." Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson had also presented Roane with evidence against Sevier of land fraud. : Possibly end "with evidence of land fraud against Sevier."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "making him among the planter elite." possibly "placing him among the planter elite".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Wilkinson ordered Jackson to halt in Natchez, now part of the Mississippi Territory," possibly "then" for "now"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "February 6 ordering him dismiss his forces" likely a missing word

I did not omit anything. Take away "dated February 6" and you get "sent him a letter ordering." I think it works. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Probably you need a "to" before "dismiss", is what I meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "However, he also promised to, instead of dismissing the troops without provisions in Natchez, march them back to Nashville.[6" I would move the "to" next to "march"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "in a street brawl with Jesse and his brother, Thomas." I'd advise changing "Jesse" to Benton. I'd make a bigger deal out of who his brother was, given THB's prominence later on.

I didn't say anything about this there, but I did add a mention THB when discussing Jackson's return to the Senate. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I see Thomas was his aide-de-camp. I might mention that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt, can you provide a source for this? I just looked in Remini and couldn't find anything about this. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It's in the Benton article, sourced to Meacham's bio of Jackson.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Added. For some reason, I thought you were saying that JB was the aide-to-camp. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• " perpetrated the Fort Mims massacre" I might say what it happened at this point in the paragraph, not several sentences later.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "After arriving in New Orleans on December 1,[80] " been a while since you mentioned the year.

Added year. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• " Their deaths were not revealed until the Coffin Handbills were circulated during his 1828 presidential campaign" I might say "publicized" or "well-known" since obviously the New Orleans authorities knew.

DOne. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Finishing the pre-presidency:

• "who happened to be Speaker of the House," You mention this earlier in the section. I would either cut or tie it up better, for example, "who as Speaker presided over the election"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Some mention of how Jackson conducted the 1824 campaign, even if to say he pretended he wasn't running, would be good.

I expanded significantly on Jackson's 1824 campaign. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Adams's presidency floundered, as his ambitious agenda faced defeat in a new era of mass politics. Critics led by Jackson attacked Adams's policies as a dangerous expansion of Federal power." I think this ignores the fact that many embittered Jackson supporters were basically against anything Adams proposed.

I added an opening sentence to the section on the 1828 election about the general opposition to Adams and how early it began. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "A series of pamphlets known as the Coffin Handbills were published to attack Jackson. One revealed that he had ordered the execution of six soldiers at New Orleans." You do mention this above, and this reads like you hadn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• In your preliminary paragraph on the presidency, it might be worth mentioning that the franchise was considerably expanded among white males in the 1830s.

Most white men could vote by the 1820s. That was what helped Jackson get elected. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Salacious rumors held that Peggy, as a barmaid in her father's tavern," As I understand it, the tavern was more a hotel/boardinghouse, where Sec. Eaton resided at some point, as was usual due to high Washington real estate prices. I might also refer to her here as "Peggy Eaton".

Taverns were boarding houses, but many of them served alcohol. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "it was alleged that she and her husband and engaged in an adulterous affair" I think there's a grammatical error, "and" (second usage) should be "had"

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Same paragraph, some inconsistency in capitalizing "cabinet". It might help the reader if you mentioned that the Eaton affair prevented Jackson calling Cabinet meetings for, as I recall, months.

I have removed instances where I found it capitalized. Do you have a source for the statement about the meetings? Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "be Minister to England" probably better, "Minister to Britain". It might be useful, in mentioning Van Buren's "recovery", to mention his nomination and election as Vice President.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• It might be worth a mention that the Cherokees took the position that they were a nation, not part of the US or Georgia.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• "very hostile white environment in the Old South to Oklahoma probably saved their very existence." I would not use "very" in two different senses in the same sentence. Also, the dashes late in the paragraph don't seem to be the right ones.

I rephrased this and replace the dash, hopefully with the proper one. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson's Postmaster Barry" He was the Postmaster General.

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "the Postal Service" since you are capitalizing, it was at the time the Post Office Department. You use this phrase multiple times.

Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson's tenure in office saw a variety of other reforms as well." This implies that the reform mentioned in the previous paragraph, that is, abolition of the Electoral College, took place.

Rephrased. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Southern planters, who sold their cotton on the world market, strongly opposed this tariff, which they saw as favoring northern interests." The selling of cotton doesn't help explain why they opposed the tariff. There was, after all, no tax on exports.

Added clarifying sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• The Washington Globe I don't believe the "The" is italicized.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "in February 1836, American reparations were paid." This sounds like the Americans were paying. Incidentally, I'm a bit dubious at the idea of "the French people" demanding things of Jackson. Is their government meant or did people get up petitions?

Removed the word "American." The French people were outraged by Jackson's remarks and basically refused to allow their government to pay until Jackson had apologized. Clarified in the text. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson was unsuccessful in opening trade with China and Japan. He was unsuccessful at thwarting Great Britain's presence and power in South America." I don't like the repeat of "was unsuccessful".

Rephrased. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I might expand a bit in explaining the anti-Masonic movement.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would split the paragraph in which you introduce the Second Bank.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson himself made numerous popular public appearances on his return trip from Tennessee to Washington D.C. Jackson won the election decisively by a landslide" I would cut "popular" and "decisively" and add a comma after "Washington".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "the Anti-Masonic Party folded" well, as a presidential player, yes, but it did persist in Pennsylvania for years after that and likely neighboring states as well.

Good point. Replaced with "eventually declined." Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the description of Jackson removing the deposits from the Second Bank, likely the term pet bank should be used and linked at some relevant point.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The result was high demand for specie, which many banks could not meet in exchange for their notes, causing the Panic of 1837" I'm not sure you'll find universal agreement that this was the only cause of the Panic, though undoubtedly it contributed.

Replaced with "contributed to." Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The incident became a part of Jacksonian mythos." I would say for the last two words, "Jackson's legend".

I don't see any improvement here. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Legend is a term more commonly used in this connection, so the reader will understand it more quickly, imho.

I understand your argument, but "mythology" and other similar-sounding words are used regularly, and therefore I doubt the reader will have any ambiguity about what this means. Furthermore, simply saying that we use a word more does not indicate that it is always better. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• "U.S. Postal system" I would lower case the Postal.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "he pocketed Adams' expedition plans. " I'm not sure pocketed, in that sense, is really common in American English.

I don't know if its American or British, but it makes sense. I haven't heard English spoken anywhere outside the U.S. and a couple brief trips to Canada, and I'm still familiar with the phrase. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "One brig ship, USS Porpoise, later used in the expedition; having been laid down, built, and commissioned by Secretary Dickerson in May 1836, circumnavigated the world, explored and mapped the Southern Ocean, confirming the existence of the Antarctica continent.[232]" the semicolon should not be there, as what goes before cannot stand as a sentence. Also, it sounds like Dickerson laid it down, built it, and commissioned it. There should also be an "and" before "explored" in my view.

I have rephrased both parts. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "by money backed by gold and silver" I would simply say "with gold and silver" because that is the only money that would have been accepted.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• You italicize Specie Circular at least once.

I found one instance and removed the italics. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "His next two appointees-Henry Baldwin and James Moore Wayne-disagreed with Jackson on some points but were viewed poorly even by Jackson's enemies." I don't think those are the proper dashes, and "viewed poorly" is not a phrase I'm familiar with in AmEng.

My response is the same as with the pocketing issue. I've hopefully managed to fix the dashes. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Taney served as Chief Justice until 1864, presiding over a court that upheld many of the precedents set by the Marshall Court." Um, maybe so, but I think what should be mentioned here is the Dred Scott decision. It overshadows Taney's Chief Justiceship.

Added a sentence mentioning the decision. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "When a letter from Calhoun to British Ambassador Richard Pakenham linking annexation to slavery was made public, anti-annexation sentiment exploded in the North and the bill failed to be ratified." I think all you need for the purposes of Jackson's article is that the treaty failed to be ratified.

The Calhoun thing is crucial. The Pakenham letter increased anti-annexation sentiment in the north by seeming to make the issue of Texas annexation all about slavery. As a result, Van Buren, a northerner, felt pressured into opposing annexation. Therefore, Jackson could not support him. Some historians actually think the whole thing was a ploy by Calhoun to deny his enemy Van Buren the nomination. If so, it worked. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "moved into" not sure what this is saying.

Changed to "decided to write." Display name 99 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "A bill of annexation was finally signed by Tyler on March 1, 1845, and then ratified.[263]" ratified?

I got the timeline messed up. It was passed in February and signed on March 1. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• You link Andrew Jackson Donelson in consecutive paragraphs*.

I can't find where. I link to him in the second-to-last paragraph of "Later life and death," but can't find where in either of the two adjacent paragraphs I link to him. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• There's some question as to whether Jackson ever made the Clay/Calhoun comment, see here.

I'm not sure the source you cited is reliable. I did expand on this subject by including what Parton (and others) quote Jackson as saying on his deathbed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not certain where the Sellars quote ends. There's no cite after the quotation mark, and the next two sentences sound something like a quote.

I put a cite after the quotation mark. The rest is essentially a summary of Sellars' overall argument. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• On the money, I would cut the "Series" and the years. The design has appeared on more recent series of currency, I see it on a Series 2013 $20.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "criticise" Criticize.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think the legacy section is fairly thin. The de Tocqueville quote is very long and I'm not sure what it says about Jackson's legacy. Beyond that, there's just a handful of quotes. Usually, president articles talk about, among other things, how they are ranked by historians.

Added a summary of what various 20th century writers say about him, and summarized more content from a Brands article already cited. Also, I moved a one-paragraph historiography of Jackson's Indian policies into this section from elsewhere in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1838, Jackson became a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Nashville.[274]" Given that the source I referred you to on Clay/Calhoun says Jackson was converted Presbyterianism by a clergyman, I wonder what was he for the first seventy years of his life?

I added a clarifying sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'm hoping to have all of this responded to by the end of the weekend. In the meantime, here's what I've got. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Should only be a few things left. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you for your thorough review. I've responded to everything. If there are any potential areas of improvement remaining, please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Appears to meet the criteria. Nicely done on an important figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Support I have been a significant contributor here and with other POTUS FA’s and promotion is appropriate. Well done. Hoppyh (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Emir of Wikipedia

https://mcheathem.files. wordpress.com/2013/04/cheathem-aj-slavery-and-historians.pdf (no space) is now on the global blacklist. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, thank you for pointing that out. It looks like somebody just took care of it. Please feel free to share any other comments you may have. Display name 99 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I have skimmed through it and it looks great. Thorough comments have been provided above so I am not going to look for anything else, but I wish you good luck with the article and hope it gets promoted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hello. I'm just wondering about approximately where we stand for getting this article promoted. This article has been under review for over a month and a half, and it's been 12 days since anyone has come here to comment on it. Of those who have posted, I believe I have addressed their concerns fairly. The article passed both image and source reviews, while 3 editors-albeit one a significant contributor-have expressed their support for the article. As far as the one editor who has not, I have addressed in part their concerns regarding the lack of diversity in citations by adding sources to scholarly biographies aside from one in particular, and have also implemented other recommended changes. The rest, I believe, results in honest difference of opinion. That same editor also notably declined to oppose the nomination. Basically, I just want to know where things stand. Thanks for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm only seeing two supports for this article, so we would need at least one more support before we begin to think about promotion. Sarastro (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro1, I interpreted Emir of Wikipedia's response as being in support, even though that wasn't explicitly stated. I'm guessing you didn't. Anyway, I'll wait to see if anybody else comes along to do another review. Display name 99 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Support I've followed this article for the last year or so and have read a couple books on Jackson. I made suggestions for improvement prior to the FA nomination and those suggestions have been responded to. This article meets all of the Featured Article criteria and I believe it deserves to be promoted. Nice job Display name 99. Orser67 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

G'day i hope this page will get its promotion however i found some issues.

• How much is 23 million acres in hectares like 1,050 acres (425 ha), 640-acre (259 ha) and 360 acres (146 ha).

Added. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would remove the blank "In March 1815, after U. S" in the Enforced martial law in New Orleans section.

Done. Typo. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Please change "British soldiers into the Floridas" to "British soldiers into the Florida's" and "the Floridas would be desirable" to "the Florida's would be desirable".

There used to be both an East and West Florida, which is why it is plural, not possessive. I added a clarifying remark elsewhere in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can you put how much 40 miles is in km's.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• see a British Vice-President not an American Vice President. "I have heretofore recommended amendments of the Federal Constitution giving the election of President and Vice-President to the people and limiting the service of the former to a single term."

That's the why it's given in the speech, so I see no reason to change it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Japan out this line 'cause Japan was isolated until the year 1853 so after his dead. "Jackson failed in his efforts to open trade with China and Japan."

The fact that it remained isolated shows that Jackson failed. Various western nations had tried to open trade with China, but nobody succeeded until the United States in 1853. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That was everything what i could found CPA-5 (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

CPA-5, your comments have been addressed. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Thanks, all my concerns have been addressed. I think the page finally meets the FA criteria, good job. CPA-5 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

• Wilentz 2005, pp. 49. P/PP error? pp. 49.;

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Inconsistent use of Location (56 with; 9 without);

I think I've dealt with most of these. There are still about 2 or 3 remaining. I'll deal with those shortly. Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This is finished. Display name 99 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Lewis, J. D. NC Patriots 1775–1783: Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date;

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• 15 sources Missing OCLC or similar, including
  • Adams, Henry (1879). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;

The version used was the original. Therefore, I got rid of the ISBN. What does the term "OCLC" mean and how do I add it? Display name 99 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Bogart, Ernest Ludlow (1907). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;

Same as above. Display name 99 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Remini, Robert (1969). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;

Same as above. Display name 99 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• See Category:CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown for the following 3:
  • Prucha, Francis Paul (1969). CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown

I clicked on the URL. It worked fine. Not sure what the problem is. Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "USS Porpoise (1836-1854)". CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown

It would have been helpful had you included ref numbers. Like I said, I clicked on the hyperlink and did just fine. What's the problem? Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "Historical Debt Outstanding – CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Same here. Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi, please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've been looking at this for just over an hour now and I am feeling a little uneasy. I still see many issues in the references, eg, Latner.. you said 7th ed. but as far as I can see there were only 3. And how is Latner a specialized study instead of a bio? What were your criteria for putting books in either section? You list several sources that are very old. I didn't always click the links: did you find full text for all of them online? Your further reading section is somewhat large. What were your criteria for inclusion? Why are several missing isbn's, did you look closely at the sources? I'll copy/paste a list of issues tomorrow, but I'm getting sleepy now... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Biographies" section includes works that are actual biographies of Jackson. "Specialized studies" includes texts which aren't meant to be biographies of him but are nonetheless sourced. These books are available in part online. Click on the blue links and you'll find them. As for the "Further Reading" section, all those things were already listed by the time I started editing the article. The purpose seems to have been to list every major biography of Jackson, as well as every other major book or journal article that was relevant to him but not cited in the article. That's generally what a "Further Reading" section is for. Jackson is an important figure. So yes, his section is large. I think the standard for the Further Reading section is less than the official Bibliography. However, I'll go through and see what information can be added. Display name 99 (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi, you promised to post a detailed list of remaining problems a few days ago. I understand this may have changed due to the clearing of the Further reading section, but do you have any more comments? Display name 99 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Kendall, Amos (1843). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Latner, Richard B. (2002). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Parton, James (1860a). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Parton, James (1860b). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Snelling, William Joseph (1831). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Adams, Henry (1879). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Byrne, James Patrick; Coleman, Philip; King, Jason Francis (2008). Missing ISBN;
• Gannett, Henry (1905). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Howe, Daniel Walker (2007). Missing ISBN;
• Jackson, Elmer Martin (1985). Missing ISBN;
• Martin, François-Xavier (1829). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Nevins, Allan; Commanger, Henry Steele; Morris, Jeffrey (1992) [1941]. Missing ISBN;
• Ogg, Frederic Austin (1919). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• Zinn, Howard (1980). Missing ISBN;
• Curtis, James C. (1976). Missing ISBN;
• Jackson, Andrew (1926). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi, I have added ISBNs to all of the remaining sources. Jackson (1985) didn't seem to have one, so I added an ISBN. I already mentioned that I don't know what an OCLC is or how I can find it. That's still true. What is an OCLC or an LCCN? Where can I find them? Why are they important? Display name 99 (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We have this new thing called "Wikipedia" which can be used to answer questions like "What is an OCLC number?" [Let me help you get started: look at OCLC#Identifiers and linked data]... To find an OCLC, go to [4] and use the "Find items in libraries near you" search. From the results, click the link for the item you're interested in. The output of that search also includes OCLC Number, a little bit down the page.

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

• First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
• On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
• Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link;. Archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi, we also have this thing called reading. It's been around a lot longer than Wikipedia. Basically, when I post something, as I did, saying that I don't know what something is OR how I can locate it, you can look at it and respond in writing instead of simply moving on to the next thing and pretending like I didn't say it.

Anyway, using Word Cat, I was able to add OCLCs to all the sources that needed them. I already have a software system installed on my account that allows me to check for Harvard errors. I'm not sure how different it is from any of the stuff that you've suggested. If a citation doesn't link to anything, the error comes up in bright red. If in the Bibliograhy there is a Harvard ref with no citation, a message appears in sort of a dirty orange or brown color. Considering the fact that I already have these, I'm not sure what else I would need or why. That being said, are there any other problems with the article that would cause you not to support its promotion? Thank you for your review and assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(←) Yes, I have been skipping around too much. I apologize. It's not just on your article; I've been doing that to all of them. And thank you for getting some OCLC's etc. As for Opposing or Supporting, I'm trying to avoid doing either one these days, except in exceptional cases (which is why they are exceptions). As for why you would want the other script(s), well, my script is the one that has pointed out all of the issues I've been listing, such as (still extant ones):

• Latner, Richard B. (2002). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Gannett, Henry (1905). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• Martin, François-Xavier (1829). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;

...and speaking of Martin (above), I found more than one instance of its full text on the internet. You could link to this in the reference, possibly even linking to the specific page in question. I also found OCLC nums but there's more than one (e.g., 844795136 or 1007640291 or ...?) and I don't wanna expend any of my precious few remaining brain cells figuring out which is correct. That's for you to do. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• OH PS It seems you have 4 references without html anchors ("ref=")...let's see, maybe Eaton, Clement (1942); The Correspondence of Andrew Jackson. 5; The Correspondence of Andrew Jackson (right below the other one); Richardson, James D., ed. (1897).

Lingzhi, I'm sorry for missing a couple OCLCs. I took care of the ones you mentioned. I add page numbers for Latner and added an anchor for Eaton. A couple of the books to have multiple OCLCs. It seems that the different editions of the book have different numbers. I worked on trying to find the OCLC for the same publication year as that used in the article.

The sources under "Primary sources" do not have an anchor because there are no Harvard citations to link to them. These Primary sources are important, forming much of the basis for the major secondary sources upon which this article most heavily relies. Therefore, I think it's important to list them not just in the separate Bibliography article but here as well. I am content to leave them as they are. Display name 99 (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• You don't need to apologize. There's a lotta information in there... I'll look again tomorrow, if I can. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Alanscottwalker

• Very fine article and great work, but . . .
• I left a comment on the talk page awhile ago, but it has not been addressed. The lead sentence "He vehemently opposed the rising trend of abolitionism." Is problematic in a number of ways: 1) It is out of place or out of context -- it's in a section discussing foreign policy. 2) It has no context as to what this suddenly important "abolitionism" issue is, so important it is "vehemently opposed". 3) It goes rather far afield introducing a political science type of asserted "trend", which is not discussed in the article. 4) As above, it just hangs there like some afterthought in the lead (oh, we have to get something in about this but we are unable to contextualize it for the reader.) Suggest moving it up, introducing something like, "Himself a slave holder, . . ." drop trend, which is unneeded, consider dropping "vehement". Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been checking that talk page lately. The paragraph discusses a number of things about Jackson's presidency; foreign policy is only one of them. An editor also just added a sentence afterward about Jackson surviving the first assassination attempt on a U.S. president, which helps even more. I changed the sentence to this: "He opposed the abolitionist movement, which grew stronger in his second term." It only adds a little more context, but I'm also trying to keep the lead from getting too long. Slavery was not so vital an issue in Jackson's presidency as spoils, nullification, the Bank War, or Indian Removal, and so there's no need to get into specifics in the lead. However, I do think that we should at least mention it. The statement also gets rid of two words that you had problems with: "vehemently" and "trend." Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but actually, it seems worse now. Now, it reads as if abolitionism is cause for the assassination attempt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I changed the order of the two sentences. Does that fix it? Display name 99 (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

To me, no: "In January 1835, he survived the first assassination attempt on a president. Jackson opposed the abolitionist movement, which grew stronger in his second term." still seems to link the two. I won't belabor it more, but for reasons previously stated: 1) move the abolition sentence after the Indian removal discussion and briefly work in link Slavery in the United States | "slave-holder" or "slavery" or "slave" or . . .]] something like that for context. 3) Think about adding something like 'disappointed office seeker' to the assassination sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I moved the sentence to after the discussion of Indian affairs, as you suggested. I didn't add what you mentioned to describe the assassination because 1) the man was not a disappointed office seeker and 2) We don't need any more detail in the lead. The second reason is also why I'm not going to discuss slavery anymore. Display name 99 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was not suggesting you use just disappointed office seeker, I suggested you actually and briefly give the reader the information the sentence naturally raises, something like, 'lunatic', etc, etc. (As a side note, at some point you may wish to rearrange/rework just a bit the info in the assassination section because it begins with a job-firing for corruption, but is it the case that that firing actually has nothing to do with the assassination, you should look into making that a bit clearer). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• As for Bibliography, suggest creation Bibliography of Andrew Jackson (see Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant) and move/copy everything to the the biblio article. Only retain on the biography article page the things cited, with a further reading link to the biblio article. Change section header to "Works cited". Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"Bibliography" is an appropriate and widely used section header, so I don't plan on changing that. As for the rest, I think it may be a good idea, but I prefer a second opinion. Lingzhi, since you had voiced some concern over what was in the "Further reading" section, what are your thoughts on this suggestion? Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment of the article and your comments. Please see my work above. Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Very good idea, and even changing the name away from Bibliography makes sense, but only because you are creating a link to a separate Bibliography on a separate page. Having two such words on the same page does seem a bit confusing, even tho one is only a link. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have created the separate article. I still need to do some work in organizing it (hopefully sooner rather than later), but the Jackson article looks much better now. I'm still not convinced by the Bibliography/Works cited argument. I use the word Bibliography as a section title in every article that I edit, so maybe it's just me being rigid. Hopefully we can let that go. Alanscottwalker, I think that's everything. Display name 99 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Support - Meets criteria (future improvements always possible) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator

comments: Sorry to prolong this a little longer. We're just about ready to go, but I notice that we are not consistent on alt text; there are a couple of images that don't have it, the others do. Also, the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Some could be justified in an article of this length, but perhaps not all. Finally, there are currently 27 instances of "however"; (See WP:HOWEVER) while they are not expressly forbidden, they are often best avoided and I think 27 is perhaps overkill. After this, I think we are ready to go. Sarastro (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro1, thank you for calling my attention to these things. I added alt text to the remaining images. I couldn't figure out how to use that tool to find duplinks, but I removed a few of them. I got rid of about 10 instances of "however," which in my opinion should be enough. Display name 99 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced by the duplinks, as we seem to have a lot. And we still have 17 instances of however. I consider that to be overkill, and I'm not particularly hard line on the use of the word. I'd really like this clearing up a little before we promote; FAs aren't supposed to be perfect, by any means, but these are things that will get picked up when it goes on the main page. Sarastro (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro1, I removed 5 duplicate links and 6 instances of however. Display name 99 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I got it down to 4 "however"s. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I shall be promoting this shortly. It is a very long article, and on quite a high profile figure. There are probably still little issues that might be worked on, but I think this has had a long and thorough review. There is no need to hold it up any longer. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2018 [5].

---

Neferirkare Kakai

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Neferirkare Kakai, an Egyptian pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the 25th century BC. Neferirkare's reign lasted around a decade and he left his pyramid unfinished. Neferirkare is unusual as one of the very few pharaohs explicitely depicted as a benevolent ruler by his contemporaries. Read the article to see what he did to save his courtier from facing immediate death and how he reacted when his vizier had a stroke! This tabloid material is provided to you with a 4500 years delay.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Borchardt_Sahure_17.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Borchardt_Sahure_32.jpg, File:Borchardt_Sahure_34.jpg, File:Borchardt_Sahure_33.jpg, File:Borchardt_Sahure_47.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk (support)

• I'll review this soon, first thing I noticed is that some of the image captions don't really explain what is shown. For example the images of Neferefre and Ptahshepses, the images are here to represent these individuals, but it would be nice to present the objects in the same way as the other captions do. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if the king list image might fit better in the otherwise empty sources section, where it is also mentioned? Now it is kind of cluttered with the ritual vase.

Done You are right, done! Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "dating to the reign Ramses II" Reign of?

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• You only identify some writers as egyptologists, would be good to introduce the all.

FunkMonk I have added the required description to Ogden Goelet, Mark Lehner and Herbert Ricke, let me know if I have missed more. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The first one noticed is Miroslav Verner, who still isn't presented at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "As of 2018", twice. The source used is from 2008, so though I know what you mean, the wording seems slightly inappropriate. You don't have to be that specific, something like "as of the early 21ist century" would be enough, otherwise you'd have to update the sentence every year henceforward...

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "no pieces of the sarcophagus of the king had survived" Why past tense?

Done changed to "have survived". Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "and sotre-rooms" Store?

Done it is a type and should read "store-rooms". Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• In the intro you write "Ranefer (A/B)", whereas you just say "Ranefer A/B" in the article body

Done I removed the parentheses. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• You mention an "unexpected early death" in various section, but there is no elaboration on the circumstances, or why it is considered unexpected.

Done the death in question is that of Neferefre, which is detailed in his article. Here I have simply explained with "who passed away in his early twenties after two years on the throne".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "circa 120 years earlier" Only explicitly stated in intro.

Done this is now also in the article body. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• The changes look good, the last issue is that Palermo stone should be linked at first occurrence, whereas it is now linked at the third.

Done Well spotted ! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - everything nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Mr rnddude

Here are my findings: Yes. All of them.

• Alright, in the Sources and Citations sections you variously use endashes (–) and emdashes (—) to cite multiple pages. For example: "Goelet, Ogden (1999). ... pp. 85–87. ISBN 978-0-203-98283-9." versus "Krejčí, Jaromír; Kytnarová, Katarína Arias; Odler, Martin (2015). ... pp. 28—42." It's a minor issue, but, it's a bit distracting. (You also did this with Neferefre, I just didn't notice it at the time). Otherwise the sources are very nicely presented.

Done Wow I had not noticed until now. I used to use endashes and switched to emdashes at some point. Anyway, fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "This also underscores the dependent position of the king with respect to the Ra" - The Ra? wouldn't it just be with respect to Ra. Ra is referring to Ra (god), yes? You wouldn't, for example, say "the Jesus" or "the Zeus". There's only one as it is. Though, conversely, "the sun god" in the next sentence is fine.

Done This is a remnant of an earlier sentence. I remember hesitating between "the sun god Ra" and "Ra". I finally opted for the latter to avoid a repetition, but must have forgotten to remove the "the".Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "... "hall of the "Sed festival"." - Eh, I think it should be "hall of the 'Sed festival'" since there's a quote within the quote. Though I am not 100% sure on proper punctuation here.

Done ok why not. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Another inscription in Aramaic and dating to the Fifth century BCE reads "Mannukinaan son of Sewa"." - Minor point, but, the second inscription was found on a limestone block. When you read the sentence within the paragraph it may give the impression that it was found on another gravestone.

Note sure wasn't the second inscription on a different block than the first ? Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it was. The first inscription was found on a gravestone, the second on a limestone block in the mortuary temple. I was merely pointing to the difference in what it was found on i.e. gravestone vs limestone block. My concern was that a reader may interpret it to mean that the second inscription was found on a different gravestone, when it wasn't found on a gravestone at all. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Done I see, I have clarified by specifying that it was on a limestone block.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "... an University of Prague ..." - This is one of those annoying exceptions. While you normally put "an" in front of words starting with a vowel, you should actually put "a" in front of University. This is because of the way it's sounded out "yew-ni-ver-sity". It's a phonetic j. Here's a link if you'd like to confirm. Try sounding it out as well, that sometimes helps.

Done yes! I should have known. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "... was located on its the north side." - Either the "its" or the "the" needs to go [read: needs Tah go]. Preferably drop the "the".

Done what the hell another typo. Apologies, I should have double read more carefully.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "There, a descending corridor with a gable roof made of limestone beams led into a burial chamber, but no pieces of the sarcophagus of the king have survived." - This is a non sequitur. That is, fact A (the lack of a sarcophagus in the burial chamber) does not [logically] follow from fact B (there being a descending corridor leading to the burial chamber). I think what you wanted was to mention that the gable roof of the burial chamber collapsed and that no evidence of the sarcophagus was found under the rubble. Though I can't be sure.

Fixed, the source does not say why no pieces of sarcophagus have been found. Thus I really only wanted to mention two facts: the gable roof and the lack of sarcophagus (which contrasts with most other pyramids of the 5th Dynasty, where at least pieces of the sarcophagus have been found). I have split this into 2 sentences. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "... has pointed out, that such statues ..." - What's the comma there for?

Done I don't know either.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "... record their biographies onto the walls of their tombs." - This one's entirely optional, but, if you want to avoid repeating "their" twice in the same sentence you can change "their biographies" to autobiographies.

Done nice.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "... at least another ..." - at least one other

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "... by the presence of a small pyramid besides that of Khentkaus ..." - Any clue on this second pyramid's location? or do you mean beside as in next to?

Done I meant "next to". Dodson & Hilton don't say much more on this, and I must say that I am a bit curious. Could they have gotten a cult pyramid wrong?Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I actually meant for you to drop the "s" from besides as besides means "aside from", whereas beside means "next to". It's fine either way though. My first thought was the cult pyramid as well, it wouldn't surprise me if it was mis-identification. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "... column-19th row, unfortunately ..." - The comma should be a semi-colon.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The Byzantine scholar George Syncellus reports that Africanus relates that the Aegyptiaca mentioned the succession..." - So a guy, heard from some other guy, who once read in a book, written by yet another guy ...? Sorry I couldn't resist.

Aha! yes it is this weird. But I like how it traces the history of passing down some knowledge from the Ancient Greeks to us, through Roman and Byzantine scholars.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is quite cool. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The eldest son of Sahure with his consort Meretnebty known as Ranefer A before his accession to the throne, he succeeded his father the day following his death and reigned for eight to eleven years, sometime in the early to mid 25th century BCE." - The first comma should be a period, and the following word capitalized. A concrete example of a run-on sentence.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with the article. Only a few minor nitpicks to deal with. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Thank you for both of your reviews on this!Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem Iry-Hor. Thanks for going through the nitpicks, I'm happy to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Whast does "pl" (in refs 1, 104 and 158) signify? If it's "plate", you spell this out in ref 47, and should do so elsewhere to be be consistent.

Done Yes it means plate. I have corrected throughout. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• There several instances where "p." should be "pp.": 36, 108, 127, 128, 135, 142, 156 and possibly others

Done corrected, I have checked all references and changed a number of them as required. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• For most page ranges you are using mdashes – these should be changed to ndashes

Done ARRR! I have changed all recently to mdashes, now reverted.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• In the sources there appears to be inconsistency over the inclusion of publisher locations. I haven't checked throughout, but Altenmuller 2001, Baker and Clayton are all examples and there are probably more. Please check through.

Done all references checked and corrected accordingly.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Other than in these minor matters, sources are in good order and appear to be of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton All done! Thanks for your input.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

All well now. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

So this is now 2 Supports and completed source and image reviews. Brianboulton could you possibly indicate whether you support or oppose the nomination ? Iry-Hor (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

When I'm only concerned with checking sources, I don't register either supports or opposes. Be patient and I'm sure further supports will come. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Just a few small drafting points:

• Lead
  • To avoid the (theoretical) ambiguity about whose death "his death" was, I might recast this on the lines of "known as Ranefer A before he came to the throne. He acceded the day after his father's death..."

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "and the ephemeral rule of the poorly known Shepseskare" – "ephemeral" seems a bit strong. "Brief" might be safer.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "after a mishap or a stroke" – careful with "stroke". Readers may think you mean a cerebrovascular accident. I think you could safely end the sentence with "mishap".

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Historical sources
  • "is in good agreement " – I'd remove "good": "is in agreement" would be more usual English phrasing.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Parents and siblings
  • "foretells Khufu" – I don't think you can foretell someone something. I'd make this "prophesies to Khufu".

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "who passed away in his early twenties" – we do not use genteel euphemisms: he didn't pass away, pass over, or pass out: he died.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Consort and children
  • "heightened status" – heightened doesn't feel quite right. Perhaps "enhanced"

Done enhanced is definitely better.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "likely younger" – if, as appears, the article is in BrE, I'd avoid this AmE phrasing, and go instead for "probably younger".

Done so is "likely" only AmE ? I am really curious about this, it is true that I heard it far more when in the US than in the UK but I had no idea it was really an American wording.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

When "likely" is used as an adjective rather than, as here, an adverb it is as normal in BrE as in AmE. It's only in the particular adverbial construction "xxx, likely yyy" that it is AmE where BrE would have "xxx, probably yyy". There's nothing logical about this: it's just a matter of usage. In the first paragraph of the lead you have "He was himself very likely succeeded", and for no reason that I can find, the addition of "very" makes this perfectly normal BrE whereas "He was himself likely succeeded" wouldn't be. Nobody ever accused English of being a logical language. Tim riley talk 10:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Duration
  • "but this now considered an overestimation with regards to the archaeological evidences" – this goes off the rails grammatically (no main verb) and is in any case a bit woolly. Perhaps something like "but the archaeological evidence now suggests that this is an overestimate."

Done a remnant from the previous version.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "further vindicated" – a bit combative in tone: I wonder if "substantiated" or "corroborated" might be better.

Done ah I really like more diverse vocabulary. Thank you, I will keep these two in mind for future articles as well! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "20-years long reign" – I'd make this "20-year-long reign"

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Administration
  • "had been excavated" – not sure why the pluperfect; I think the plain past tense, "was excavated", is wanted here.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "wide entrance columned porticoes and, family" – I wasn't quite sure of the exact meaning here. Are they wide entrance porticoes with columns? And the comma between "and" and "family" seems superfluous.

Done changed in a recent review. Changed back. They are indeed entrance porticoes with columns.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "onto the walls" – I'd make this just "on the walls"

Done again changed in a recent review. Changed back.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Modification of the royal titulary
  • "Indeed, he was the earliest" – this is the fourth "indeed", and one begins to notice it. I'd blitz at least a couple of them: the prose will read clearly enough without them.

Done. Indeed, I can now see that there are too many of them in this article.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Trade and military activities
  • "Smith has pointed out" – I'd be cautious about "pointed out", which rather suggests an endorsement of what he is saying. I recommend something more neutral, such as "commented".

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Personality
  • "You may well find some stickler for the Manual of Style objecting to your decorative quotation marks, which are, for some unfathomable reason, not supposed to be used in the main text. They look fine to me, and I'd leave them there and hope for the best if I were you, but don't be surprised if someone gets shirty.

Ok I will keep them for the time being but should a storm arise, I will remove them faster than the time it takes to say crunchy carrots. (I heard this idiomatic expression recently, but it was from a farmer in a farm context, so I am not sure I can use it everywhere).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Second paragraph: I'm not sure of your rationale for capitalising job titles: "king" doesn't get a capital but "Vizier" does. Seems a bit odd. I didn't spot this inconsistency elsewhere in the article, but it might worth your while checking.

Done this is a mistake dating back to the earlier version of the article. Corrected!Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. The above quibbling is too minor to prevent my adding my support. Excellent stuff. – Tim riley talk 18:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Tim riley Thank you once more for your precious review.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: There are a few duplinks, some of which may well be justified. I'd be grateful if someone could check these after promotion. This tool will highlight any duplication. Sarastro (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2018 [6].

---

South China Sea raid

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The South China Sea raid was among the most successful aircraft carrier operations of World War II. In mid January 1945 the US Navy's main strike force, the Third Fleet, ran riot in the sea. While its primary target was two Japanese battleships wrongly believed to be in the area, the Third Fleet's carriers conducted a series of devastating attacks on Japanese convoys, ports and airfields. The Americans didn't have it all their own way though, as a raid on Hong Kong ended in failure and the US Government had to pay reparations to Portugal for attacking Macau. The end result though was a significant American victory.

Despite the importance of this operation, we didn't have an article on it until I started it in December 2016. The article was assessed as GA class in February 2017, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in October. I have since expanded the article, including by drawing on sources I spotted during a recent trip to Hong Kong, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this nomination and comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

Should these be archived:

1. "Remains of US airmen killed..."
2. Craven, Wesley... The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki
3. Spector, Ronald... Advice and Support Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what the policy is, but the second two are references to hard copy books published online at highly stable URLs so I'd rather not. The links are all OK at present. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Sorry, just a quick note at this stage (will try to come back later, it is late here):

• "File:1945-01-15JapWW2BattlefrontAtlas.jpg": I wonder if the caption should clarify what the red area indicates? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've just made this change. Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• "meeting at Ulithi": perhaps clarify where this is here? For instance, maybe this might work "meeting at Ulithi, in the Caroline Islands"?
  • Done (I tend to forget that the totally obscure islands and inlets used as fleet bases during the war aren't common knowledge to normal people!) Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• some of this probably could be tightened: "was reduced to a strength of six..." --> "was reduced to six..."
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• "authorised" --> "authorized" (three instances)
  • oops: fixed
• "launched at 7.32 am", per MOS:TIME the full stop should probably be a colon
  • One day I'm going to nominate an article for FAC which is actually consistent with MOS:NUM. Not this time though! Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• in the Citations, # 9 "Dommen" should have an endash
  • Well spotted! Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• in the Works consulted section, is there an ISSN that could be added for the Bailey ref?
  • It doesn't seem to have an ISSN, but I've added a stable jstor link as the next best thing. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• in the Works consulted section, "Allied Intelligence and Indochina, 1943-1945": probably should have an endash
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• in the Further reading section, the CNO source probably needs a location of publication and an OCLC number (if possible)
  • I've added the location. It's in Worldcat, but it seems to be taking the day off so I can't see the OCLC. I'll add it when Worldcat is up and running again. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • No worries, Nick, thanks for your efforts. I reviewed this at MILHIST ACR and having reviewed the changes since then, am happy to support it for FA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the strategic situation map. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the review Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot Dank Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Except for one minor format point which I fixed myself, all sources are in regular order and look to be of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Brian Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this at A class, and believe that it meets our FAC standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Interesting article and one that, from a prose point of view, meets the FAC criteria. One query: this seems to be about a US action, but the date is in a non-US format. Is there a reason for that? (I don't press the matter either way, and leave the choice to your discretion). As I'm not an expert in this area, I'll leave a caveat to my support to cover my ignorance on subject matter. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oops, fixed. Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

    What are you doing Nick? You now have a mix of US military format (DDMMYY) and civilian format (MMDDYY). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

    I was messing about with a date format I'm unfamiliar with, forgetting that US military format is a thing and I used it quite successfully in the Battle of Morotai, Air raids on Japan, Operation Kita and probably other successful US military-focused FACs! I've reverted myself. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, and have looked over the changes since October. The only thing I have a query about is the lack of coordination between 14th AF and the fleet. Can anything be said about the disconnect? Was it conscious, ie were they putting their main effort into different things, or was it just a case of left-hand/right-hand? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The source doesn't say why, unfortunately. The official USAAF history covers the topic slightly, noting that the pre-invasion planning the 14th Air Force participated in specified that the Third Fleet would remain to the north of Luzon. As I understand it, the security arrangements for US units located in China was considered unsatisfactory, so that might explain why the 14th Air Force wasn't briefed. Inter service rivalry and communications problems also wouldn't have helped. I've added a bit more material placing this in context. Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2018 [7].

---

Pioneer Helmet

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The boar-crested Pioneer helmet was made for battle. Utilitarian in design, it was discovered along with a pattern welded sword in the Anglo-Saxon grave of a man of about 25. Yet as plain as it is—compare it with the Coppergate helmet, which is almost identical in its underlying structure but much richer—it is both rare and significant. The helmet’s 1997 discovery marked only the fourth time an Anglo-Saxon helmet had been unearthed, and the boar atop its crest evokes the world of the epic Beowulf, a tale that lies in the ephemeral haze between fiction and reality.

This article is concise and complete. It covers the helmet from its discovery through its conservation and display, and contextualizes it with a discussion of its typology, and the boar’s iconography. All the known literature is covered: sometimes provided, kindly, by those who excavated and conserved the helmet. Twenty years after the helmet’s discovery, this article is ready for FAC. Usernameunique (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your edits and support, Dank—good points all around. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

Support, I came to make the usual list, but found only three so minor points that I don't care if you follow or not:

• Thanks very much for reading through this and for your support, Gerda Arendt. Comments below. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• In the caption for the Coppergate, I'd do without "exceptionally".

• It says "extremely", not "exceptionally. Do you still suggest changing?

Sorry, I should not have written from memory ;) - yes, same, why not just "is similar"? For me, an image caption should be as much to the point as possible, but it's a matter of taste. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Done.

• "ritual killing" is normally identified with human sacrifice, but obviously means something else here.

• It's also associated with objects, such as swords, which were bent to make them unusable prior to deposition. Here are some examples (haven't read the blog post, so no idea if its correct/reliable or not, but it has lots of good pictures). At a guess, it may have been a combination of ritual—the sword rendered dead with its owner—and practicality: don't go looting this grave, guys, its contents are worthless. I'll do some research on this and try to add a line explaining it.

• Gerda Arendt, just letting you know that I've found a good overview article on the subject by Leslie Grinsell, and have added an explanatory line to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• The image in the Beowulf section is in the way of displaying the poem exactly line by line. Could it be moved? That's all. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• It looks fine on my screen; there are a few inches of white space between the English translation and the picture. On yours, does it push against the English translation, taking what should be one line, and making it display as two, or do something else?

On a wide screen, all seems fine, until you notice that in English, we have one line more. Can you try to match them exactly? Try to move your right side in and see what happens. I'd write more introduction, to make it fit with the it, or move it up, or make it smaller. But again, just my taste.

That's a byproduct of Heaney's translation—he gained a line here (Heaney line 1 is only half of Beowulf line 1), and then lost it somewhere later on.

• Another point: perhaps note somewhere on the talk that parts (like the Beowulf) are "copied", even if it's your own. Doesn't hurt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Copied", as in from another article (here, Guilden Morden boar)? I think I can put that on the talk page. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Any chance of a less shadowed main image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, the best way would probably be if someone in Leeds could take another picture. The Royal Armouries sent over a few beautiful and massive photos, but is unwilling to license them in any way. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

• Two quotes lacking citations in the lead fill me with panic, but maybe that's my problem.
  • Good point. Cited the Beowulf quotation. The other ("crested helmet") is more a term of art than a quoted phrase, so I've left it without a citation.
• I find the use of the past tense in the description section is a little jarring; has anyone else picked up on this?
  • It's used in the sense of how the helmet was made; particularly since half the helmet is now missing, present tense does not work for parts. Not opposed to reworking what can be reworked into present tense, however.
• ".15 m (0.49 ft)" False precision. 0.5 ft! (Also, would "15 cm" be more natural?)
  • Done and done. The source says "0.15m", but since that's exactly 15cm, which sounds more natural, I've made the change.
• "marks the grave as one of high social status" A high social status grave? Surely it marks it as a grave of a person with high social status?
  • But only the coolest graves can get into The Sepulchre on Friday nights... Changed to "marks the grave as one for a person of high social status."
• I suspect I know the answer, but do we have any pictures of the other artefacts found around the helmet? They'd be a great addition to the article.
  • Good thought. There are some photographs of the sword and hanging bowl, although none with an appropriate license. I'll email a few of the organizations with them and ask.
• "the adhesive HMG" Wikilinks and/or spelling this out would definitely be useful, I feel
  • It's a brandname for an adhesive (source), standing for H Marcel Guest LTD. I could change to "the cellulose nitrate based adhesive HMG," or turn HMG adhesive into a brief stub (or both).
  • Update: changed to "These fragments were reassembled using the cellulose nitrate adhesive HMG;" HMG links to the new article HMG Heat and Waterproof Adhesive. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• "the surviving cheek guard was reassembled from eighteen fragments alone" If I am understanding your meaning correctly, would "the surviving cheek guard, alone, was reassembled from eighteen fragments" be a little clearer?
  • Done.
• "gapfilled and inpainted, and in the last step, the boar was affixed to the apex using epoxy" Jargon
  • Changed to "were then filled in and painted". Linked epoxy, which is a type of glue, and I think broadly recognizable.
• "The helmet was unveiled to the public on 23 December 1997." Where? In what way?
  • Changed to "The helmet was placed on public display". I believe there was a press conference beforehand, but I don't know most of the details (including whether the helmet was actually displayed there).
• What sort of company is Pioneer Aggregates UK Ltd?
  • It made construction aggregate. I thought the line "Excavations in the area had taken place for years on behalf of various aggregate companies before the land was exploited for gravel" took care of it, do you think I should add something specific to Pioneer Aggregates?
• "Currently it is on display at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, West Yorkshire." I think Currently will quickly go out of date. Also, ref?
  • This would perhaps work for the ref, but it makes it sound as if it is a temporary exhibition. My understanding is that the helmet is on long term loan, and the Armouries indicated in an email last month that "the helmet is on display in our war gallery here in Leeds." The Armouries does not have a page about the helmet or associated grave goods, however, which is probably precisely because it is a loan item.
• "and lamellenhelm (de)" I know others have complained about the use of this template in FA candidates, and I agree that it is a construction that seems to exist nowhere other than Wikipedia. Perhaps I could suggest (going against my usual support for redlinks) that you create a quick stub on the English Wikipedia for this style?
  • Will do. Done.
• "Gaulish" Link?
  • Linked to Gauls.
• "The boar nonetheless persisted in Germanic tradition during the nearly 400 years of Roman rule in Britain," Maybe this is my mistake, but I initially misread this to mean that Germanic peoples in Britain kept a boar tradition alive during Roman rule, when (I now take it?) you mean that there was a continental tradition that persisted on the continent while the Romans were in Britain. Perhaps this could be tweaked slightly? Or maybe this is my problem.
  • Changed to "The boar nonetheless persisted in continental Germanic tradition..."

I really enjoyed this article; I think the topic's great, and what could be better than finishing with an extract of Beowulf and the observation that literary analysis and archaeology can be mutually enlightening? Two closing thoughts: 1) Please check my edits. 2) Midnightblueowl may be able to offer some valuable insight, as she has brought topics related to English archaeology and the Anglo Saxons to FA status before. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, J Milburn, which as usual is thoughtful and thorough. I've incorporated most of your suggestions, and placed comments above. Will create a stub on lamellenhelm later today. Appreciate your edits; undid the two re: logical quotation, as in those instances the punctuation marks are in the original sources (the comma in the Beowulf line can actually be seen in the block quotation at the bottom). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Another quick thought: I wouldn't bother including the publishers of the journals, but if you are going to do so, please do so consistently! I'm also unclear on when you are and are not providing closed access icons. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Also: You could probably be a little more consistent when it comes to the capitalisation of article/book titles. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

J Milburn, made capitalization consistent, and added publisher data (though still can't figure out who the English Studies publisher was in 1957). Closed access icons are provided when there is a link to a source but it has some sort of paywall (e.g., on jstor); the rule of thumb is if there is a link, there is an icon of some sort. On Firebrace's good advice I've gone through and differentiated between {{open access}} and {{free access}}. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from me; everything looks good. I'll be watching the page in case someone points out something I've missed, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

One tiny adjustment required: in ref 62, "p." should be "pp". Other than that, all sources appear to be in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the review, Brianboulton. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2018 [8].

---

All Souls (TV series)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Even though Halloween passed several months ago, you can still find some thrills and chills with this nomination. This article is about an American paranormal hospital drama, created by Stuart Gillard and Stephen Tolkin, which originally aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from April 17, 2001, to August 31, 2001. Based on the Lars von Trier miniseries The Kingdom, the series revolves around the medical staff of a haunted teaching hospital, and includes fictional characters and events from the American Civil War. All Souls suffered from low viewership, and was placed on hiatus following the broadcast of the fist two episodes. The show was canceled after the remaining four episodes were broadcast. Critical response to All Souls was primarily positive, with commentators praising its use of horror and paranormal elements.

This is my fifth FAC nomination for a UPN television show, with the other four being Love, Inc., Eve, Mercy Point, and Chains of Love. It is part of my interest in working on short-lived television series and hopefully, it will inspire other users/contributors to work on more obscure subject matters. I believe that everything for this article meets the FAC criteria, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve it further. Thank you in advance and I hope that everything is having a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Source Review by Lingzhi

All web cites seem to be missing retrieval dates; a few are missing archive urls and dates. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Lingzhi: I have been told in the past that retrieval dates are not necessary for archived resources as the retrieval dates are primarily used as a point of reference if/when the link dies. I personally do not find a use for retrieval dates on archived resources as it just creates more clutter in my opinion. I have used the iabot in the past for archiving resources on articles, and I believe that the references/links that are not already archived may not be work on citation machine (as that site does have difficulty with certain sites). Hopefully that answers your concerns, but let me know if further clarification is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: I never use web resources... is the argument above valid? If so, I'll try to add it to the script Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  Lingzhi:I believe that's right; archived web pages don't need access dates. As Aoba47 says, the access date gives you a reference point, but the archived URL is already tied to a date so the access date doesn't matter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Terrace (2008): pp. 254-55 Hyphen in pg. range; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• http://www.seattlepi.com/tv/upn06.shtml redirected to https://www.seattlepi.com/tv/upn06.shtml, but theN latter is 404 Not Found

• @Lingzhi: Thank you for the note. That source is already archived though, and I just tested out the archive link and did not have any issues with accessing it. Since the link is dead (and marked that way in the article), it should not be an issue due to the archive version/link being available. Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2

Not too experienced with this project but I will give it a quick support. However, there seems to be some free images for some characters so I would advise you to add one of them and also trimming the caption of Adam Rodriguez's image. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support; I have trimmed down the caption as suggested, and added an image of McCouch to the "Characters" section as he is the lead actor playing the lead character on the show. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

• "created by Stuart Gillard and Stephen Tolkin, which originally aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from April 17, 2001, to August 31, 2001." Maybe it's just me, but the way it is phrased, "which originally aired for" means "Gillard and Tolkin aired for.."

• I think that this is a rather standard way of phrasing it, so I am not entirely sure on how to change it, but I am open for suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Based on the Lars von Trier miniseries The Kingdom, the series revolves" - I find "Lars von Trier's miniseries" better than "the Lars von Trier miniseries" (it's your call). Also, series ... series.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Critical response to All Souls was primarily positive, with commentators praising its use of horror and paranormal elements." "with + noun + verb + ing" is best avoided at FA articles.

• Good point; revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The hauntings at All Souls started during the Civil War" - why isn't All Souls in italics here? Is it the name of the hospital? If so, this should be clarified.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The exact nature of De Brae's loyalty is called into question, with Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle wondering if she will serve as a love interest or be revealed as one of the hospital's spirits." Same as above.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Media outlets found the pairing of Spelling and Frost producing a television show "strange"" - no need to put strange in quotes.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• "It was one of three series UPN ordered as mid-season replacements during the 2000-2001 television season" - endash between 2000 and 2001, not hyphen.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps wiki-link hit-and-run.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The John Doe is revealed to be the real" - "The John Doe"? Also, I never like the use of "reveal" in Wikipedia. It's so soap opera-esque. FrB.TG (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• @FrB.TG: Just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have addressed your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose. These are my edits. Well done. FrB.TG (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! I greatly appreciate your help. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Bcschneider53

Glad to see this here at the final step after I reviewed it at GAN. The prose is even better than it was last time I gave it a run-through, and the article is as comprehensive as it's going to get. I happily support this FA candidate. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support and kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte

I found some time to look over this, so here are some comments. After they're fixed, I'm happy to support.

• Media outlets found the pairing of Spelling and Frost producing a television show strange is a bit odd. I think it'd read better as Media outlets found pairing Spelling and Frost for the production strange (or similar)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• the statistic that roughly 80,000 people die in hospitals every year due to unknown causes surprised him. → he was surprised that roughly 80,000 people die in hospitals every year due to unknown causes

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• All Souls was developed from the Lars von Trier miniseries The Kingdom. Pardon my possible ignorance, but what does "developed" mean in this context? Does it mean it's based off The Kingdom or it's a spin-off (or neither)?

• Revised, as they are separate entities. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Frost had said that the show → Frost said the show

Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Good job! Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review

I believe it passes already considering:

• All sources are reliable.
• Every reference is formated.
• Archives are used for every url.
• Every citation is wikilinked consistently.

If possible could you also do a source review in Flowerpiep's and mine FAC? Good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the source review! Unfortunately, I do not believe that I am qualified to do a source review, and I would be more comfortable with a more experienced user doing it instead. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Popcornduff

As it happens, I've seen The Kingdom, but never knew this show existed. A few general points:

• "Media outlets found the partnership between Spelling and Frost surprising given their differing styles and approaches to television." This doesn't sound important and is kind of clunky; is it worth including in the lead?

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• You have a paragraph in the lead talking about where the concept of the show came from, but if it's based on an existing show, this is confusing. Can you clarify?

• In the sources provided, they mention that the show was based on the miniseries. However, they mean "based on" as inspired by, not as in remaking or setting itself in the same universe as the other show. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Revolves around" is kind of a weird, clunky metaphor when you think about it. Prefer something simpler and direct if possible - "follows" is usually good.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is "insane asylum" how such facilities are referred to today? Is this the correct term?

• Changed to "psychiatric hospital". Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'd like some sentences to be simpler. For example "All Souls was canceled after the remaining four episodes were broadcast." sounds like a roundabout way of saying "All Souls was canceled after the season was broadcast." Is that correct?

• It is somewhat the same meaning, but I honestly preferred my current wording as it emphasizes that the show was cancelled after the final four episodes were pretty much burned off. I have used your suggestion though. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Be strict about every word you include. For example "Some spirits include..." can become "Spirits include"... without losing any information. Likewise, "which Frost said added a sense of realism to the series" can become "which Frost said added realism". These small things add up to make articles significantly more readable. I recommend reading every sentence and scrutinising every word - be strict with yourself.

• Revised parts mentioned above, though I do think it is approaching on stylistic differences. While I understand and respect your preference for more concise language, I do not share that approach and do not see how the current way that I have worded the article is any worse. I do not necessarily agree going through the article for a style that I do not necessarily agree with or care about. Again, this is just my personal opinion and I do not mean to come across as disrespectful. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think you should care about writing concisely. This isn't really an issue of personal style, and we're not writing poetry here; the "Some" in "Some spirits include" adds absolutely no information to the sentence, and that's not really up for debate, as far as I can see. I won't support or oppose this nom - these are just suggestions - but those are my two cents. Perhaps other reviewers will agree or disagree. Popcornduff (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter. To be completely honest, I do not plan on going through the article on this point, as I am happy with its current state. Again, I do not mean to be disrespectful or rude, but it is just a difference of opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the final paragraph of the "Development and casting" section as an example of how you can tighten up the prose by removing unnecessary words. I'm not necessarily saying my rewrite is the best possible version of the paragraph, and there might be things about it you don't like, in which case of course by all means revert. But I hope it demonstrates how there is fat to trim in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the revisions. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

I'll take a look tonight. VedantTalk 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

First set:

• "All Souls suffered from low viewership, and was placed on hiatus following the broadcast of the fist two episodes." - first.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• "It was originally paired with the reality television show Chains of Love." - I am not too sure if I know what paired with implies here.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• "All Souls medical program" - is there a need to italicise here? I see an instance in the following sentences when you don't. I think that you don't have to italicise unless you're referring to the show, so make sure that you're consistent with that.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• You could replace "Spelling and Frost" with "the duo" at the last instance in the opening paragraph of the production section.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Although I completely get how a show can be inspired by more than one preceding shows, it would help if you could expand on the what show really inspired what part of the series. That, if at all you can find in any sources.

• That is a good point. Unfortunately, there is not much in the sources other than All Souls being inspired by these shows. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is there any more information on the casting? Other than Rodriguez?

• Unfortunately, I do not believe there is more information on the casting. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• "called the series "paranormal fun,[7] and Lawrence.com's " - missing closing quotes.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The opening paragraph of the critical reception section is a little disjointed IMO. It moves from the horror to the pilot to the actors, with direct quotes that might not be the most informative: "a classic Aaron Spelling production" (I don't know what that implies, as I am not familiar with Spelling's work and the quote does not necessarily mean a good or bad thing). You could move things around a little here maybe. The other two paragraphs read more seamlessly.

• I have reorganized it to read a little more coherently. Let me know if more work is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Although this might as well be the standard practice (or so I've noticed), the episode-specific directors and writers are rarely referenced throughout the television-related artciles. Do you have that is so? I mean shouldn't they have a source too? Ideally?

• To the best of my knowledge, these tables are normally not sourced, with the information cited back to the primary source (i.e. the episode). The only source that I could really add to this would be directly back to the episodes, which I can do, but I am not certain about the value of such additions. Let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you could mention that Gillard directed a majority of the episodes in the production section.

• Unfortunately, since there is not a source for this, I don't think it would work. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks in great shape other than my minor concerns. Fine work, as always. VedantTalk 19:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: Thank you for the review so far! I believe that I have addressed everything. Let me know if anything else can be done to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It is common to have some sort of discussion on the viewership statistics of a show in either the broadcast or the reception section, buy I am guessing that would be difficult for a short-lived series. Other than that it is thorough and well written. I can support this for promotion. Good luck Aoba47. VedantTalk 12:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Status Update

• @Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: I would greatly appreciate it if either one of you could provide an update on this nomination. It has received a fair amount of comments, as well as a source check and an image check. I hope you both are having a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, a fair bit of commentary and support but given the nom has barely been open a fortnight as of now, I think I'd like to give it a chance to garner further review before we look at closing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Just one comment from TheJoebro64

• All Souls has received positive critical feedback—generalizations like these need direct references.

• Added references. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, support. This is a well-written and engaging read (also a show I've never heard of). Great work! JOEBRO64 21:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Jackdude101

@Aoba47: In the lead, I recommend removing the phrase "All Souls suffered from low viewership" and replacing it with the phrase "All Souls had low viewership". Using terms like "suffering" when discussing non-organic entities like TV shows doesn't look right. Other than that, the article looks great and I will happily support it once that change is made. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Jackdude101: Good point. I have revised this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Great! Support. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 17:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2018 [9].

---

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The Royal Gloucestershire Hussars was a yeomanry regiment that had a fairly quiet time of it when the yeomanry was the nation's primary constabulary. In the Second World War the regiment was unfortunate to be one of the early tank units that suffered so heavily from British inability to build good tanks and learn how to use them. It lives on today as a squadron in the Royal Wessex Yeomanry. The images were scrutinised during the article's successful MilHist A-Class review, but since then I've replaced one with File:Rgh-all.png, which I hope passes licensing muster. The article uses one primary source, the 2nd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars war diary. I do not believe I have violated WP:PRIMARY in its usage. This can be verified at http://www.warlinks.com/armour/2nd_rgh/2nd_rgh_41.php (links to 1942 and 1943 diary entries are at the bottom of that page); I have personally checked the actual diary, and facts in the article that are sourced to it are as presented on that website. I hope that this article meets the standards for FA status. Factotem (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me but there some things that could done better:

• The lead feels too big to act as an introduction. Split an extra paragraph or try trimming them a bit.

  I've trimmed the third paragraph to remove details of equipment used, which I think was too much detail. This information was, however, added on the suggestion of an A-Class reviewer, so I'm not 100% sure about this. Other than that, by my understanding of lead sections, this one is about the right length. Maybe other reviewers will have an opinion that will clarify the consensus on this.

• Is it possible to edit the Panels from the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars war memoria images so that they wouldn't clash with the article?

  On my screen the image occupied about half the article screen width, but I'm sure that's not the same on all screens. I have reduced the size a little, but think that making it too small will remove too much detail. I don't think there's enough room in that section to split out each of the four panels as separate images. Again, interested to read the opinions of other reviewers.

• I used the archive bot so I believe the source review will be okay.

  Thanks. Didn't know that was possible.

• Could the bibliography have wikilinks?

  I'm not sure I understand. The ISBN and OCLC numbers are already linked. What other links could there be, and are they necessary?

Other than that, I see no further issues. Ping me when you think it has been solved. Good luck. Also, if possible, could you check this FAC?Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Factotem (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Giving you my support. Hope it becomes a FA.Tintor2 (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources reviewe

Very little here:

• Ref 28 requires pp, not p.
• Ref 63 needs a space after p.

Otherwise, all sources are in excellent order and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Appreciate your help. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM

• I reviewed this article closely during the recent Milhist ACR and consider it meets the Featured criteria. One minor point. I'd re-instate the vehicle detail in the lead, as the lead can be up to four paragraphs for an article of this size, and given it was latterly an armoured unit, that sort of detail is appropriate for inclusion in the lead. I'd also change the parameter in References to 20em rather than 2, which should close up some of the whitespace between columns. Great job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate your help both here and in the ACR. I've reinstated the tanks used by 2RGH in the Western Desert, as this information comes up repeatedly in the main narrative. I've also added that post-war the regiment was equipped with armoured cars, to clearly distinguish from its wartime role, but I'm not keen on specifying all the equipment – the light tanks and the post-war armoured cars – as these don't feature prominently in the narrative and, I think, do not warrant a mention in the lead per MOS:LEAD. Hope that's reasonable. Factotem (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Rgh-all.png: since this is hosted on Commons, it should include a tag indicating the copyright status of the memorial panels in the UK. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that PD-1923 was a worldwide thing. Reading the actual license would have told me that it wasn't. Silly me. I've found the sculptor's name, amended the license based on his year of death (1938), and updated the author info with sourced data. Factotem (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Is this OK now? Factotem (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Grand. Thanks for your help. Factotem (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from CPA-5

Here am i like a promised let see i have a lot of comments. I hope this would help you. CPA-5 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Put the (TF) after this line "were brought into the Territorial Force."

"Territorial Force" is always used in full and never abbreviated in the article, so I don't believe there is any requirement to introduce the abbreviation.

• Lord Lieutenant --> Lord-Lieutenant

Done.

• Lords Lieutenant --> Lord-lieutenants

Done

• FitzHardinge --> Lord FitzHardinge cause of titel

Per MOS:HON, honourifics are optional after first mention.

• Can you link 3rd Yeomanry Brigade. (if its have his own page of course)

Does not have a page.

• Where lies Qatia. (or Katia)

Already explained in the article.

• Why are there a lot of units who aren't linked are there no pages or are they all redirects

All of the units listed below are one of: already linked on first mention; exist only as a redirect; have no article.

• • 2/1st South Midland Mounted Brigade
  • 2/2nd Mounted Division
  • 1/1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
  • 2/1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
  • 3/1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
  • 10th Mounted Brigade
  • 4th Cyclist Brigade
  • 2nd Mounted Division
  • 5th Mounted Brigade
  • 21st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
  • 2nd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
  • 1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
  • 3rd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
  • 7th Armoured Division
  • 22nd Armoured Brigade
  • 4th County of London Yeomanry
  • 7th Motor Brigade
  • 4th County of London Yeomanry
  • 5th Royal Tank Regiment
  • 3rd County of London Yeomanry
  • Gloucester Troop
• south-east --> southeast

Per MOS:COMPASS, compass points are hyphenated in BrEng.

• British empire --> British Empire

Done

• north-east --> northeast

As above

• Please link the Far East

Done

• south-west --> southwest

As above

• Please link this ranks and the name's

Ranks now linked, but the people do not have articles in Wikipedia

• • Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Birley
  • Major W. A. B. Trevor
• 1st Armoured Division Tank Delivery Regiment --> 1st Armoured Division, Tank Delivery Regiment

Source states "1st Armoured Division Tank Delivery Regiment", and I don't see anything wrong with how it is now.

• "Territorial Army" --> "Territorial Army (TA)"

I've added the abbreviation on first mention in the main body. I'm not sure there's a requirement to add it in the lead.

• "Royal Wessex Yeomanry" --> "Royal Wessex Yeomanry (RWxY)"

I don't believe there's any requirement to abbreviate regiment names just for the sake of it, and as the full name for this regiment is always stated in this article, I don't believe there's a need to abbreviate it.

• Can you make a list with all the commanders (with ranks and name's) of the unite below the "Battle honours" section.

That information does not exist in the sources.

• Can you put after every unit an abbreviation like this "Royal Wessex Yeomanry (RWxY)" or Territorial Army (TA).

See above under Royal Wessex Yeomanry. As a general point, where I've used abbreviations they are always introduced after the first full mention. If there is no abbreviation, I always use the full name.

• We have got quite a reputation. I tell you this because there are certain people in high places who can’t say anything too bad for us after the "disaster", which was bad management and nothing to do with us. So I don’t suppose we shall get much credit. It will be interesting to see. Our Anzac General is delighted with us and says all sorts of nice things, and told Ralph we saved the situation at Romani, where we were told to hold on at all costs till the infantry came up in the morning. --> "We have got quite a reputation. I tell you this because there are certain people in high places who can’t say anything too bad for us after the "disaster", which was bad management and nothing to do with us. So I don’t suppose we shall get much credit. It will be interesting to see. Our Anzac General is delighted with us and says all sorts of nice things, and told Ralph we saved the situation at Romani, where we were told to hold on at all costs till the infantry came up in the morning."

Not sure what the difference is here. Is it just the quote marks? If so, it's a quotebox, which is I believe a form of blockquote, for which quotes must not be used per MOS:BQ.

• Who was the orginal uploader of this image. File:Sergeants,_Gloucestershire_Hussars,_1896.jpg

That info is given in the commons description, though why is that relevant?

Thanks for your help. I've either made the suggested changes and marked them as done or explained why I'm unable to make any changes as applicable. Factotem (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Thanks for explaining why you are unable to make any changes but hey i am just saying what i think it is correct anyway i didn't found anything else good job. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And I appreciate your comments. Your input identified some errors and resulted in an improved article. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: Between this review, and a very thorough A-Class review, I think we have covered everything. Sarastro (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2018 [10].

---

Nodar Kumaritashvili

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This was nominated a few months ago, but failed mainly due to prose issues. Since then it has gone through a peer review and extensive copy-editing by several experienced editors, so I hope that all those issues have been resolved. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• The 'wall' image caption could use editing for flow
• File:Jacques_Rogge_at_news_conference_on_death_of_Nodar_Kumaritashvili_2010-02-12.jpg: source attributes this image to AP, not VOA (see watermark). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned up the captions for both, and as the Rogge image is from the AP, and not that important, I've removed it. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Care to take another look at this?`. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Licensing is fine, still not a fan of the caption. One simple solution would be to remove "which" and make it a complete sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed that. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• A couple of general points:

• For newspapers such as the New York Times or the Denver Post, where thre location is included in the title, there's no need to show the location, it simply adds unnecessary clutter to the ref. See 1, 3, 7 and several others.

Done

• If no author information is provided, then leave the field blank. In instances such as 22, 23 and others you've entered the publishing organisation – BBC, CNN etc – as author. These need to be deleted.

Done

• Ref 4: The author is not "Xinhua". Either leave blank or expand to "Xinhua News Agency"

Added the author name (it is located at the bottom of the page)

• Ref 8: telegraph.co.uk is not the publisher of this source, it's merely the host for the pdf. The report's publisher is The International Luge Federation

Changed

• Ref 13: You give the publisher as "ESPN", but elsewhere you state it as "ESPN.com". You need to be consistent – the former is preferable

Changed

• Ref 15: Author field should be either blank, or "Telegraph staff", not "The Telegraph" – a paper cannot write itself. The correct name of the newspaper is The Daily Telegraph not The Telegraph – see also 20 and 25. You give the correct name in 30.

I fixed 20 and 25. But I will note that for 15 it specifically states in the article the author is "By Telegraph staff." Shouldn't that be left in?

Yes, "Telegraph staff" is fine – not "The Telegraph" as before. You still need to change the paper's name to The Daily Telegraph. Brianboulton (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed

Please give me a ping when you've dealt with these. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Addressed everything here, except the question regarding note 15. Also want to note that in the previous FAC, the sources were all approved as they were here, so I'm just wondering if there has been changes since then I wasn't aware? Want to make sure I have things ready for future nominations. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

All is well now, apart from the small adjustment required to 15, as noted above. The points I've raised here are minor formatting issues which I could have raised at the earlier review, but I was more concerned then with link errors etc. There being no such errors this time, I was able to focus more on these minor matters. No further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Awesome thanks for clarifying. Was just a little uncertain there. Everything is now in order I hope. Kaiser matias (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I had to add a new reference (the Hubbard report), but as it appears to be a self-published article, I'm curious of your opinion on the citation format. Is what I have written adequate you think? Kaiser matias (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be published, or at least accepted, by arXiv.com, which is owned and operated by Cornell University, so I'm sure it's reliable. Just add arXiv.com to the citation, as publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Great thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Question for Coordinators Since there is little action happening regarding the article, is it out of line if I invite the users from the previous nomination to take a look again? I just don't want to have the article fail due to inactivity (even if it's only been a few weeks so far), but at the same time don't want to inadvertently break any rules. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose Sarastro1, because I forgot to tag you both when I wrote this. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

As long as it's a general invitation to all participants (supportive, opposing, or neutral) from the previous review, that's fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That's kind of what I had in mind, just a simple note that it's here and nothing more. Thanks for the clarification, I'll send them out then. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments – I supported this at the first FAC, but have a few further comments this time:

• Olympic luge track: The abbreviation VANOC doesn't have its full version in the text, unless I'm missing it somewhere.
• Also, the FIL abbreviation is used before the full version, when the full version should logically come first. It looks like some content was added that caused this issue.
• The last paragraph of this section is stubby at one sentence. Is it possible to merge it someplace else? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Addressed all these. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Support – My comments have all been adequately responded to, and the article looks to have improved from the condition it was in during its first FAC. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "He became the fourth athlete to die during Winter Olympics preparations, and the seventh athlete to die in either a Summer or Winter Olympic Games." - the fourth to die during the 2010 olympics preparations? Think this could be a little more clear; I see now after reading that it is more clearly expressed later on with "Kumaritashvili became the fourth athlete to die during preparations for a Winter Olympics" - I'd suggest reusing that model for the lead as well

Done

• "Kumaritashvili himself began competing in the 2008–09 Luge World Cup. Kumaritashvili had also been a student at the Georgian Technical University, where he earned an economics degree in 2009." - something about starting two consecutive sentences with his last name bothers me; a slight tweak would be better IMO

Changed to "he"

• "Kumaritashvili's family has had a long association with luge" - Is the "had" necessary? His family still has this association, no?

I switched it and dropped the "has" for two reasons: one, Kumaritashvili isn't around anymore, and I don't know if the family is still associated, so feel it's more accurate to say they did

• "training for the sport in East Germany." - training "for the sport" reads awkwardly

Tried to reword it, but not sure if that's any better.

• "by at least 10 km/h" - conversion into miles per hour would be nice

Added

• "after British luger Kazimierz Kay-Skrzypeski and Australian skier Ross Milne (both 1964 Innsbruck), and Swiss speed skier Nicolas Bochatay (1992 Albertville) – and the seventh athlete to die in either a Summer or Winter Olympic Games.[20]" - too many dashes and parentheticals; split into another sentence

Modified

• "In Bakuriani, the street where Kumaritashvili's childhood home is located" - seems like this could be phrased more concisely

Trying to think of something, but coming up blank here. Any suggestions?

What about "the street of Kumaritashvili's childhood home"? ceranthor 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Done

• "International Luge Federation report" - in this section, I suppose it's just a preference, but I would add a citation each time you use a quote from the report

Have those done.

• Same with quotes from the coroner's report and the last report.

Working on these. Finished all these now.

Otherwise, prose looks very good here. Tragic story - hope his family will eventually find peace. ceranthor 19:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Addressed everything but the last few quotes. Have to look through the report myself as I can't automatically search for terms. But should be done shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Kaiser matias (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Kaiser matias replied to the one. Otherwise, I think this is fine prose-wise and comprehensive. Support. ceranthor 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Great changed that last thing. Thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Given that prose was a concern at the last FAC, I'd like at least one more pair of eyes on this. A quick look makes me think we could smooth the prose a little more. I wonder if one, two or all of Mike Christie, Corinne or John are available to take a look? Sarastro (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• The new curve configurations were expected to provide the main challenge, not the speed alone: suggest " The new curve configurations, rather than the speed, were expected to provide the main challenge".
• IBG calculated the speeds and G forces along each curve of the track... The design included predictions of speeds and G forces an athlete would experience in each curve: repetitive; aren't these saying the same thing?
• The iterative design process produced: slightly stilted phrasing. I don't think it's worth mentioning that the design process was iterative, but if you want to keep it, I'd move it to the first sentence, where you can attach it to the mention of the design.

Just looking at the prose, that's all I can see that needs fixing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Addressed your points here, thanks for going over it. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Support. The points I raised have been fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2018 [11].

---

SMS Pommern

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Another one of my articles on German battleships, this one was the only battleship of any type on either side to be sunk at the Battle of Jutland - her loss accounted for about a third of German deaths in the battle. I wrote the article and it passed a Milhist A-class review several years ago, but recently revamped it with new sources, and it has since had a GOCE copyedit. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Apart from ref 33 needing "pp." rather than "p.", all sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2

I don't see too many issues other than redlinks. They tend to be discouraged unless you can link to another Wikipedia that has such article. Also I would suggest merging the last paragraph due to its small length. Other than that I see no issues. Ping me or mention me once you are done. Also, if possible, there is another FAC that has been kind of dead and I would appreciate comments there. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Red links are fine per WP:REDLINK, and there are only 2 links (one of which is linked to the de.wiki article. Merging the last sentence seems fine to me though. I'll try to look at that other FAC, but my time is somewhat limited (and I wouldn't worry too much about the FAC being dead - it's only been up for a few days, they usually run a month, minimum). Thanks, @Tintor2:. Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Leaving my support. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for another good ship! Only minor points:

• Pommern vs. Pomerania. In the lead, the state is introduced in English. In Service history we read Oberpräsident von Pommern. Would people know what the title means, Oberpräsident? (I didn't, - learned something.) Is the redirect meant to confirm that Pommern means Pomerania?
  • Thanks for the link - have added a translation from that article. And yes, it's a hopefully less clunky way of reinforcing that than just repeating the line in the introduction.
• "The next year—1909—followed much the same pattern as in 1908." - somewhat redundant, that 1908 ;)
  • Good catch.
• link Kattegat? and Skagerrak when mentioned first, not second?
  • Both done>

Battle of Jutland

• 2 sentences in a row begin "As a result"
  • Removed the second one.
• "Pommern could not make out a target in the darkness, though several of her sisters could. Despite this, their shooting was ineffective." - not sure what that means, especially what "this" means.
  • Reworded - see how it reads now.

That's all, good luck! ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes and comments, and the new article. The sentence in question is better, but now has a "but" and a "though", - think about it. But no reason though to hold up my support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford

• Support There's not much to comment on as much has already been addressed, as above, and the article was in a good shape to begin with, having passed GA. The only lingering thing is that, as a less than 15K character article, it doesn't entirely comply with the MOS for WP:LEADLENGTH which says a lead of one to two paragraph is appropriate for an article of this size. That said, however, I believe this should be an IAR case as the lead is what I would expect to read in a print encyclopedia for this subject and this length is needed for an appropriate overview. Very nice job. Chetsford (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: Some images have alt text, others don't. For consistency, it should be one or the other. My personal preference is with; it is not part of the FA criteria but does perhaps demonstrate best practice. In any case, there is no need to delay promotion. Sarastro (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2018 [12].

---

Loev (film)

Nominator(s): VedantTalk 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an Indian film that was released on Netflix. The article has been reworded significantly since its last FAC attempt, and I've addressed all the comments from the previous FAC since. It also underwent a recent copy-edit by a member of the GOCE. Looking forward to the review. VedantTalk 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• You can merge the second and third sentences from the lead as "it stars Dhruv Ganesh and Shiv Pandit as two friends who set off to the Western Ghats for a weekend trip and their complex emotional and sexual relationship."
• "It was Ganesh's final film role; he died prior to the production's release, after suffering from tuberculosis." This sentence can be rephrased as, 'It was Ganesh's final film role who died prior to the production's release, after suffering from tuberculosis.'
• "Saria conceived Loev's script while he was working on another project." Some detail about his 'another project'.
• Why the budget in the infobox is written in USD? It's an Indian film after-all.

The only reliable source about the budget is available in USD; conversion would be a little tricky.

I don't think converting 1 million USD in INR is tricky. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean the source says that the film was made on a budget of less than 1 million US Dollars, and that too back in 2011-12. With the ever changing exchange rates, and the approximation of the costs it would be too streched to be accurate. Let me know how you feel though. VedantTalk 15:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then let it be.

• "It was eventually picked up for production." By whom?
• "Principal photography took place at Mahabaleshwar, the UNESCO World Heritage Site in the Western Ghats in peninsular India". Is the UNESCO bit necessary here?
• Can you mention the budget of the film in the lead?
• GQ should be linked to GQ.
• There are some dubious sources like "Birth Movies Death" and "One Room With A View".

Well Birth Movies Death is a verified RT source and used in a lot of their overall ratings; looking for an explanation/replacement for the other.

Any progress here? Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the second review Yash. VedantTalk 15:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's it for now. I'll post more comments if I find any other issues with the article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Done/Left Comments. Thank you for the comments Yash. Looking forward to the rest. VedantTalk 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Great work on the article, good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Yash. I appreciate your help. VedantTalk 15:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Would it be better to rephrase this (the complex emotional and sexual relationship between the two) to this (their complex emotional and sexual relationship) to be more concise?
• Would it be better to rephrase this (who died prior to the production's release, after suffering from tuberculosis) to this (who died from tuberculosis prior to the production’s release) to be more concise?
• For this part (while he was working on another project, I Am Here), I would add the year in which I Am Here was released and clarify what exactly I Am Here is as the word “project” is rather vague.
• For this part (over the course of sixteen days by the cinematographer), I think that the word “sixteen” should be represented in numerals according to Wikipedia policy.
• For the Shiv Pandit image, I would include the year in which the image was taken by placing (pictured in X) after his name.

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. A majority of my comments were already addressed in the previous FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. All your comments have been addressed Aoba47. Let me know if there is anything else. VedantTalk 11:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• I support this for promotion. Good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Aoba47, I appreciate the help. VedantTalk 15:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792

• The title, despite its spelling, is pronounced "love", and the director has given an explanation in this source. See how you can use it.
• Since English is a prominent language spoken in the film, you may want to add this to Category:English-language Indian films. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Kailash; let me know if that's what you were looking for. VedantTalk 19:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 1: Neither the main nor the archive link to this video is working. The message I get is "Sorry, the Wayback Machine does not have this video (oz7DImobtJ8) archived/indexed."

Well the video isn't really of any importance. The source material is actually the film's description and the director biography in the description.

• Ref 18: The publisher is given as "Vagabomb", but the wikilink on this name goes to Vagabond, which is a Swedish travel magazine. What's the connection?
• A general point: there seems to be some inconsistency in your use of the "work=" and "publisher=" fields. For example, in ref 6 you give the publisher, Screen International, rather than the website, Screendaily.com, but in several instances, e.g. 25 (IndieWire), 26 and 36 (Deadline.com), you give the website without naming the publisher. Is there some principle that I'm missing?

Otherwise, sources look to be in good order and are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the rest, thanks for going through the sources Brianboulton. I appreciate it. VedantTalk 12:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you specify what you've actually fixed? For example, the non-working link is still there. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton As I said, the reference with the non working video works because the description provided on the page is where is the information is borrowed from and not from the video itself. VedantTalk 16:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

• Maybe add in the beginning that Loev is pronounced love.
• "Produced by Saria and the Bombay Berlin Film Productions, the production" - too many "produc.." in one sentence. Maybe replace the last one with "film".
• "the production stars Dhruv Ganesh and Shiv Pandit as two friends who set off to the Western Ghats for a weekend trip and focuses their complex emotional and sexual relationship." It should actually be focuses on. I am confused if focuses refers to "the production" or "two friends", although from the "s" in the end, I assume it's for the production.
• "Saria conceived Loev's script while he was working on the another project" - remove the "the".
• "a successful New York based businessman" - hyphenate York.
• "Describing the film as, "small, fragile, honest", Saria" - no comma after as.
• Can we briefly explain "Hinglish" without the reader having to look at another article to get an explanation?
• "which Saria describes as, "the language I hear around me [in Mumbai]"." What is so special about this quote? This can be very well paraphrased without detriment.
• "Pre–production work for the film began in February 2014"- hyphen not endash.
• "Bombay Berlin Film Production showed interest in adapting the script into a full–length feature film" - same.
• "co–produce", "same–sex relationships" ^^. And any other possible instance I might have missed.

Down to the end of Development and casting. More later. FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed everything. VedantTalk 05:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The themes of unrequited love and self-acceptance are central to Loev as noted by such commentators as Aseem Chhabra, Zack Ford, and Subhash K. Jha. Commentators wrote in their reviews" - suggest replacing the second "commentators" with "they".
• "Chhabra, a New York-based film writer and director noted that the film beautifully, "present[s]" - no comma after beautifully.
• "present[s] an emotional journey by characters who are gay but seem to be comfortable with themselves" - I think this can be summarised. It's better that we conveyed this in our own voice.
• "the social context of same sex love in India remains mostly off-screen" - same, although it could partially be retained, perhaps the "off-screen" part.
• "Writing for ThinkProgress Ford also noted that although the socio-political backdrop, "is never explicitly mentioned, it’s alluded to throughout" - there's a word missing before the quote. "although" should probably become "despite". Also, ' should be used instead of ’.
• Too many (al)though's throughout the article specifically in themes and influences section.
• "Reviewing the film at Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival, Shelagh Rowan-Legg of Screen Anarchy praised the refreshing concept of the film, different from the usual cinema associated with India: "Loev examines.." - Loev in italics.
• "with Brooke Corso of The Macguffin stating that the beautiful and heartbreaking" - "with + noun + verb + ing" is best avoided at FA articles.
• Recipient(s) and nominee(s) should become Recipient and nominee and Ref(s) should become Ref, as the winner of every award is the same and there are single refs for each win/nom. FrB.TG (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed everything FrB.TG. Let me know if there's anything else. VedantTalk 04:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose. I think that Ceranthor could be pinged to make sure it’s really there. I have also made some minor copyedits here and there but none of this affects my support. FrB.TG (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate the help. Ssven2 did ping him, let's see. VedantTalk 10:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Loev poster.jpg — The poster license looks fine.
• File:Aditi Rao Hydari and Shiv Pandit at Teacher’s day celebrations (cropped).jpg — This one's licensing looks fine too.
• File:Mahabaleshwar-scene.jpg — This one seems to be a bit on the edge. You can use the images under the, particularly the ones from Flickr. Do let me know when you have done so.

Well, the image does fall in the same category Ssven2. Is there something that I'm missing? VedantTalk 14:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Scrap the comment about the last image. It looks fine too. Do archive the URLs for those images though.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Also,its best to archive all URLs from which the images are acquired to prevent deadlinks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ssven2 Links have been archived. VedantTalk 16:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so, Numerounovedant.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from King Prithviraj II

• "while he was working on another project, the unreleased film I Am Here and drew heavily from his personal experience" — "another project" seems unnecessary here as its evident they aren't the same

Fixed

Great work on the article. Feel free to ignore my relatively minor comment. I support this article's promotion. King Prithviraj II (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking​ a look King Prithviraj II, I really appreciate it. VedantTalk 15:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: I was wondering if you guys could take a quick look​ and discuss the status of the nomination (if anything part of the article needs any attention/improvement/further discussion). Thank you, and sorry for the unnecessary trouble. VedantTalk 16:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• I'm hoping to provide some feedback by tonight. ceranthor 22:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Produced by Saria and the Bombay Berlin Film Productions" - why a "the" before the company's name?
• "It was Ganesh's final film role, who died from tuberculosis prior to the production’s release" - grammatically this needs to be tweaked; should get rid of "who" and replace with "as he died..." or something similar
• "the film relied on crowdfunding and cost–cutting measures to meet its production cost, which was estimated at $1 million." - nitpick, but don't think you need an endash for "cost-cutting"; a hyphen should be fine
• "Loev had its world premiere at the 2015 Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival" - probably worth mentioning where this is for a lay reader (I didn't know)
• "As planned, the two meet Alex, Sahil's boyfriend, who is accompanied by a friend, Junior (Chaddha)." - might have missed it, but did you mention in parentheses the actor who plays Alex?
• "South Asian languages.[5][6]" - needs a WP:NBSP or {{nowrap}} template
• "Saria said that the screenplay was written out of, "deep shame and fear"," - don't think the commas are necessary to offset the quote here
• "sam-sex relationships in India" - typo; should be "same-sex"
• " American Film Institute alumni Sherri Kauk" - alumni is plural; should be alumnus but "graduate" would also work fine
• "The view was shared by freelance journalist Steven Borowiec" - nitpick; but I'd like "This view" better than "the view"
• the Eric Rohmer link needs an NBSP. same with London LGBT Film Festival and the 2016 Tel Aviv International Film Festival, and 2016 International Film Festival of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram and Pigeon & Co. Also Austin American-Statesman (at least on my Google Chrome)

I may have a few more comments once these are addressed. But this looks like it has improved a good amount since the first FAC, and your hard work is commendable. ceranthor 04:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I've addressed all your comments (except for the non-breaking spaces, which I've asked Ssven2 to take a look at as I have no idea how use the nbsp). Thank you for revisiting the article, I'd be a lot nice this time I promise. xD VedantTalk 09:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I've managed to make some copyedits regarding the NBSP parts, Ceranthor. Do check if they are alright. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Think there are a few NBSP fixes to be resolved. But otherwise, support. ceranthor 16:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ceranthor, I appreciate the help. VedantTalk 17:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: I believe that the article has received sufficient commentary, can you guys take a look. Thank you and sorry for the extra trouble. VedantTalk 14:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding -- looking okay at first glance, I'll aim to take a closer look tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am being too impatient here, but have you gotten around to this yet Ian Rose? Sorry for the extra trouble. VedantTalk 10:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comments: Duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have some that I can't really see we need. This tool will highlight any duplication. But there is no need to delay promotion. Sarastro (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2018 [13].

---

Equestrian statue of Edward Horner

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This one is a little unusual. It's still a war memorial, of sorts, and still Lutyens, but instead of commemorating the efforts of a village or a city or a regiment, it commemorates one individual. I was initially doubtful that there would even be enough to write about one monument in a church in a tiny Somerset village; I certainly wasn't expecting a 2,000-word piece that I'd be bringing here. As it turns out, it's covered in almost all the books about war memorials and several about British society during the First World War. I'd originally planned for this to follow its sister article, Mells War Memorial, but it wasn't quite ready when that one passed FAC. I've given it a quick polish and added a couple of details and I have a gap now so here I am. I hope you like it, but all feedback will be warmly received! Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. However, I'm seeing some odd line breaking in |artist= in the infobox, and I'm not sure "equestrian" should be capped in the lead sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: two images added here and here and image layout also tweaked. Letting you know so the images can be reviewed, but maybe wait and see if any further changes are made, and if these changes stick? Also, does this fix the line-breaking in the infobox? Carcharoth (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, line-breaks solved. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Galobtter

• "south-western england" Quite rare term, as far as I can see, either "South West England" or just "England" would be better
• "sculpture executed by Alfred Munnings" is there a more common word to replace "executed" in the case of sculpting - like crafted, carved, fashioned something like that? searching and executed is rarely used alongside sculpture
• "Edward Horner was the only surviving son and heir of Sir John and Lady Frances Horner of Mells Manor and a member of an extended upper-class social group known as the Coterie..." Lots of ands, far too many of 'em
• "Shortly after the war broke out, he was a yeomanry officer in the part-time Territorial Force" should either be "became" not "was" or "he was a yeomanry officer in the part-time Territorial Force when the war broke out"
• "On 19 August 1914, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the North Somerset Yeomanry, a part-time Territorial Force unit with no obligation to serve abroad. At the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914, his regiment was ordered to Hampshire for training." The war started in general before few days before August; I assume the commissioning had something to do with the war?; the sentences don't make much sense to me
• "As well as dozens of public war memorials in towns and cities across Britain, Lutyens designed several private memorials to individual casualties, usually the sons of friends or clients. Many were heirs to the country houses Lutyens had built earlier in his career, as in Mells where he renovated the manor at the beginning of the 20th century. His work in Mells arose through his friend and collaborator Gertrude Jekyll, who introduced him to the Horners through a family connection. Lutyens established a friendship which led to multiple commissions in the village. As well as his work on the manor, he redesigned its gardens and worked on several related buildings and structures, and after the war was responsible for a tribute to Raymond Asquith (Edward's brother-in-law, also located in St Andrew's Church) and the village's own memorial. As well as the statue, Lutyens designed two others memorials to Horner—a wooden board featuring a description of the events leading up to his death, which was placed on a wall in the..."
• "He was wounded in May 1915 and did not return to the war until early 1917. He was assigned a staff post but again secured a transfer to the front line." repetitive - "He was wounded in May 1915 and did not return to the war until early 1917. Initially assigned a staff post, he again secured a transfer to the front line."

In general repetitiveness in the prose could be helped by varying sentence structure Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Noswall59

This monument appears to be a touching tribute to the waste of life involved in WWI. But it also strikes me as a monument born out of privilege and commemorating the death of an upper-class soldier, contrasting with many of the more egalitarian memorials put up after WWI; I am not sure I've seen anything quite like it. I wonder whether any authors have talked about it in the context of social class? It is interesting too that the villagers were not keen on the monument being put inside the church, which may be linked to class as well: do you have anymore details on that? (Also, if you know the blazon of the coat of arms, it could be added as a note). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC).

Comments from Carcharoth

An excellent article. Delving into various obscure corners again:

• It should be fairly easy to get a photo of the sculpture mould at the Munnings Art Museum (though it is closed until Easter now). That would be a nice addition to the article.
• Similarly, a photo of it in its original position, or failing that, an indication of where the reader can find such a photo if they want to see it as it appeared in its original location.
• Have the original design drawings been published anywhere? (glimpse here) And found the images in the RIBA library here and here.
• The reference to this other memorial to Horner in the church really needs more. This (oak) wooden board. Either a photo, or a quote from the inscription. The best sources I could find on the wooden board are: [14] and [15]. If you think quotes from the wooden board will overwhelm the article, maybe put them in footnotes?
• The stone tablet in Cambrai Cathedral is relevant and would be nice to include as well. But that will likely be difficult! Any chance of a quote from the Cambrai tablet?
• Looking on Google Books, there do seem to be some academic sources not used yet. Will try and give examples.
• Several sources mention the comments made by novelist Anthony Powell describing the statue as an 'Arthurian knight from the pages of Tennyson, riding out on his charger'. This really needs including in the article. See also here, referencing his memoirs (To Keep The Ball Rolling - TKBR).
• Similarly, see here for a mention of the Horners and their social context in At Duty's Call: A Study in Obsolete Patriotism (1991) by W. J. Reader. (Reader's comments are taken further in 'Masculinities in Victorian Painting' (1995) by Joseph A. Kestner - see page 213).

• Reader's book is precisely what I had in mind - it recognises the class-inflected context of the monument and highlights how it reflects a certain romantic heroism which was usually eschewed by the 1920s in war narratives (and in memorials). —Noswall59 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

• Couple more: Parish Church Treasures: The Nation's Greatest Art Collection (see the 'remove any sense of triumphalism' sentence, plus it seems the sculpture is called 'cavalry subaltern' and it was quite widely exhibited at the time, and was in Norwich Museum for a while), Public Schools and The Great War (Horner is one of three private memorials discussed, see end of page 202), The Last Pre-Raphaelite: Edward Burne-Jones and the Victorian Imagination (some context for the Souls circle and the impact on them of the war on page 124 as well).
• Final tidbit: the tribute by F.E. Smith (Lord Birkenhead) can be found here. It is worth a read, and it mentions the statue and that it was exhibited by Munnings before the memorial was erected.

Carcharoth (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: I have made these edits to the article to add material on the Mells wooden memorial board. The sourced commentary from Reader justifies quoting the full inscription, IMO. It would be nice to have a similar note on the Cambrai tablet and its wording (I suspect it will have been in French), arranged by Hilaire Belloc, but I am not holding my breath as it is very difficult to find anything on this. The closest I got was this webpage with photo of the tablet Belloc erected to his own son, placed opposite the tablet to Edward Horner.

Reviewing the comments I made here and on the article talk page, the only item left that I would say is essential is to try and get hold of a copy of the autobiography volume by Munnings The Second Burst (1951), as this contains a brief chapter (pp.40–44) on the statue (Chapter III: The Horner Statue). I suppose it could go in further reading if not considered essential. I may add that now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Added a bit more. Diff of the extra additions and the above edits is here. I am not intending to add anything more now. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I was a part of the A-Class nomination, can find no further room for improvement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Nicely written, happy to support, just a couple of comments. Firstly the article doesn't mention that the statue breaks the Equestrian_statue#Hoof-position_symbolism as the front hooves are both down despite him dying from battle wounds. surely someone has publicly commented on that anomaly? Secondly I've uploaded some more images from the geograph, I would reckon that this is an article that would benefit from a gallery - if only of the statue from different directions. Also I'm not sure, but if File:St Andrews Mells - Memorial window (geograph 5454430).jpg is the stained glass window referred to in "The statue originally faced a stained-glass window featuring a Madonna and Child, creating the image of Horner riding towards the light." then it would be worth including, but though it was presumably in the Horner chapel and is of the Madonna, it was installed in 1927 so the "originally faced" bit may not be quite true. Also as you know I'm old enough to remember buying beer at 37p a pint, but a £1,000 in 1920 was a lot more money than then let alone what it is today - a x in 201?? values line would be helpful. ϢereSpielChequers 18:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought the 'raised hoof/ves' was an urban myth? - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • This came up at the MILHIST A-class review. Opinions differed there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I can't find any reliable sources that say "this is true", and most say "common lore", "folk wisdom", "persistent legend" or similar. If there was a grain of truth in it, it would come up in some sources, but everything points the other way. Regardless of the bigger picture, if none of the sources that deal with the Horner statue mention it, then we probably shouldn't make the stretch either. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• One of the images was poor quality (huge amounts of noise), so I removed the image, and then removed the gallery as the image of the memorial and the wooden board really needs to be a full thumbnail, rather than in a gallery. I tried including the coat-of-arms detail as part of a multiple image array (of two images). Maybe that will work. Image layout is difficult at the best of times. Might be best to wait and see what Harry thinks. If a gallery is used, the new 'packed' gallery mode (examples at Manchester Cenotaph and Rochdale Cenotaph) is much nicer than the standard gallery mode. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Just one point to address, which will not affect my support: In the Commissioning section you refer to St Andrew's Church, but don't say where it is until the opening line of "Design and history". Probably best move "in Mells" up to the first mention. I also see the church is linked in the lead, but not in the body; is that deliberate? That's it – another very nicely written piece indeed. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

A very well-composed article on a very moving monument. Having read it through, nothing to stand in the way of Support, but some comments for consideration below:

Lead

• "As well as Horner's memorial, he designed a memorial to Raymond Asquith (also in St Andrew's Church), and Mells War Memorial in the centre of the village." - Perhaps, "As well as Horner's monument, he designed a memorial to Raymond Asquith (also in St Andrew's Church), and Mells War Memorial in the centre of the village", to avoid the thrice repeated memorial, which appears again in the next sentence. "Monument" is the term used by Pevsner. Or perhaps; tribute, shrine, tomb?
• "the renowned equestrian painter and war artist Alfred Munnings" - Munnings is bluelinked in the para. above.

Biography

• "The family was reputed to be descendants of "Little Jack Horner"" - the noun/verb agreement reads oddly to me. Perhaps, "The Horners were..." or "The family was reputed to descend from ....?
• "Sir John was a London barrister and later commissioner of woods, for which he was knighted in 1908" - the London Gazette gives his KCVO as 9th November 1907.
• "his condition was so grave that his parents were given special permission to visit him" - if this bit would benefit from a source there's quite a nice one in Cynthia Asquith's diary; ""...made enquiries about poor Edward. It sounds very, very bad - wounded in the groin in an explosion, and Sir John, Frances and Katherine have all gone out which would never be allowed unless his condition was critical, as Boulogne is now a war area and they are very strict." (The Diaries of Lady Cynthia Asquith 1915-1918, ed. L.P.Hartley, 1987, Century, p=17).

Commissioning

• "Sir Edwin Lutyens was among the most distinguished architects for war memorials in Britain. He became a nationally renowned designer of war memorials following his work as an adviser..." - Sir Ed is already linked twice, in the infobox and the lead, so not sure he needs a third (see also Munnings below). The two sentences seem to repeat a little, and surely he was the most distinguished, I can't think of a rival? Perhaps something like, "Sir Edwin Lutyens was the most distinguished architect of war memorials in Britain. He had attained national renown following his work as an adviser ..."?

Design and history

• "The Horner family had a long association with the church, which shares a wall with the manor house" - I think it shares a garden wall, but this sounds to me like they stand in direct proximity which I don't think is right, [16].

Notes

• "These words were described by historian W. J. Reader..." - perhaps, "These words were described by the historian W. J. Reader..."

The above for consideration only and thanks indeed for a delightful article. KJP1 (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I notice that Raymond's grave in France carries the same inscription as Edward's, [17]. Was it some kind of standard wording? KJP1 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I am glad someone else has noticed the inscriptions are the same! (This came up in the A-class review.) I doubt (given the family connections) that it is a coincidence. The Imperial War Graves Commission did (as far as I know) provide the bereaved with a set of standard inscriptions to chose from (mostly biblical and/or ones popular at the time), but this would not have been one of them. Unfortunately, it seems no-one has yet picked up on it. There are a number of sources that write on Great War epitaphs, such as Epitaphs of the Great War, and the person running that site (who has recently published two books on the topic) mentions earlier works such as On Fames's Eternal Camping Ground, Epitaphs in the British Cemeteries on the Western Front (2007). But there are so many epitaphs that it is possible that some allusions and connections and cross-references simply have not yet been picked up on. If I find out more, I'll be sure to add details. Carcharoth (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes - it threw me when I first saw it, and I assumed I, or somebody, must have made a mistake. But no. I should have read the A-class review first! It would certainly be interesting to know more. As you say, it is a striking coincidence, if coincidence it is. KJP1 (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Carcharoth - Doing a little research for Bateman's, I read that Kipling chose the "known unto God" phrase that is used so frequently. I wonder if the "this star of England" line had a similar origin? KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Kipling was literary advisor to the IWGC and thus was largely responsible for the general phrases used on Commission memorials (as well as other written materials), but would not have been responsible for any of the individual epitaphs on the graves of soldiers. These (where desired) were chosen by the next-of-kin, who signed and returned forms sent to them for this purpose. If you look at the CWGC records for Horner (see line for headstone number 130) and Asquith (see line for headstone number 8), both available online, the next-of-kin are named as Sir John Horner (his father) and Mrs Raymond Asquith (his widow) respectively. Unless the reasons for or origins of a particular epitaph have been mentioned in secondary or primary sources (which is rare), it is next to impossible to say more. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating, many thanks. I've not seen these records before. I must see if I can find my mother's Uncle Horace, killed and buried in Jerusalem in 1917. She's always wanted to know more about his grave. KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comments: This has three supports, as well as an implied support from WereSpielChequers and no objections after a detailed review from Carcharoth, so I think we are ready for promotion. Some alt text would be nice, but is not an explicit FA requirement and does not need to delay promotion. Sarastro (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2018 [18].

---

HMS Vanguard (1909)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Other than becoming the only British dreadnought lost during World War I to non-combat causes (her magazines exploded in 1917), Vanguard had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired at the Battle of Jutland mid-way through the war was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea. The article recently completed a MilHist ACR and I've incorporated the comments from my last few British dreadnought FACs. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining, although I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:British_Battleships_of_the_First_World_War_Q40389.jpg: to use the UK-unknown tag, you need to detail on the image description page what steps you've taken to try to ascertain authorship. Same with File:HMS_Vanguard_postcard.jpg. The former also needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The description field seems a strange place to describe the research for authorship, rather than the author field or even a separate notes section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Not the field, the page - either of those fields would be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Was a part of the A-class review, can find no more faults. Please note I modified the copyright license of File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff by removing the OLD-80 and 1923 license and adding a OLD-80-1923 license. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, Iazyges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

• Since there are no sfn templates, it took me a while to comb through the refs to discover there's no source for Gardiner & Gray. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Good catch. Fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 6: No source defined
• In ref 13 there appears to be a stray "p." Also, I think the reference should indicate that the link is to a Dreadnought Project page that includes the Times reference, rather than to The Times itself
• A general point: in a number of cases, e.g. refs 36, 43, 44, etc, you give the website but no publisher. Websites are not publishers – the name of the publisher should be added as you do in, for example, 35 and 38.

Otherwise, no further issues with the refs. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks for clarifying these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Parsecboy

• Not much to nitpick here, but I wonder why the armament and armour section is divided off from the rest of the description. If you removed it, you'd get rid of the problem with the line drawing pushing that heading over
• What did the boilers burn?
• I assume QF 3-inch 20 cwt and QF 4 inch Mk V naval gun would be the links for the AA guns? Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Could be, but could also be some older 12-pounders on HA carriages. More probably so for the 4-inch guns, but nobody definitely specifies the model, so I've avoided doing so as well. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Happy to support now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Deckiller

Support— any remaining concerns are minor and/or stylistic differences only. Weak Oppose—the article fails 1a and 2a. The lead is too succinct given the article's length; it lacks details from several sections, such as design, and some of the sentences are quite vague (e.g. "generally forbidden"). The sentence about the Protection Act of 1986 isn't elaborated on in subsequent sections, which raises questions about criterion 1b; that sentence also uses vague wording such as "generally avoided". I made some changes to the lead, but the whole text could use some tweaking to eliminate redundancy and imprecise wording. Here are a few examples:

It's impossible to summarize the design & description section without repeating information presented in that section, so I've never done it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Protection Act is indeed elaborated in the Wreck section, so I'm not sure what the complaint is. "Generally forbidden" is in the lede and "and cannot be dived upon except with permission from the Ministry of Defence" is more explicit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"A total of 843 men were lost..." — "A total of" is redundant and "were lost" is vague. Try "843 men died", "843 men perished", or the less blunt "843 men were killed".

"were lost" is pretty common phrasing in nautical books, but your wording works too.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I just got a request to have another look at this one. I want to avoid doing anything to control the process or tell anyone off ... FAC is a place for collaborative writing, that's the deal here, and Deckiller is entitled to his language preferences. I generally avoid getting into arguments over word usage at FAC. Having said that ... I do feel an obligation to say something if something starts going wrong with prose reviews at FAC, and that might be the case here. I'll reply inline, one point at a time.

On this first point: where would "A total of" be a useful phrase, if not here? It seems perfect to me. (And by the way, your recommendation to start the sentence "843 men died" would be a MOS violation.) In British naval contexts, "men" by itself can be ambiguous, meaning everyone, or just non-officers. Then there are a couple of Australians, and one guy who died of wounds ... this is exactly the kind of sentence where "A total of" works well. (OTOH, it seems to me that "22 total men" in the same paragraph could safely lose the "total", but I'm not positive about that.) - Dank (push to talk)

I agree that the second "total" is rather pointless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The MOS discourages starting a sentence with a number, correct? In that case I understand why the redundancy was included. My bad. There's no need to restructure that sentence just to avoid a small redundancy.

With that said, I do not really see how something is "going wrong" here, Dan; I'm not going to stubbornly maintain an oppose if there's good reason to ignore my suggestions. Most of my points are either valid opportunities for improvement or good-natured recommendations, though some are subjective as you mentioned. I'm no expert on nautical topics, and I am quite rusty when it comes to Wikipedia and copy-editing in general, but my instincts told me that the prose could be tweaked. My intent is to help improve these articles, not disrespect people or trash their work. I believe that silence is worse than nitpicks, even if some of those nitpicks can be retracted after discussion. At least someone is reading the article and trying to be constructive. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"The design of the St Vincent class was derived from that of the previous Bellerophon class, with a slight increase in size, armour and more powerful guns, among other minor changes." — vague sentence. Was the armor "increased"? An "increase of more powerful guns". Try reworking it a bit.

I have no trouble understanding "a slight increase in ... armour", but I'm not sure what "a slight increase in more powerful guns" means ... more guns? Bigger guns? - Dank (push to talk)

The size of the guns remained the same over the previous class, but the barrels were lengthened which increased their power somewhat. I couldn't think of a good way to word a subordinate clause covering the guns and just lumped them in with the rest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

How about "size, armour and the length of the guns"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That wording works for me. My suggestion was not intended to be used—I was simply pointing out a sentence that could be improved. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd though of that, but the problem is that I'm not sure that a general reader would understand the consequences of lengthening the barrels, which does make the guns more powerful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"her service during the war generally consisted of routine patrols and training in the North Sea." — please clarify that this was World War I.

Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"During the first year of the war"— same as above. It's the first mention outside the lead, so please mention WW1 by name.

Agreed. - Dank (push to talk)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"By April 1917, Vanguard mounted thirteen 4-inch anti-torpedo boat guns as well as one 4-inch and one 3-inch AA gun."— vague; the ship itself managed to mount new weaponry? I understand use of the passive voice throughout this tech-heavy section, but here the active voice is deceptive.

It's not a voice problem here, Deckiller, he's using "mounted" as an ergative verb. Sturm, I'm not finding sufficient support in the dictionaries here to back you up on this word usage (and there's also the problem that "mount" means so many things that it breeds ambiguity). I don't think you made a mistake here Sturm, I've seen this usage, but it's not in most dictionaries. - Dank (push to talk)

It's fairly common in nautical books, particularly if there had been a change in equipment, as a change of pace from more common words like equipped, etc. I'm not totally wedded to the term, but I don't think that it's confusing to an average reader.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right, Dan; it's a stylistic difference and not a fault with the prose itself. This was a complete nitpick. Regarding "mounted", if there is no better verb, then there's no sense in changing it. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Vanguard was refitted in December, with new bilge keels being installed." — a little redundant and vague. If bilge keels was the only thing installed, then the entire sentence should be restructured a bit.

Details on the refit are unknown, other than bilge keels were fitted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a good alternative to the way you put it, Sturm. - Dank (push to talk)

Why not "In December, Vanguard was refitted with new bilge keels" or something along those lines? I think it's a little more clear and lean. I understand that flow must be taken into account; that para is full of fairly short sentences, and it's clear that the writer wanted to switch it up a bit. I would change it, but if people disagree then I'm not going to be a stubborn prick. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A refit generally involved lots of small to medium repairs, replacement of equipment, etc., so I'm reluctant to adopt your wording. I'll try to address each of your comments later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Arriving in Portland on 27 July, she was ordered to proceed with the rest of the Home Fleet to Scapa Flow—which would become the fleet's main wartime base—two days later[12] to forestall a possible surprise attack by the Imperial German Navy." this sentence is a snake and should be restructured a bit; you may want to split it in half as well.

Agreed that there's a little bit too much in this sentence. I wouldn't split off, say, "which would become the fleet's main wartime base" into a sentence of its own; that would feel ad-hoc. Personally, I'd probably just lose a little bit of the information here to make it easier to digest. - Dank (push to talk)

Yeah, that's somebody's addition that clogs the sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"In August 1914, following the outbreak of World War I," — ironically, this sentence is right under a section clearly titled "World War I". Here's an example where you can simplify to "the war".

Meh. I'd go with "war" myself, but it's a choice, not a failing. Information in headings is often repeated in the text. - Dank (push to talk)

It's a suggested change based on my opinion that the article fails 1a. On its own it is a minor suggestion for improvement, but my goal is to be as constructive as humanly possible. I've been out of the writing scene for many years, so initially I'm going to be overly subjective in some cases (especially WRT differences in writing style). —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"when the light cruiser Falmouth spotted a suspected German submarine and provoked a panic across the fleet." — this wording makes it seem that the light cruiser provoked the panic, not the German presence.

Who exactly is this reader who will think that the Home Fleet was spooked by the presence of a British light cruiser? I personally would go with "submarine, provoking" rather than "submarine and provoked", but I disagree that the current version is ambiguous or is bad grammar. There's nothing wrong with saying "this doesn't sound right to me" or "I prefer X", but you're going too far. - Dank (push to talk)

The point is to be as precise as possible without inflating the prose. That's what was drilled into me for years on Wikipedia. I think your suggestion fixes the issue. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"During the Battle of Jutland on 31 May, Beatty's battlecruisers managed to bait Scheer and Hipper into a pursuit as they fell back upon on the main body of the Grand Fleet."— "managed to" is redundant; you can eliminate it and rewrite "bait" to past tense.

Wrong; "they baited" usually (not always) means they acted to try to induce a result; "they managed to bait" means that they succeeded. Not the same thing. - Dank (push to talk)

I disagree; the context makes it very clear that they succeeded here, making the term redundant. The reader won't assume the opposite (e.g. "they failed to bait"). It's a minor point, and I won't have much of an issue if Sturm doesn't want to change it. However, "fell back upon on the main body" seems a little odd; is the "on" superfluous or am I just reading it incorrectly? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right about the redundant "on"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"Although the explosion was obviously an explosion of the cordite charges in a main magazine, the reason for it was much less obvious." — "explosion" appears twice in 5 words.

I remember looking at this one and scratching my head ... I didn't like it either, but I couldn't think of a way to fix it (without asking questions, anyway). Sturm, thoughts? - Dank (push to talk)

Almost missed this one. Substituted "detonation" for the second "explosion"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing the changes! Please remember that these are just examples; the entire text should be scrutinized in this manner. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Howzabout: "Although the loss of Vanguard was obviously..."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to FAC, Deckiller. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to make a pass this weekend, at which time you guys are more than free to make reversions. I read between the lines with your posts, Dan; you (understandably) do not want to see reviewers force-feed their own writing styles down an candidate's throat, or disrupt a writer's intent by going overboard with eliminating redundancy in the article. My goal is simply to improve content and learn about interesting topics, not to push across my own personal writing style. Perhaps I'm too out of practice to fully differentiate between subjective and objective fixes at this time, especially when it comes to certain topics. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The bottom line for me is that it's too early for me to know what to say. I look forward to working with you. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I was initially concerned about your comment about looking through the whole text as I really couldn't figure out a pattern of things to fix based on your comments. So it would be great if you could go through the article and point out issues to be addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like life has taken a sharp turn and I don't have as much free time as I hoped, so I'm going to strike out my oppose and Support. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 14:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: One image has alt text, the others don't. For consistency, I think we need one or the other. But that isn't worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2018 [19].

---

Livyatan

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a really big whale from the Miocene. I think it's up to standard, and I'd like to remind people that news sites are reliable sources. ISBN's and doi's aren't the sole recipients of the mark-of-reliability   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the spermaceti image
• File:Livyatan_melvillei.jpg: what source or data was used to create this image? Same with File:Sperm_whale_head_anatomy_(transverse_%2B_sagittal).svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

got the source for File:Livyatan_melvillei.jpg, still working on the other one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

got the other one now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Pbsouthwood

I have made a few copyedits. Feel free to revert if you disagree.

Research history

• The holotype and Beaumaris tooth are mentioned. Parts of the content imply other specimens exist. Any idea of how many and from where?

there aren’t   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Phylogeny

• Conversely, the modern sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) lacks enamel, teeth in the upper jaw, and the ability to use its teeth to catch prey. I could not find anything in the cited reference saying that the modern sperm whale lacks the ability to use its teeth to catch prey.

the ref says that the tooth reduction trend is seen in the sperm whale, and then it says the sperm whale uses suction feeding, and it says the upper teeth are in contrast to the sperm whale which only have teeth in the lower jaw   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Teeth

• ...the largest tooth of the holotype was the second and third on the left lower jaw... Number inconsistent. Teeth?, were?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

OK.

Basin

• Tense: The fossil skull still exists? Should tense not be present when referring to fossils? (or refer to the animal in past tense).

should the entire Description section just be in present tense?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

More later. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: you coming back to finish the review or did life get busy again? Life's busy on this end too, by the way, so there's no rush for an answer   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Busy? You could say that... I will try to take a look later today. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• largest tooth of any known animal What about mammoth tusks? (I see that they are excepted in the main text, but not in the lead)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Palaeoecology

I don't understand how lying in a subduction zone could cause pull-apart basins. My plate tectonics is a bit sketchy, but this seems contradictory. The relevance of pull-apart basins is also unclear.

good point, removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Support for general comprehensibility to the ordinary reader. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• villain— Moby is as much victim as villain, the subject of Ahab's desire for vengeance. I'd prefer the less loaded and less anthropomorphic "antagonist"

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• hyper-predatory macroraptorial— two technical terms in the first paragraph, neither is linked or glossed to help us

hyper -> into overdrive, predatory -> predator, macro -> big, raptorial -> fancy way to say predator   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Though it has not been given a species designation, the tooth...— perhaps Although as of late 2017 it has not been given a species designation, its tooth...

nope, still into 2018   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

• "similar in size to the modern sperm whale". Since you're technically comparing a genus to a species, would it make more sense to make the comparison after you name the one species in Livyatan?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "and the book". Should probably be "by the book".

that doesn't seem right   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "implies either". How about "implies that either".

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "and so forth". Seems a bit casual.

that is the formallest I can get   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "A characteristic of raptorial sperm whales, Livyatan had functional". Technically this says that Livyatan was a characteristic of raptorial sperm whales.

are you sure?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like that to me too. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Its total size was estimated to be around 13.5 or 17.5 m". You mean length?

changed but's there actually a difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "It is distinct from the other raptorial sperm whales by the basin on the skull, and how it spans the entire length of the snout." First, "distinct" should be "distinguished". Second, what spans the entire length of the snout?

"distinct" means "unique" but I changed it anyways, and the basin on the skull spans the snout   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "used in biosonar and communication". I think "for" should be used instead of "in"

I guess both're acceptable here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "It may have interacted". Although you mean the whale, "it" technically refers to the the spermaceti organ.

fair point, changed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "caused by climate change which caused food populations to drop". Two uses of "caused" is awkward.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The whale was featured in the animated movie Ice Age: Continental Drift." This comes out of nowhere, and feels like you're just tacking on some pop culture. It would be more relevant if you could say, for example, "The bigness and hugeness and viciousness of the whale has ingrained it within the popular imagination, and has led it to be featured in such things as..."

I feel like saying it's because of its hugeness that it was featured in the movie is somehow OR. I'll be back in a couple hours to finish the other comments   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Research history

• "containing teeth and mandible". I don't know the answer, but can you say "containing mandible", or does it have to be "containing a mandible" (or similar)?

could be either   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "stumbled across them". Should it "it" (it's a skull).

it's talking about the teeth and the mandible so it's plural   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "on the final day of a field trip there." "there" is redundant, not to mention awkward considering the next sentence also ends in "there."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The fossils were prepared in Lima, and are now part of the collection of the Natural History Museum there." Were they also prepared at the museum?

The fossils were prepared in Lima   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "author of the book Moby-Dick". Needs a comma after Moby-Dick.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "million years ago (mya)". You already did "(mya)" in the lead, so just delete "million years ago" and the parentheses.

whatever's wikilinked in the lead needs to be wikilinked again in the main text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Phylogeny

• "This group is known for having large, functional teeth on both the upper and lower jaws which were used in capturing large prey, and had an enamel coating." You need either a comma after "jaws", or a "which" before "had an enamel coating" (or both).

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "a characteristic of sperm whales". Are you referring just to the development of the spermaceti organ, or also the size increase? If the latter, "a characteristic" should be "characteristics".

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Since fetal modern sperm whales have enamel on their teeth before being coated with cementum". The whales are coated with cementum?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Description

• "is not known for certain." How about just "is unclear", since you already use "known" and "unknown" in the sentence.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "(44 short tons)". How about wikilinking "short tons"?

it's the imperial version of tonnes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Livyatan is the largest fossil sperm whale discovered, and was also one of the biggest known predators, and it had one of the largest bites of any tetrapod, and possibly of any vertebrate." and, and, and, and, and...

I removed an "and"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Skull

• "The skull of Livyatan was 3 m (9.8 ft) long in the holotype." Do you mean "The holotype skull of Livyatan was 3 m (9.8 ft) long."?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "like other sperm whales." Should probably be "like [or as] with other sperm whales."

I don't see the problem here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Teeth

• "The wearing on the teeth". How about "The wearing on its teeth"?

are there other teeth?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "As well as this". One word—furthermore, moreover, additionally—would work.

changed to "also"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "which were adaptations to holding struggling prey." This seems off. Maybe "adaptations that made it easier to hold struggling prey."?

I'm not seeing a difference   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "it has the lowest tooth count". This paragraph otherwise uses the past tense, so "had" should be used.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "in each side of the jaw." How about "on each side"?

teeth are in the jaw aren't they?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The first right tooth was the smallest". Smallest, or shortest?

there's a difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There could be. length is only one way of measuring size. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• "measured around 30 cm (12 in)." Should be "...(12 in) long."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "These teeth are thought to be among the largest of any known animal". You go further in the lead, saying "The tallest tooth ... is the largest tooth of any known animal."

in the main text it says that as, "and the largest teeth of the holotype were..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "30.5 cm (12 in) ... 18 cm (7 in)." Also needs words indicating that this refers to height.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Some of the lower teeth have been shown to contain a facet". What's a facet? Is there an appropriate wikilink?

the source used "facet" which I take to mean an indent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Facet may mean an area worn by contact with a tooth from the other jaw to form a flattened area distinct from the natural outer surface. I would expect it to be relatively flat rather than concave. Facet is a common term in gemmology where it refers to the flat surfaces of cut stones. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• "due to wearing throughout its life." Should be "their life."

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "onto the teeth throughout its lifetime." Same.

that's in reference to the whale "its lifetime"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "the fourth being the largest at around 197 mm". Are the measurements here referring to depth? It's unclear.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Basin

• "was the most deep and wide". Could be "was deepest and widest".

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "It was defined by high walls on the sides, and the antorbital notches ... were inside the basin." Is this supposed to be saying two distinct things, or are you trying to say that two things did the defining, the high walls and the antorbital notches?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "and was defined by a groove". What about a fresh phrase, since "was defined by" is used twice.

I got nothing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "dwarf and pygmy sperm whales". There should be a comma after "whales"

that'll get confusing because it'll separate the whales from the number of foramina   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hunting

• "consisted of mainly". How about "mainly consisted of"?

I don't see why but done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "ranging from 7–10 m". Again, doesn't specify length/width/arm span.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "It was contemporaneous". Should be "contemporaneous with".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Spermaceti organ

• "target animal to shutdown". You want "shut down" (verb), not "shutdown" (noun).

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "due to exposure to the intense sounds." How about "from" instead of "due to", to avoid the "to ... to"?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Another theory says ... modern sperm whale." I would split this into two sentences.

that seems unnecessary   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "to support this". Should be "in support of this".

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• An alternate theory ... to the surface." Again, suggest two sentences.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Palaeoecology

• "including over 3500 shark teeth". Should be "more than", not "over".

changed but is there a difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "hammerhead sharks; and to a lesser extent". The semicolon doesn't work here. I'd suggest ending the sentence after "3500 shark teeth", and beginning a second with *"These mainly belonged to".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Livyatan and Megalodon were likely the apex predators of this area during this time." Not sure why this is here in addition to in "Hunting"?

seems relevant in both places   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "5 mya in Pliocene." Should this be "in the Pliocene."?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Beaumaris Bay is". It's sort of implied, but what about "Beaumaris Bay, within the Black Rock Formation, is..." or alternatively "Its place of discovery, Beaumaris Bay, is..."?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "have been discovered". Should be "have been discovered there".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "becoming coextinct with the small baleen whales it fed on." Something's off with this grammatically, but also, are you saying that a species of baleen whales went extinct, of that just small baleen whales went extinct? If the latter, I think you should go for a work other than "coextinct."

seems fine to me, a lot of baleen whales went extinct, so Livyatan went coextinct with them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Overall

• Looks good. Most of the points above are grammatical/stylistic, so feel free to take with a grain or spoon of salt as appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• I want to review this, but I'd like confirmation that Dunkleosteus77 is still around, as it seems it will otherwise get archived soon. FunkMonk (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

coming back Friday or Saturday depending on if I can book the plane   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, ping me when one of the above reviews are finished. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: okay looks good   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The culture section seems too insignificant. LittleJerry (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

at what point is culture considered significant?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here, it is a very minor appearance (WP:trivia), and even if it wasn't, there shouldn't be single sentence sections, per:[20] FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

at what point is culture considered not trivial? Also I can add more sentences if you’d like   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

For a culture section to be justified, the subject must have significant cultural impact or if the appearances have made the animal a household name (e.g. Jurassic park for Velociraptor and Dilphosaurus). LittleJerry (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

such as an animated movie aimed for kids   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it is not culture itself that is insignificant, it is the cultural appearance listed here that is insignificant. And again, even if it was significant, a single sentence wouldn't warrant a section. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Ice Age has made Livyatan a household name. LittleJerry (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

most everyone’s seen the giant whale in Ice Age   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not the same as making it a household name. Sorry, but the consensus is that the section should be removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue of notability for a moment (which is covered by WP:in popular culture), consider the following MOS guideline: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."[21] FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I still feel like pop culture is underrated in prehistoric animal articles, but it's been deleted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

As long as it isn't just a random list of media appearances (as is discouraged by WP:in popular culture), meaningful sections can be written for some animals. I wrote one for woolly mammoth, and most recently for Dilophosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think the images under description could be rejigged so that the section headers aren't squeezed by the images. If you right align the life restoration, and move the skull image up to the beginning of the teeth section, and the image of the teeth down, it would be fixed.

the subject in the life restoration is facing right, so the image has to be aligned on the left   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two subjects, though, one which faces left, so it could be justified, ut no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The discoverers originally assigned the English name of the biblical monster" State which year.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• " However, the scientific name Leviathan was also the junior homonym for the mastodon" How did they find out?

I feel like either somebody emailed them, or maybe they googled it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• It seems very unclear what is actually known of the animal. First you mention a partial skull, consisting of the mandible and teeth. Do you mean including a mandible and teeth? In which case, how much of the actual cranium itself is known?

the skull, the jaw, and some teeth, with pieces missing here and there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, you should state this clearly then where you mention the holotype first. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• The second issue is how many specimens are known. First you indicate it is one specimen, therefore one fossil. But later you say fossils in plural. But then later you say specimen, singular.

there's definitely one specimens and possibly two. "Fossils" is plural here because there's more than one piece   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Lacks "the ability to use its teeth to catch prey" But isn't that what modern sperm whales do? This article even indicates it is unknown how they catch squids:[22]

that article says it's unknown how and if they catch giant squid. Sperm whales are suction feeders according to this article, and their teeth serve no purpose in catching things   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Since the title is Livyatan, and the genus is monotypic, you shoudl use this name throughout, rather than the abbreviated binomial. Now you use a random mix.

it switches every now and then to avoid confusion between L. melvillei and the Beaumaris sperm whale   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

But you always refer to that specimen by common name, so where would the confusion be? Now it just seems very arbitrary when you use which scientific name. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• "when using the modern sperm whale for scaling" I think you can explain how this is done. I assume it is from extrapolating from a known element the two have in common, and figuring out the proportions from there?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The Beaumaris sperm whale was estimated to have been" I think you can reiterate that this is probably the same as Livyatan.

fixed I think   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• " The right maxilla in the upper jaw became slightly convex towards the back of the snout, whereas the left maxilla became slightly concave towards the back of the snout." Does this mean the skull was asymmetrical, or that the two are just not equally preserved?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• "which connects the two mandibles" There is one mandible, so it connects the two halves of the mandible.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• You give scientific names for the two modern dwarf sperm whales, but not for the regular sperm whale.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• "no tooth roots were entirely present in the premaxilla portion of the snout" Not sure what this means. That were were no tooth roots in the premaxilla? "Entirely" makes it seem like parts of them were in the premaxilla or something...

that's exactly what it's supposed to mean   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

So part of any given premaxillary tooth was in the maxilla too? Or what does it mean? FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

that's exactly what it means   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

In that case, it could be stated more explicitly to avoid confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• "and the teeth of Megalodon" You could give the scientific name too.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• "and the biggest diameters of the teeth were around" At what part of the teeth were they thickest?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is some overlinking outside the intro.
• When you list scientific names of extinct genera, you should be consistent in whether you write the full binomials or just the genus names. Now it is very inconsistent.

did I get them all now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess so. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• "and the book Moby-Dick by Herman Melville" The name wasn't inspired by the book, the name honours its author.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• "which stars a gigantic sperm whale" Stars? Seems hyperbolic.

changed to "features"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I think it looks good now. You might want to ping the other reviewers for them to complete their reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

• Rather than just say "climate change" in the lead, reference the cooling event.

done

• define or link "macroraptorial" and "hyper-predatory"

”hyper-predatory” was meant to define “macroraptorial,” but I wikilinked “hyper-predatory”

• lacks enamel, teeth in the upper jaw - err, is there supposed to be a comma before "teeth" here?

no, because it lacks both enamel, and teeth in the upper jaw   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise looking ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC) - on comprehensiveness and prose. I think this is the best FAC one you've done yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2018 [23].

---

Revival (comics)

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an American comic book series that ran for 47 issues before ending earlier this year. The plot is a twist on the zombie genre. It became a GA in June and has been mostly stable since then. Most of the recent changes were suggestions from the previous two FACs. The first one failed because some sources were challenged. I was encouraged to work with the oppose before re-nominating. I provided detailed explanations of each challenged source here and invited the opposer to discuss. They have never responded. The second FAC did not attract enough comments to pass. Third time's the charm, right? Pinging previous commenters @Aoba47: @1989: @Ian Rose: @Ealdgyth: @Slightlymad: Argento Surfer (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For the first sentence in the lead (Revival is a horror-science fiction comics series described by its creators as "a rural noir”.), I would specify who the “creators” are (i.e. Tim Seeley and Mike Norton) in order to avoid potential confusion.
• I am not certain about the following sentence (Set in central Wisconsin, Revival follows the aftermath of one day when the dead came back to life and the ensuing intrigue.). I am not sure if that “of one day” part is absolutely necessary as the phrase could be shortened to (Revival follows the aftermath of the dead coming back to life). Also these two parts (the aftermath) and (the ensuing intrigue) seems to be talking about the same thing so it seems a little too repetitive. If these two ideas are different, then it needs to be further unpacked.
• For this part (, but touches on religious, moral and social themes), I would change it to (, while touching on religious, moral and social themes) as I am not sure if the “but” construction is the best approach for this context.
• Are you using the Oxford comma in this article? You do use it in this instance (with art by Mike Norton, coloring by Mark Englert, and covers by Jenny Frison) but not in this other instance (but touches on religious, moral and social themes).
• For this sentence (Although the conclusion was determined from the beginning, the exact length of the series was determined by sales.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “determined”.
• This is more of a nitpick, but I would change the ALT text for the main infobox image. I think it would be more valuable to provide a brief physical description of the character rather than just say the character’s name. If a reader has not read this before, then just saying “Em” may not be that helpful in the end.
• This is more of a clarification question. For this sentence (Everyone who died within a few miles of Wausau, Wisconsin, on January 1 returns to life on January 2.), does the comic provide a year for these dates?
• I am a little confused by this part (It is led by Detective Dana Cypress). First, you identified Dana as a police officer in the lead. Second, I am not sure if “Detective” needs to be capitalized or not.
• I am not sure about this sentence (The revivers are now immortal and heal from all wounds.). Something about the “now” reads a little weird to me, and I am not sure if it is needed.
• I would introduce the concept of “Revival Day” in the first sentence just to make it clear what it means.
• Do you think it would be more helpful to move the image in the “Plot summary” section to the top so it would be closer to the part in which the “creeps”/“glowing men” are first introduced.
• In this section, you refer to some characters by their first names “Dana” and “Em” and others by their last names “Majak” and “Holt”. It is not a major issue for me, but I wanted to point it out to you.
• Should Revival Day be in quotation marks? There are a few instances where it is in quotation marks, and a few instances where it is not in quotation marks.
• I was a little confused by this sentence (He also considered using her in Hack/Slash, but that version eventually became Acid Angel.), particularly this section (but that version eventually became Acid Angel). Could you possibly explain what you mean by this?
• Please link White Noise in the following sentence ( They were inspired by Don DeLillo's novel White Noise, which follows people trying to escape an approaching cloud but no one knows what it actually is.).
• “The Walking Dead” is linked multiple times in the article.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• • I have made the requested changes. I prefer to refer to characters by last name, but used "Dana" and "Em" in this case because they share a last name. If you find this distracting, I do not oppose using first names for everyone. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for addressing my comments. As for the point on names, I understand what you mean now and I think that it makes the most sense. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I support this for promotion, and good luck this time around with this article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC? Either way, have a great day and I look forward to working with you in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Refs 3, 19, 25: What makes "Bleeding Cool" a high quality, reliable source?
• Ref 18: The link seems to go to the wrong page – I can't locate the source title there.
• Ref 35: What makes "SKTCHD" a high quality, reliable source?
• Ref 47: Ditto "Comic Crusaders" – it advertises itself as "by fans for fans"
• Ref 63: Why the italics (see 4, 46, 55)? Also, the retrieval date format should be consistent with all the others.

Note: questioning a source's reliability does not mean I'm assuming it's unreliable. I just need more information. Subject to the above queries, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton:
  • Bleeding Cool has been referenced by reliable sources like Comics Beat, Newsarama, Multiversity, and The Week (magazine) [24].
  • That's...bizarre. CBR seems to have deleted it. I have replaced it with a new link to Multiversity.
  • SKTCHD writer David Harper is regularly referenced by other reliable sources.
  • Comic Crusaders is a review site with editorial oversight. The reference is paired with another from Newsarama to show that multiple reviewers felt it stood out among other zombie comics at the time. I'm ok with removing it if need be.
  • Two of the italic references were due to templates. I have corrected them. The last one is italic because it's actually a print source, not a website like all the others. I can change it too, if you think that would be best. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I accept what you say re Bleeding Cool and SKTCHD. On Comic Crusaders it might be wise to remove it, since the relevant text is covered, but I'll leave that to you. All other matters OK Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I have removed Comic Crusaders. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments from Moise

Hi Argento, just working my way through the article.

Production:

• “Although Frison was planned to create the covers from the beginning, Norton provided the design for the cover of the first issue”: Here “was planned to” feels a little awkward to me. Is there another way to word this? Moisejp (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Does "Although the team planned for Frison to create the covers from the beginning..." work better? I have already made the edit. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• That looks great, thanks.

Lead:

• "In late 2012, Seeley and Norton were approached by more than one major network to develop Revival into a television series. The deal fell through when ABC Studios announced they were moving forward with a different property that dealt with similar themes." This doesn't seem precise. The deal with ABC fell through at this time, but presumably discussions with NBC did not result in anything due to other circumstances.
  • I have rewritten this to be more precise. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary:

• "Meanwhile, various townspeople begin to see glowing ghost-like figures in the surrounding woods (referred to as "creeps" in writer Tim Seeley’s scripts)." I wasn't sure why you mentioned about them being referred to as creeps in scripts, when elsewhere in the article they are always called glowing men.
  • I kept the phrase in the first instance and in the image caption, but updated later references to "creeps" Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Production:

• It says that in 2015 they were planning 48 issues, but elsewhere we learn they stopped at 47. Is there information available about why they stopped one short?
  • There is not. I assume the extra issue wasn't needed when Seeley actually wrote out the scripts, but I haven't been able to find a source that addresses the discrepancy. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviews:

• The section is mostly very good, but the second paragraph seems a bit repetitive, and could use more variety in sentence structure.
  • I have tweaked this paragraph. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Those may be all my comments. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks good. I really enjoyed reading this. Moisejp (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Beginning the image review. I'm trying to follow User:Nikkimaria/Passing an image review and am working my way through all the components. To begin:

• File:Creep meets Em.png is currently set at 250px but apparently hardcoding the size is not good, and using upright= is better. On my computer upright=1.4 seems to be about the same size as what it is currently.
• The infobox image has alt text, but File:Creep meets Em.png currently does not seem to.
• File:Creep meets Em.png is near the beginning of the article, but are there any other free images you can find that are relevant that would help break up the text and create visual interest? I randomly clicked on the link for Craig Thompson and think the images of him could be possible candidates, although I don't know if there are better ones out there. Moisejp (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• The sizing issue was corrected by User:Curly Turkey (Thanks buddy!)
• I added alt text to the creep image per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images#Captions and nearby text.
• I added images of the writer and artist (from their articles) to the early inspiration section and an image of the minimate toy to the end of the publication section. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Argento. I'm not an expert image reviewer, but I wonder whether the third non-free image that you have uploaded (File:Em Cypress Minimate.png) is warranted. When I do music-related articles, the only non-free image I ever use is the album/single cover, but I can understand for comic-related articles, using maybe one non-free image to show the style of art makes sense. But is it common among recently(-ish) promoted comic-related articles to have as many as three non-free images? The image of the minimate seems possibly superfluous, and not crucial to the reader's understanding of the comic as a whole. But I'm happy to be convinced if you make a good argument for why it's valid or there is a strong precedent for doing such. If in doubt, would it be better to replace the minimate with another free-image artist such as Craig Thompson (I'm not fixated on him, by the way—it's just his name falls in a pretty good place in the article where an image could go)?

Also, if you do keep the minimate image, there is a notice on the page that says "This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version"—you would need to fix that. Additionally, I'm a little confused that at the bottom of the Non-free rationale for the image, it says "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license..." Is this correct? It sounds possibly contradictory, unless the meaning is actually completely different. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done two previous comic FA articles. Archie vs. Predator is ~20k and has one non-free image, The Fade Out is ~28k and has two. This one is ~38k. I'd be fine with removing it - I only added it because I thought you were asking for more images.

I chose it because it seemed like a good place for another image (pretty close to Craig Thompson), and because I thought it would be a good visual aid for readers who aren't familiar with what a minimate is. The rationale was one of the options when I was uploading. This is the first time I've worked with this type of image, so it's quite possible it was done incorrectly.

I think good alternatives would be Craig Thompson's alternate cover or an interior image of Dana and Ramin. I've been looking for one, but haven't found a suitable one yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm, your point that readers may well not know what a minimate is, and thus is a good visual aid, is convincing (I didn't know what it was). Since there are no exact specifications for how many non-free images are allowed, only general ones, I think three is not pushing the limit too much more than two. Let's leave it in for now and see if any other editors jump in and disagree. Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• I see User:Theo's Little Bot reduced the size of the image, so that problem is solved. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• I've added a sentence to the Purpose of use description to hopefully make the non-free image rationale stronger. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I did a couple more minor tweaks and am now satisfied the images are all in order. Moisejp (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment for coordinators

This has been up for a while now but still isn't getting much attention. As I'd prefer to not have to relist it a fourth time, is there anything that can be done to help move this along? I have added it to the Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed template, although it's actually ineligible for the contest. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I can provide some comments later today. ceranthor 15:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "described by creators Tim Seeley and Mike Norton as "a rural noir"." - This needs a citation as a direct quote; also, it's a bit odd to end the first sentence this way
• "Writer Seeley and artist Norton worked with colorist Mark Englert and cover artist Jenny Frison to produce the series," - Seems kind of mechanical writing - "writer S and artist N worked with ..."; a little more natural flow would help
• "It has since been collected into both paperback and hardcover editions." - what do you mean by "collected into?"
  • I switched the verb to "reprinted" and clarified the PBs and HCs contain 6-12 issues each.
• "The story is centered on detective Dana Cypress and her revived sister Em, while touching on religious, moral and social themes." - why is the "while" necessary?
• "The mystery of Em's murder and the cause of "Revival Day" are closely linked." - what's revival day? this sentence is vague
• "Some of them begin to take physical risks or be otherwise careless because they do not fear harm." - "be otherwise careless" is clunky
• "As a result, Dana and Ramin investigate several murders in the weeks following Revival Day." - it's not clear from this, but does this mean the revivers can kill people and those people will remain dead permanently?
  • Yes. Only people who died January 1st are revivers. I tried to make this clear in the first paragraph, but am happy to take suggestions for improvement.
• "Some CDC researchers discover high levels of heavy water" - heavy water?
• "Edmund Holt, a local man paranoid about government overreach, organizes a group to resist what he believes are unlawful actions." - presumably you mean that he wants to resist the seizures, but you don't say that clearly enough
  • That's one example, but there were several subplots I cut for length.
• "Em's reviver status is discovered and she is confined to the dairy farm." - how?
  • The end result of another subplot. I added a bit of detail, but a full explanation would require another 150+ words. I don't mind to add it, but some commenters have indicated the plot summary is already pushing its word limit.
• "As tensions mount between the military and the people of Wausau, a riot is started at a picket line" - why the passive voice "is started" instead of "a riot starts"?
  • Another subplot - it was intentionally started by a drug dealer who used it as a cover for his own plans.
• "The revivers and the creeps escape the dairy farm and begin to attack the military." - why "begin to attack" instead of just "attack?"
• "The imbalance is still affecting the river, and will grow to threaten all life on Earth." - how?
  • The legend involved a magical realm that was vague in-story and more of a Deus ex machine than a vital detail.
• "Seeley was interested setting a story" - missing an "in" after interested
• "predominately Christian" - do you mean predominantly?
• "subtley because it's "easy to do it way overdone".[7]" - typo; subtlety
• "Both Seeley and Norton are writers as well as artists, so each contributed to character designs and plot ideas" - this seems to contradict other parts of the article that declare one as the writer and the other the artist
  • They are credited as W & A individually on this book, but each has played both roles on other works. For this collaboration, they discussed the plot before Seeley wrote the script by himself. Seeley provided some design ideas for the art, but the artwork in the comic is only Norton's.
• "According to Dave Carter, a writer for Comics Beat, this is a typical sales pattern for a modern comic.[32]" - watch your tense; you switch to present tense amid a paragraph of past tense
• "The series' specific focus on non-whites" - might be better as "non-white people"

Overall, prose seems comprehensive and engaging. Some comments to start here. ceranthor 02:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I made changes per most of your suggestions. Some items I responded to but have not acted on. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

All fine by me. My last suggestion would be to bump the image of the Em Cypress minimate up within the section a bit. Otherwise, support. ceranthor 16:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've bumped the image up a paragraph. Thanks for taking the time to leave your comments! Argento Surfer (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2018 [25].

---

James K. Polk

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a president who greatly expanded the United States, but who is controversial for a number of reasons, for example he was a slaveowner. This is a former featured article.Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• White House caption shouldn't end in a period

Done.

• Per WP:IMGSIZE, don't use a fixed pixel size - use upright to scale instead

Done.

• File:James_Polk_restored.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:White_House_1846.jpg

Done.

• File:James_K_Polk_and_Sarah_C_Polk.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, File:State-dining-room-polk-cabinet.jpg

One cut, the remainder I've added on the image page.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Oregoncountry2.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Mapa_de_Mexico_1845.PNG, File:Mexican–American_War_(without_Scott's_Campaign)-en.svg, File:Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo.png, File:United_States_1845-03-1845-12.png, File:United_States_1849-1850.png

I'm not quite sure how to respond. Presumably the creator of the map obtained the data. I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggest adding sources to the image description page to confirm the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added supporting information with links. I can't swear to every jot on the map but these seem to contain the same information.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:James_Polk_Grave.jpg should include an explicit tag reflecting the copyright status of the monument. Same with File:James_Knox_Polk_Statue.JPG

Both done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Polk_Place.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published?

Swapped for a better image.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:JamesKnoxPolk.png: given the dates, the author could not have released it under the claimed license

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Standard_of_the_Governor_of_Tennessee.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Support All my problems were addressed in the Peer Review. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Much obliged for that, and for your thorough review there.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comments from SchroCat

IB

This is a monster of an IB and on my screen the log cabin picture actually breaks the line into the Early political career section, which is something to avoid. There is flexibility to remove the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" fields from the appointments, which may be worth considering, although I leave the decision to you (the Preceded by/Succeeded fields tell us absolutely nothing about Polk himself, and are of extremely limited benefit).

Instead, I've shortened by merging the two congressional districts.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Early life

• "Samuel Polk died in 1827; his widow lived until 1852, surviving her oldest son by three years.[6]" This slightly jarred when in the next sentence we drop back to Samuel in 1812. Would it be better in a footnote?
• "Polk opened an office in Maury County and[3] was successful": odd place for a footnote – I would have thought it would follow "County" or the end of the sentence.

Tennessee legislator

• "time for campaigning,[16] Already" full stop or lower case A?
• "Her grace, intelligence and charming conversation": as this is opinion in Wiki's voice, I'd be more comfortable with "according to xxx" as part of the sentence.
• "Polk, though much of his political career": through?

Done to the end of "Jackson disciple", and will continue soonest. Enjoying this – well written and engaging, as always. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and the kind words. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ways and Means chair and Speaker of the House

• "Polk, with Jackson's backing, became the chairman of Ways and Means". Is that the Ways and Means Committee? If so, it should be the full name and the link moved up from later in the section

It is linked in the previous section. I've removed the duplicate link and rewritten it slightly.

• "June 1834, Speaker of the House Andrew Stevenson": link speaker of the house?
• "assuring his disciple in a letter he meant Polk to burn that New England would support Polk for Speaker": its been a long day and I'm quite tired, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say here

Governor of Tennessee

• "a Tennessee afire for White and Whiggism" poetically put, but perhaps a word or two in explanation: my first thought was 'who's White?'

Third paragraph of previous section. Do you think the reader needs more of a reminder? Your reaction suggests "yes".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No change needed - my error. - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Election Day": do we normally capitalise like this?

Yes, in AmEng

Done to the end of the '44 election, and it's riveting stuff – reminds me of the politics I studied at school and university. More to follow soon. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you are enjoying it ... if I haven't addressed it above, it's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Final batch...

Transition

• Bancroft "became U.S. minister to Britain": is it minister or ambassador (I've not re-read the previous text, but is this the first mention of the post, in which case formal title and link would be better).

It was then minister to Britain, ambassador came in in 1893.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Course of the war

• "Polk offered Major General Winfield Scott, the position of top commander" is the comma needed after Scott in AmEng?
• "Americans at the gates of Mexico City. Trist negotiated" comma rather than full stop?

Development of the country

• "draft a sufficient veto message, so Polk signed the bill": you could get away with "he" here

'48 election

• "He did remove some Van Buren supporters from federal office." Maybe it's the 'did remove', but this reads oddly to me and lacks flow from the previous sentence. Semi colon it into the previous sentence, or perhaps redraw as "canvass for votes, although he removed.." (unless you think we're in comma splice territory)?

I've clarified it a bit, and feel it stands better on its own. I've made it clearer he was playing politics.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That's it. All very nit-picky as it's up to the usual high standard – and no deal breakers in any of my observations. I look forward to supporting this shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - all happy with me, and this meets the FA criteria as far as I can see. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

A few minor formatting points:

• Ref 16: space required after p.
• Ref 17: why "Page" not "p."?
• Ref 114: requires pp. not p.

Otherwise, sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your spending your time on it. Thank you. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Display name 99

I've made 47 edits to this article, but I don't think it's quite enough to call me one of the major contributors. As another side note, looking at the way this article was in 2005, it's amazing to see what counted as a featured article back then, and helps us to appreciate how much we're progressed.

Early life

• "His mother Jane Polk named her firstborn after her father James Knox." I would add a comma after the word "father." Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Do we have any idea what the political views were of Polk's mother? In the John C. Calhoun article, for example, we noted that Calhoun's father was a devoted advocate of states' rights, and that this probably influenced his son. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Siegenthaler concentrates more on the father and grandfather, who were pro-Jefferson and anti-Federalist Party. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• ". While there Polk joined the Dialectic Society where he took part in debates, became its president and learned the art of oratory." What subjects were debated and what was his position? Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I"ve added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Tennessee legislator

• For the first caption, does "in 1849" really need to be in parenthesis? Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can you find some more details on the courtship between Polk and his wife? Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are, but they really aren't confirmed. For example, that Jackson urged Polk to marry, and stated who he should marry in such terms that it was very clear Sarah Childress was meant, and Polk picked up on it and said he would propose to her. I'll see if I can find something beyond doubt.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked at it. All the stories, of Jackson as matchmaker and of her not marrying him until he ran for the legislature, I don't feel are solid or illuminating enough to be worth including in an overlong article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Jackson dispute

• Link to 1832 presidential election. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you did this. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• For the Nullification Crisis, it may be helpful to briefly present Polk's view not only on secession but on the right of a state to nullify federal law. That was, after all, what the crisis was originally about. It was not until Jackson resisted that the agitators began to talk of secession. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This looks a little better now. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm still looking for more info.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Overall, well done. More to follow. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Governor of Tennessee

• "...Johnson was disliked by many Southern whites for fathering two daughters by a biracial mistress." That's not why he was disliked. Many other southern statesmen-Jefferson, for instance-had children with slave mistresses. The difference was that Johnson made the female slave his "common law wife" and gave the daughters his surname. There's a difference, and that should be clearly stated. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Johnson would make for an interesting project...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do you think we could mention something about why Tennessee switched to being a Whig stronghold? It's something I've never really understood. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Still looking for information on this. One of the biographers speaks of an anti-Jackson backlash, but doesn't get down to cases. I suspect it has something to do with internal improvements, but haven't found anything yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I made some edits adding content. Please feel free to look them over. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Partition of Oregon Country

• In the second paragraph, the article links and defines Manifest Destiny, even though it has done so already. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep the second link for the convenience of the reader, as it is the definition of Manifest Destiny.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Annexation of Texas

• The annexation resolution-do you mean the one signed by Tyler on March 1? I'm not completely clear. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, clarified.

Road to war

• From my understand, the U.S. claimed the border as the Rio Grande, while Mexico claimed it as the Nueces. I don't think that's ever explicitly stated or elaborated upon. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It is in the Annexation of Texas section, I've now emphasized it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to link to the Mexican-American War at the end. You do so already. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

delinked.

Course of the war

• If Scott really had that much baggage, do we have any idea why Polk decided to appoint him at the beginning anyway? If we know anything of what led Polk to choose Scott-other than, say, Taylor-I think the article should say so. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Didn't Polk explicitly order Taylor not to march any further, only to have Taylor go to Buena Vista? Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes he did. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Added.

• "Mexican casualties were five times American" Rephrase. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed.--00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've read through "Development of the country." It's excellent. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm up to date with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

To finish out:

• The "States admitted to the Union" section should be cited. This is especially true if these states and dates aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article. I could be wrong, but I think Texas is the only one that is. Display name 99 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Was his wife Methodist? That might explain why he decided to join the Methodist denomination. We should mention it if so. Display name 99 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've cut the states. His wife was not Methodist, but he had long considered himself a Wesleyan Methodist, though he often accompanied her to her church.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support A comprehensive and well-written article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Much obliged both for the most thorough review and for the support. It is always good to hear from people who know the material.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Brianboulton

Support, with a few minor suggestions. For anyone interested in American political history this is a fascinating, indeed a gripping read. Particularly arresting is the two sides of Polk: the serious, determined statesman in successful pursuit of his stated goals, and the venal slaveholder, casually trading in lives for his personal profit. A man of his times – no doubt the same dichotomy occurs in many of the "great men" of the day. My one reservation concerning the article is that its length may deter potential readers from tackling it, which would be a shame.

• "People liked Polk's oratory, earning him the nickname "Napoleon of the Stump." It was the oratory, not the people, that earned him the nickname. I suggest "People liked Polk's oratory, which earned him the nickname "Napoleon of the Stump."

Done.

• "Polk won re-election [to Congress] in 1827" – wouldn't the election have been in 1826?

Unless there was a special session, the congressmen wouldn't be needed until December, and Tennessee held congressional elections in August. This was not uncommon at the time. Presumably they had a procedure for an early election in case there was a special session.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• The "but" in "Polk has been described as the first "dark horse" presidential nominee, but..." is misused, since what follows does not qualify or counteract the initial statement. Perhaps "although"?

Fixed.

• "Perhaps the most important event of Polk's presidency was the Mexican-American War." This reads as an editorial opinion, and could be deleted without effect.

Cut.

• "Similarly, other than the Gadsden Purchase and that of Alaska (1867) there was no major U.S. expansion until the 1890s." Those are pretty big "other thans", especially that of Alaska. A possible rewording: "The Gadsden Purchase, and that of Alaska (1867), were the only major U.S. expansion until the 1890s."

Done.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. I've done those things. Regarding length, most of the trouble is in the war-related sections and I think it would be dificult, given Polk's close management of the war, to cut very much. Other than reviewers, I've come to believe people rarely read articles in full ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

"Ezekiel Polk, the future president's grandfather"..... we've already established Ezekiel's relationship to him in the previous paragraph, so the "future president's" bit is repetitive Done. "James learned from the political talk around the dinner table; both Samuel and Ezekiel were strong supporters of President Thomas Jefferson and opponents of the Federalist Party"..... did this perhaps influence his own views? If so, I would make note of that. That is what I meant to imply. "though the operation was successful, it may have left James sterile, as he had no children" sounds rather speculative; can you find anything more concrete on sterility? There's no way of knowing for certain, as this would be a private thing. The sources speculate on sterility or even impotence.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC) May as well just scrap when there's not enough known for certain Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC) It's widespread among historians and biographers. I think it should stay.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC) In that case, maybe say something along the lines of "it is believed to have left James sterile" if biographers suspect this Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Used your words.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "enrolled at a Presbyterian academy in 1813"..... a name would help if known I'll look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC) "where he may have met his future wife, Sarah Childress"..... again, definitive answers are preferable We don't know. Her older brother was Polk's classmate there. Just get rid of it altogether then Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Having "the late" in "singling out the late Alexander Hamilton" is a bit wordy Not everyone has dates of death in their memory, and I'd like to stress that Hamilton was dead by then.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "On September 20, 1819 Polk, with Grundy's endorsement, was elected clerk of the Tennessee State Senate" is clunky; try "With Grundy's endorsement, Polk was elected clerk of the Tennessee State Senate on September 20, 1819" The issue with that is that there's the rest of the sentence, that the Senate sat in Murfreesboro, and that Grundy had been elected. I can't pin that information easily on to the sentence as you have it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Polk courted Sarah Childress—they married on January 1, 1824 in Murfreesboro"..... she should only be linked in her first mention within article body, and is it known when they started courting or were engaged? I linked for a second time as the first is in a place the reader may not notice. I think a second link is justified. I've added some dates--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Link discussion mooted by the above deletion.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Thus began an alliance" reads awkwardly, maybe "It began an alliance" or "It established an alliance" would be better I like what we have better than your suggestions, though I am not wedded to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Changed "thus" to "this" "Important" from "most important and loyal supporters in the House" seems like a personal opinion Prominent. "may have been written by Polk"..... aside from being a Jacksonian, what evidence is there suggesting this? According to Siegenthaler, Polk was accused of it by Jackson's opponents, but he denied it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC) In that case, I would make such a note. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Although the Polks remained childless, they were rearing the children of James' three deceased brothers"..... how many of his nieces and/or nephews did they look after? I've cut it. There seem to have been at least three, but they weren't all at the same time. J. Knox Walker, later the presidential secretary, seems to have been one of them. Two others were Marshall and Eunice Polk, children of Polk's brother Marshall, though Eunice died while at school. Marshall doesn't seem to have come to the White House with Polk. Even if "In any event" from "In any event, the Whig presidential candidate, General William Henry Harrison" is appropriate tone, it just overfills the sentence, so scratch that bit Cut. It's not grammatically correct to begin a sentence with "but" as you did with "But due to the opposition to Van Buren" as it makes a sentence fragment. You can make this into a complete sentence by turning it into a "however" or merging it with the previous sentence. Done. More to come later. Currently up to the "General election" subsection. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC) While I can tell that the "myself" in "I intend to be myself President of the U.S." is intended to be emphasis, we're only supposed to use those for titles of works like books, journals, magazines, and newspapers. The sources have it italicized. I gather it was underlined in the original. Isn't that almost altering the original?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Not when you use the same words and punctuation as it does Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC) This is the nearest to the original that I can find and it has italics.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Even so, it's not truly altering the text unless you use different words and/or punctuation. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC) SNUGGUMS, just so we're clear, because I'm not as fluent in every detail of the MOS as you, are you asking me to remove the italics? Can you point me to where it says that? Not doubting you, just for information. I'd really like to keep the emphasis here in some way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Looking through MOS:ITAL, it turns out this is better for emphasis than bold or all capital letters, but should only be used sparingly and with <em>word</em> or {{em|word}} rather than ''word''. Just be sure you're not using the two apostrophes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC) OK, used the template.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "The lack of trust Polk had in Taylor was returned by the Whig general"..... why not just say "Polk and Taylor did not trust each other"? Because that treats the subject as fresh, and the issue of Polk not trusting his Whig generals has been discussed before.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC) The second and third paragraphs under "Fiscal policy" could probably be merged when the third is quite short in order to avoid choppy-looking text Done. Having a really long paragraph followed right by a super short paragraph within "Judicial appointments" seems imbalanced; I'd even them out somewhat I've split the long paragraph. Even if "likely because he deemed it unpresidential to canvass for votes" wasn't just a guess, it seems unnecessary when you've already noted how Polk didn't run for another term to begin with Campaigning for one's successor is a bit different from campaigning for oneself. The reader may recollect that the recent Democratic president had a different view on whether to campaign for another president of their own party.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC) What I'm getting at is that "Polk did not campaign, remaining at his desk at the White House" by itself is sufficient, though you could add Taylor into that sentence if you'd like. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC) I've cut the text objected to and played with things there a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "March 4, the presidential inauguration day until 1937, fell on a Sunday"..... seems superfluous Enough people know, I think, that March 4 used to be the inauguration day to justify an explanation. What I mean is that the day of the week doesn't really seem to be a significant detail Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC) But it is the reason for the postponement of the swearing-in. I'm not sure I can explain the postponement without mentioning the day of the week.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Then you should more directly say so in the text Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC) I've tweaked it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC) "in early June, he fell ill again, likely with cholera"..... if you don't know for sure what this was, then just "fell ill again" is sufficient Does "his infectious disease death" refer to cholera? While the section on his death seems to suggest that was what killed him, we should opt to be explicit on the matter. On the above two: that we cannot know with 100 percent certainty what killed him, most sources say either "cholera" or "most likely cholera". I don't know how the reader is well served by saying nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Perhaps you could then say he was believed to have died from it Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC) I've tweaked it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC) I fail to see how "Polk had a post-presidency of 103 days, the shortest of the presidents who did not die in office" is worth including Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC) "The 17 year old and one of the 12 year olds were purchased together at an estate sale, and may have been brothers"..... whether they were related or not doesn't seem to be the focus of the slave purchase, so let's delete the "and may have been brothers" bit Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC) "and it is unlikely that her new partner, having paid $28,500 for a half-interest in the plantation and its slaves, would have allowed the laborers to go free had she died while slavery was legal" seems more appropriate for Sarah's article (if anywhere)\\ It deals with how the provisions of Polk's will were carried out, or in this case, not. He could have left his wife a life estate in the slaves, with them manumitted on her death. Like Washington did.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Detail on deaths and tombstones of slaves doesn't seem relevant here I think, especially in the present day, it is useful to know that the issue of Polk and slavery is still being examined, and that the slaves are not forgotten.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "in Arthur M. Schlesinger's poll"..... do you mean Arthur Sr. or Arthur Jr.? That should do it. Thankfully there are no major issues with this article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC) I think I've responded or changed all those things. Thank you for a most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I can now safely support given the article's improvements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Pls check over duplinks (some may be justified in an article of this size), but won't hold up promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2018 [26].

---

Murder of Yvonne Fletcher

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yvonne Fletcher was a bright and popular young police officer who was shot in the back by a gunman firing from a first-floor window of the Libyan embassy in London. It marked the start of an eleven-day siege, six Britons being held hostage in Tripoli for nine months and a break in diplomatic relations between the UK and Libya that lasted until 1999. The police investigation has never closed, and they have strong suspicions on the identify of the gunmen and the co-conspirators, some of their evidence can not be released in court because of national security. It's a shabby story for Fletcher's family, who have never been able to see Yvonne's killer brought to justice. This article has been over-hauled recently and gone through a very useful PR. Any further comments are most gratefully received. – SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)#

• Thanks for your help and advice at PR on this Nikkimaria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Support. My few, minor, comments were attended to during the peer review, and I have no additional ones this time round. A well-balanced article, clear, evidently comprehensive, thoroughly sourced and well illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 20:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your thoughts at PR, Tim, and your further comment here - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Support All of my issues were addressed at PR. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Eddie891 - your early assistance at the review was very welcome and helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Excellent article, the only thing I might query is the conversion to 1.588 m, I doubt that here height was accurate to within 1 mm Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Very true - I've tweaked accordingly. Many thanks for your comment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things. I recall the incident though there was perhaps not as much coverage in the US.

• "to police a" you use police as a noun in the previous section. I might use a synonym here.
• You use the term "deport" in the lede. Is this the proper term given the diplomatic status I imagine they had? Our article on diplomatic immunity suggests "expelled" might be better.
• I might link "telex".
• Consider mentioning that you are quoting from the postmortem prior to the quote, it may read a bit better.
• "the siege in Tripoli was lifted that day and one of the men arrested the previous day was also released.[40][37] " refs in wrong order.
• "a spent cartridge and gunshot residue were found at two windows on the first floor." a total of one or two cartridges?
• "inquiries.[56] When it reconvened, police reported that they had 400 lines of enquiry" no doubt it's a BritEng thing to have both "inquiries" and "enquiry", but I thought I would point it out just in case.
• Your quotation from Robin Cook seems mostly to duplicate what was said in the paragraph before.

That's it. Looking forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Wehwalt. All addressed in this series of edits. If there are any other thoughts, I'd be happy to address them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Wehwalt - much obliged. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

In the "Websites and television" section, the publisher of the Hudson source is missing. Otherwise, everything checks out; sources are of the appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Brian – now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support per peer review and subsequent amendments. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Brian - your efforts are always much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Excellent article. Would you consider whether the title is appropriate? You and I know she was murdered but there were never any trials or convictions of the killing. Is Killing of Yvonne Fletcher or Killing of PC Yvonne Fletcher worthwhile to consider? Vanguard10 (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think a conviction is needed to decide if someone is murdered, if the circumstances are clear (i.e. there is no thought in this case of suicide or accidental death or causes unknown). The reliable sources all use the term (admittedly among others too). I see other related subjects use a variety of terms, either after the 'best-known-for' event name (Shepherd's Bush murders, Harrods bombing, etc) or 'death/murder' of: Death of Keith Blakelock, Murder of Stephen Oake, Death of Raja Ahmed, Murder of Sharon Beshenivsky, Death of Jack Avery, Murder of Brian Bishop, Murder of Raymond Codling, Murder of Jonathan Henry, Murders of Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone, etc. These were all on the Category:British police officers killed in the line of duty page and I've not gone through all of them. "Murder of" seems to hold a slight majority there, for what it's worth. I'm open to changes, but I'm not sure of the benefit of it here: it wouldn't make it consistent with other similar articles, it's as correct as the main alternative, and it's reflected in the sources. On the grounds of 'if it ain't broke...', I'm inclined to leave it where it is, but if others think otherwise, then we can review further. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Though in most cases like this I would say that "homicide" is more accurate than murder, in this case the suspect was actually arrested for "conspiracy to murder" the Guardian - there is always a chance that defense counsel could attempt to have the charge reduced to manslaughter, possibly through a plea agreement, but that is only hypothetical, and none of the sources indicate that it was a major issue in this case, which was dropped for entirely unrelated reasons.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Since I'm the one that brought it up, I will comment that I believe there has been reasonable discussion about the title. I do not believe that the title merits any delay of FA approval of this fine article. It is better than the average FA, in my opinion. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Vanguard10 (both here and on my tp). Both threads were very useful and make me look at the article from a different angle. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Came her as an uninvolved party in editing of this article. I have reviewed it over a day or so. And I find it to be an good and comprehensive article. Even excellent is a word I would use. BabbaQ (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you BabbaQ, that's very good of you to say. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

A few duplinks you could look at rationalising -- the ones around MI5 highlight that we effectively introduce the agency twice, so the second mention could be trimmed I think. Won't hold up promotion though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Ian. I'll look into that shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2018 [27].

---

Elasmosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC), LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC), Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the first article about a plesiosaur to be nominated for FAC. Elasmosaurus is also the most viewed articles about a long-necked plesiosaur genus, and gets more hits than even Plesiosaurus itself. Therefore it is a good place to start, and to set a standard for how other plesiosaur articles can be written. Elasmosaurus has a well-known, dramatic history, and we have summarised all we could find about the animal here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Iry-Hor

As I was checking the sources to find nice books on Elasmosaurus, I got surprised by how the bibliography is organised, as a mixed of several ways of doing. The book by Everhart 2005 is cited using the sfn template but is the only one to be so (I corrected the harv error by the way). The rest of the bibliography is rich and interesting but looks at bit messy. I have a strong preference for full sfn bibliographies, which separate text references and the books/articles themselves (see Nyuserre Ini for an example).

The way the refs are written poses a serious problem for sourcing claims, for example ref [13] appears four times and all we are told is that the claim sources are in the page span 215–240, corresponding to the entire source. I was told that in FA, claims should be page specific so as to enable the reader to source them and check for his/her-self. The sfn template would definitely allow you to specify both the precise pages for each claim (which I see as a requirement for FA) while at the same time displaying the whole span 215–240 in the bibliography section. It would also make the text references look less messy.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there has been a long back and forth[28] about how long page ranges should be, and there is currently no consensus. I agree page ranges should not be too long, but I have never seen anyone suggest that all citations should be page specific, ranges are very much allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I always give page ranges rather than individual pages for my FAC journal refs, which is normal practice outside wikipedia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That isn't great, take for example Persson, P.O. (1963), which has 6 refs and a page span of 60pages. It seems that we require a lot of effort on the reader behalf here. My view is that we should help the reader check the source by providing narrow enough page ranges. I would say no more than 5 pages span, although this is obviously arbitrary, yet 60 pages is far too much. Also imagine the pain for whoever is going to do the source spot-check. IN addition, my comment is also about (lack of) consistency: Everhart has specific pages or narrow page spans (this is great), while none of the others have that. I may be wrong, but I feel like this state of fact was "forced" onto the editor(s) by the use of the "< ref >" template as opposed to sfn. I have no doubt that the editors accessed the specific pages and thus would have been in good position to provide optimal narrow page spans or speficic pages while writing the article, yet couldn't do so nicely with "ref", as this would have separated multiple entries to the same work.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There are a few issues at hand. Journal articles are usually not broken up, unless they are very long. With books, if the page range is short, the few pages used are given for each book, whereas long books from which many different page ranges are used, such as Everhart, are usually broken up. I have never seen anyone ask for consistency in this, see for example earlier FACs Istiodactylus, Smilodon, or Columbian mammoth. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Very well, I understand now that the bibliography format is quite acceptable wiz other articles and the sources themselves are impeccable. Furthermore it is anyway too late to get precise page numbers for all claims. I hope that in the future you will consider using the sfn template throughout. That said, I should clearly state that I enjoyed reading the article, which I found to be well written and complete. I have no reproach to make, it is always a pleasure to see nice additions to wikipedia.

Perhaps I can suggest that you add alt text for all the images?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've myself used various citation styles from article to article, depending on what fit me best at the moment... Yeah, we should be able to add alt-text. LittleJerry, if I fix the pictures down to classification, can you take them from there? FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've attempted to add some kind of alt-text to the images in the sections mentioned, not an expert on this, though. Maybe LittleJerry wants to look at the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the function of the neck section, I remember reading in a book on dinosaurs that a possibility considered by researchers is that the long neck was an advantage for fish hunting (if I remember correctly what they said, it was because it would allow the head to be close to or in schools of fish, while the large body would remain some distance away). In the section on Feeding you discuss something similar but I am surprised this is not further discussed in the neck section.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave this one for LittleJerry, who wrote the section. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A few pictures are still missing their alt text. Other than that I would be happy to support.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I added some more. LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There is an issue with the photo of vertebrates, I think you put the alt text as main caption. The infobox image is also missing the alt text, use image_alt = to write it.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I've fixed them now. FunkMonk (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• genus of plesiosaur — why isn't it genus of plesiosaurs?

seems consistent with other article FAs of prehistoric animal genera. LittleJerry (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I must admit I've never given this any thought, just copied what was written in earlier dinosaur FAs. But I do think the current wording sounds better. Maybe Casliber can explain, having nominated some of those earlier articles? FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Several technical terms such as "pectoral and pelvic girdles, vertebrae, maxilla, invertebrate, centrum, quadratic/quadrate and sacral" are either not linked at all or not at first use

Linked. Centrum/centra doesn't have a separate article, though, it just links to vertebra. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• There are a couple of places where multiple refs are not in numerical order

Hmmm, is that a problem? Is there an automated way to fix this? Seems very tedious. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Life restoration—I'm not sure about this caption. Life seems inappropriate. Artist's impression perhaps ?

Life restoration/reconstruction is commonly used in palaeontological literature to denote illustrations of an extinct animal in life. Restoration/artist's impression could mean a drawing of a skeleton too, so it is not specific enough. Anyhow, changed to just "restoration", as in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• It was long on exhibit—I'd prefer It was long exhibited or It was long on exhibition

Took "long exhibited". FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Barracuda—surely lower case?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

with regard to having multiple refs in numerical order, it's what I get told to do in my FACs, so just passing on the grief (: Otherwise, I'm happy with the responses, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Now we'll at least be prepared if someone else asks... FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking now...

Commenting on above, I would leave genus of plesiosaur as singular as it sounds more natural to mine ears...

the necks of elasmosaurids did not attain half the absolute length of the longest-necked sauropod dinosaurs. - why not " the necks of elasmosaurids were less than half as long as those of of the longest-necked sauropod dinosaurs."

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the neck vertebrae were compressed sideways, especially at the middle of the neck. - I'd probably say "Most of the cervical vertebrae were compressed sideways, especially at the middle of the neck."...as there are a new "necks" around this segment of prose...

Yeah, the "problem" here is that we've made a deal out of using common names for anatomical features after first mention, so it would seem weird if we were inconsistent in just this spot? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. using less-accessible words is not an improvement. So strike that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok..can't see anything else to complain about in terms of prose or comprehensiveness Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 3: "Palaentology online" should not be italicised, and you should add a retrieval date.

Fixed, it was formatted as a journal article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 15: Retrieval dates should be consistently formatted – compare with ref 1

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 16: Unformatted url

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 47: What language?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 53: What language?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 91: The link goes to an error message.

Changed link. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

All should be fixed now, Brianboulton. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Images review

• File:Elasomosaurus Face Clean.png: License and use seem fine for me, wonder about the lack of EXIF.

Don't know why, but at least seems to have had a good deal of work done in Photoshop or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Elasmosaurus Size.svg: Use and license seem fine, it seems like there was some discussion about the accuracy as well but nothing worrisome.

Yeah, we try to review user made images before adding them. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:ElasmosaurusDB15.jpg: License and use seem fine for me, curiosity may demand to know where the info comes from but that's just curiosity.

Can't say, but I did some modifications to it based on photos of the skeleton. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Elasmosaurusskull.jpg: Use and license seem fine, but I note that the Flickr uploader also has images which has clearly derivative works in their list (e.g here) which makes me wonder about the provenance.

The image is in an album[29] by the uploader with many photos from the same museum, so it at least seems plausible for that one, unless he nicked that many images. But then I think it would be easy to find out with Google image search or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Elasmosaurus neck vertebra.png and File:Pectoral vertebrae of Elasmosaurus.png and File:Lost Elasmosaurus vertebra.png: Use is fine, license seems as well.
• File:Officers at Fort Wallace.jpg: Use is fine, license seems plausible as well (out of abundance of caution you could say "PD-70").

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Dorsal vertebrae of Elasmosaurus.jpg: Use is fine, license seems plausible as well.
• File:Elasmosaurus Cope.jpg and File:Elasmosaurus corrected.jpg and File:Elasmosaurus girdle elements.jpg and File:Vertebrae of Elasmosaurus and Cimoliosaurus.jpg: Use is fine, it's not so clear how to track down the license, is the author mentioned anywhere?

No one is credited for the article but Cope, who is listed as author there. What do you have in mind? FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Elasmosaurus at Centennial Centre for Interdisciplinary Science.jpg: Use and license seem fine.
• File:Lealaps-cope.jpg: License seems fine, but what is up with the large maintenance tag?

It is used on Commons to show that an image is scientifically inaccurate, and that it should therefore not be used as a factual representation. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Plesiosaurus constrictus.jpg: Use is fine, source link's broken.

Fixed, seems the website recently moved. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:The Osteology of the Reptiles p139.png: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:North American Plesiosaurs Elasmosaurus, Cimoliasaurus, and Polycotylus Plate 4.png: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Mauisaurus.jpg: Use seems fine, license is also plausible.
• File:The Snake-necked Elasmosaurus.jpg: Use seems fine save for the maintenace tag, source link is broken.

Both links work for me, and the tag is there for the same reason as above. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Elasmosaurus2.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Milwaukee Elasmosaurus.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Elasmosaurus NT.jpg: Use and license seem fine for me.
• File:Image from page 90 of "Water reptiles of the past and present" (1914) (14749987246).jpg: License is fine, same maintenance tag issue as before.

Same as above. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Elasmosaurid Neck Flexibility.svg: Use and license seem fine for me, as does accuracy.
• File:Image from page 103 of "Water reptiles of the past and present" (1914) (14772670092).jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Cretaceous seaway.png: License and use seem fine for me.

Lots of images here, ALT text present & seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, added some answers above. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Most checks out, but the ALT text for the "outdated" images should be clearer that they are wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: "quadratic" is linked to a disambiguation page, and I have no idea which option it should point to. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  None, I'd say. Or maybe square-shaped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Should I just remove the link? And yes, it just refers to a shape. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

What's your rule for adding access dates and/or archive urls/dates to weblinks? I think I see 3 with access dates, 0 archived and 55 that have neither. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I add archives when the links die. And I only add access dates to websites that are not web versions of journal articles. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any actual rule about this. I'm not even sure we could identify an iron rule regarding consistency of use... just for my personal info, do you think newspaper sites are especially stable? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea, this is actually one of the few articles (apart from at least Dromaeosauroides), where I have used a newspaper article as a source... I see archived links to those newspapers have since been added to the other article, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't by me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Just in general, "try to add stuff when you can". If I ever learn an actual rule (I don't think I will), I'll let you know.. Oh, there's this: "Per WP:CITE, accessdate is only required for web sources without a known publication date." And several experienced editors encourage consistency, but... that is nowhere near a deal-breaker (as we discussed on WT:FAC). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

(←) OK. I apologize for using your nom as a guinea pig for my source-checking script; please forgive the inconvenience. I made some changes, including not checking for access date if there is a publication date. That removed many false positives; what we're left with is this:

1. Deecke, W. (1895)– Missing Location, Missing Publisher; Missing OCLC (helpful but not required)

Turns out this was a journal article, so I have changed the template accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Carpenter, K. (2008); Everhart, M. J. (2005)– Missing location.

Added to Everheart, but I can find no trace of the location for the 2008 book. Even the Google Books preview that shows most of the first pages seemingly shows nothing:[30] FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It's Dordrecht, the Netherlands. I went to Google Scholar and typed in the book (not chapter) title, then clicked the "Cited by 20" link (not the blue quotation marks, which allegedly give the citation, but they're often incomplete). Then I looked for pdfs I could copy from. I usually check 2 or 3 such if available, because 1 could be wrong. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, who would have imagined... Would you list just the city, or both? FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

APA says both, but Wikipedia doesn't care. Just keep it consistent. In fact, you didn't even have to populate the location parameter of the templates, but if you add many of them, then you have to go ahead and get all of them (if possible). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Added city, think all are fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Owen, R. (1850); Williston, S.W. (1914); Gay, C. (1848); Andrews, C.W. (1910); Andrews, C.W. (1913); Williston, S.W. (1925); Missing OCLC (helpful but not required) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's fine, have to start somewhere. I've fixed most issues, apart from the OCLC, which I don't think I've ever even seen used before. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2018 [31].

---

Margaret (singer)

Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most popular contemporary artists in Poland with some achievements in other European countries and after her participation in Melodifestivalen 2018 she will undoubtedly attract even more attention. I kept working on the article since it has been promoted to GA last year and I believe that it since has evolved quite a lot and now meets FAs criteria. It's been peer reviewed by Ceranthor and FrB.TG in the past few weeks and hopefully with some more help we will achieve our goal of the article being promoted to FA. Any help is welcome. Thanks. ArturSik (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support On the prose per my peer review. Had a go at the nbsps/nowraps here. Good work! ceranthor 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ceranthor. Really appreciate it. ArturSik (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

• "she was discovered by her manager and signed by her record label" - this doesn't read right to me. Can we say 'she was discovered by manager Sławomir Berdowski and signed by her record label' instead?

 Done

• "numbers six, ten and eleven, respectively," - too many commas. I'd drop the ones before and after 'respectively'

 Done

• "(also known as the Gosia Jamroży Project)" - is this really necessary? This section is pretty heavy on bracketed information as it is; I'd drop it.

 Done

• ""I Get Along" and finished second" - it would be interesting to know how many competitors there were.

 Done

That's all I found. Happy to support this as it is though. Freikorp (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. ArturSik (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I feel bad for not helping with this article during the peer review when pinged so I will leave a review here. My comments will focus only on the prose:

• I would be a little more descriptive in the ALT text for the infobox image.

 Done

• I would change this part “born 30 June 1991 and known professionally as” to “born 30 June 1991, known professionally as” for more concise language.

 Done

• I would change “she was in” to “she performed in”.

 Done

• For the last part of the lead’s first paragraph, please add the years in which “Thank You Very Much” and “Cool Me Down” were released. I do not see why you would delay a mention of the year for the first song until the second mention in the second paragraph.

 Done

• I would spell out EP on its first use in the lead and the body of the article and put EP in parenthesis next to it. After the first mention in each, then you can use EP as the reader will know what you are referencing.

 Done

• In the lead’s second paragraph, I would add a link to jazz in “a jazz album”. I would also link jazz in the body of the article on its first use.

 Done

• For this part “voiced a character in the Polish-language version of”, I would name the character.

 Done

• For this part “Margaret studied singing at the Jazz Academy in Kraków", I would add a comma after Krakow.

 Done

• For this part “At age sixteen she moved”, add a comma after “sixteen”.

 Done

• For this part “At this time she”, add a comma after “time”.

 Done

• For this part “At eighteen Margaret moved to Warsaw”, add a comma after “eighteen”.

 Done

• The first paragraph of the 2012–2013: Breakthrough with "Thank You Very Much” subsection is rather long; would it be beneficial to split it into two?

 Done

• I am not sure that this is part is necessary (who worked with The Black Keys, Britney Spears and Kesha). How is his previous work with these artists necessary for this section. I would remove it.

 Done

• For this part “award-winning director”, I would remove “award-winning” as it may violate POV somewhat. Unless the awards and connected with the music video, then it is not necessary to bring it up.

 Done

• Make sure to have EP linked and spelled out in the body of the article.

 Done

• Please add ALT text for all of the images in the body of the article.

 Done

• I would remove this part (who worked with Selena Gomez, Hilary Duff and Irina Shayk) as I do not see how it is relevant for this article.

 Done

Wonderful work here. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A massive THANK YOU Aoba47. ArturSik (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. Great work with this article. I really should do some work with biography articles in the future. Just for future reference, I think that the use of graphics (i.e. the done checkmark) is discouraged so I would replace those with just text. I support this for promotion based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do that in the future. Thank you and good luck with biographies. ArturSik (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

I have some difficulty in providing a comprehensive sources review, since about 90% of the citations are to foreign, mainly Polish sources. it would be a good idea if someone with knowledge of Polish could review these sources to confirm that they meet our standards of quality and reliability. In the meantime I can report that all links are working and that the references are consistently formatted. I have just a couple of queries:

• Ref 8: Does not appear to contain the informatioin cited to it ("Margaret studied singing at the Jazz Academy in Kraków")

My bad. Changed it to Jazz Academy in Katowice.

• In a number of cases the language is not given: see11, 16, 17, 93 and perhaps some others

Done

Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ll try to find a Polish speaker who could review the sources. Thank you. ArturSik (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think one way to do some checking would be to see if the newspapers/website themselves are at-least reliable - don't need to know what the article is about if it is from say the polish-equivalent of the dailymail. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has kindly agreed to review the sources, so I guess the best thing to do for now is to wait for his review and see what he says :) ArturSik (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I was asked to look into the sources. I am a bit busy and not deeply interested in the topic of this article, but I found a few minutes. Here are sources that do not appear bulletproof reliable at the first glance, and the nominator may want to comment and explain why they are used (note: I am not listing interviews, and stuff that appears to be rewritten press releases/marketing materials, just stuff that seems very niche, including two references that seem to be from the subject's blog):

• https://web.archive.org/web/20141227002155/http://zsinsko.szkolnastrona.pl/index.php?p=new&idg=mg%2C1&id=126&action=show

school's website and an article stating she was their student

• https://web.archive.org/web/20140221015550/http://www.choszczno.pl/content/view/2180/1/

town's website. An article about her being a student of the local music school.

• https://web.archive.org/web/20171130022053/http://zen.fpiec.pl/post/2015/01/19/margaretpanizplakatutonieja

an interview with the singer so I assume what she says is reliable

• https://web.archive.org/web/20110828104406/http://rockmyband.pl/user/margaret-j-project

band's profile on a music portal

• https://web.archive.org/web/20171130023516/http://margaret-j.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/beauty-breast.html

Margaret's blog

• https://margaret-j.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/thank-you-very-much.html

Margaret's blog

• https://web.archive.org/web/20141022235841/http://www.mowimyjak.pl/newsy/kto-jest-kim/kim-jest-margaret-czyli-malgorzata-jamrozy-autorka-hitu-thank-you-very-much-to-polka-spiewa-tvn%2C49_53483.html

removed

I am not familiar with ref standards for popculture stars. If we cut tabloids, average gossip portals (pretty much same fare), and interviews, there wouldn't be much left. Shrug. It's not like there are biography books on her, and while there is some coverage in main newspapers/magazines, I am sure a lot of uncontroversial, minor facts are not there. Again, I write bios on different type of people (historical bios) and the sourcing standards are a bit different (most of my subjects died long before they could blog about themselves :P). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton here’s the message. ArturSik (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Before anyone with sufficient knowledge of ref standards for pop stars gives their opinion, I'd like to say that the sources that I have used in this article such as Onet and Interia (I think these are the ones that I use the most) aren't considered tabloids on Polish wikipedia and are used there in most articles about popstarts, inlcuding in featured articles. As you have said yourself it's not like there are books or studies on her, so there have to be some sources covering this topic that are acceptable on wikipedia and onet and interia as well as I believe the other ones that I have used in this article are. The Polish tabloids that can be comapred to The Sun or Daily Mail are Fakt and Super Express and these have never been used by me. As to the sources used in the article I really don't know how we could verify them but as far as I'm concerened they aren't tabloidlike. ArturSik (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Coord note: It might be worth having another experienced source reviewer come in at this point... Also I gathered that this is Artur's first FAC (correct me if I'm wrong) so we'd need a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Andy, would you be able to weigh in re. source reliability and perhaps spotcheck a few English refs? Volunteer Marek or Piotr, could you sporcheck some Polish-language sources? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Can do today. --Laser brain (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose Yes, this is my first FAC. Thanks for stepping in and helping out with the sources review, it's been a bit problematic since most of them are not in English but hopefully we can overcome this. ArturSik (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose I already pointed out the most problematic ones above. Waiting for the nominator to explain why they are reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have now adressed all your comments. As I am not too familiar with ref standards I guess it's best to wait and see what someone who does says. Whether blogs are acceptable or not etc. Regards. ArturSik (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that we've taken this about as far as we can, and although there may be uncertainties concerning the standards of some of the foreign language sources I'm inclined to thinking that reasonable diligence has been observed, and to consider the sources as acceptable, provided the spotchecking is completed satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton is that a support then? ArturSik (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't register "support" or "oppose" when confining myself to sources checking. But with 10 or 11 supports already, you scarcely need another! Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

Support on prose. I first reviewed and copy-edited it last year or so when it was yet to be nominated for GA. It grew more since then. I recently took part in its peer review, where I found it much better. I think it is a nice article about a young woman and meets 1a criterion. FrB.TG (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you:) ArturSik (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Here's what I have so far, through the start of the 2014 section.

• "Margaret was approached by future manager, Sławomir Berdowski," missing word, possibly "her" before "future"

Done. ArturSik (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• "In May 2012, "Thank You Very Much" was serviced to radio stations in Poland," is serviced the proper word? Possibly "released"?

Done. ArturSik (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The video was removed by YouTube from their services, since it violated the website's no-nudity-and-sexual-content policy; it was later restored with age restrictions.[34] " consider cutting "from their services". I might try to avoid the multiple connected words possibly by "the website's policy against ..."

Done. ArturSik (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy with other reviews. Focusing on this now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "2014 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship Opening Ceremony" I might shorten to "tournament's Opening Ceremony"

Done. ArturSik (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• "{{nowrap|[[Swedish Recording Industry Association]] (GLF)}}." this is causing a line to end halfway through on my browser.

Removed "nowrap". ArturSik (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly {{nowrap|''[[Smurfs: The Lost Village]]''}}

as above. ArturSik (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• "number thirty-eight on their list of 50" why are some numbers spelled out and not others?

done.ArturSik (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Mrs. Claus" If this article is written in British English, as I suspect, possibly the period after Mrs should be deleted as it is not usually used.

removed the fullstop. ArturSik (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments. ArturSik (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, have you comments been addressed satisfactorily? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Nick-D

I'm posting this review in response to a request on my talk page a few weeks ago. I have to say that I hadn't previously heard of this artist, and know nothing about her beyond what's in the article and from some YouTube videos I just watched. The article is in good shape, and is a fine example of a biography of a pop singer. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• "After the win, she took part in the show's 2009 final held at the Congress Hall in Warsaw" - do we know where she placed?

only the winner was announced. ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• " after hearing her cover of Adele's "Right as Rain"." - where did they hear this? (at a concert, or was it recorded?)

changed "cover" to "recording"

• The '2014–2016: Add the Blonde, Just the Two of Us and "Cool Me Down"' section doesn't read well: it's fact after fact, with excessive detail which belongs in the articles on her discography. For instance:
  • "as the lead single from Margaret's debut studio album" - the album then isn't described until 2 paragraphs later

reorganised the section and removed some information that are already included in articles on the albums and the songs. ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• • "The single's music video, directed by Julia Bui Ngoc, was inspired by Jean-Pierre Jeunet's 2001 film Amélie and Andy Warhol's work" - useful for the article on the song, but not needed here

removed. ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• • " She performed it at the tournament's Opening Ceremony on 30 August in front of an audience of 62,000 in the National Stadium in Warsaw, before the Poland v. Serbia match broadcast in more than 168 countries." - I'd suggest cutting this to "She performed it at the tournament's Opening Ceremony in the National Stadium in Warsaw". Everything else is irrelevant, or fairly obvious from the context.

done. ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• • "The show was cancelled after two months during which ten episodes aired" - delete everything after "months"

done. ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• • "The singer appeared in two Polish Coca-Cola advertising campaigns, for which she recorded a Polish version of Robin Beck's "First Time" titled "Smak radości" (translated as "The Taste of Happiness") and a Polish version of the Christmas song "Wonderful Dream (Holidays are Coming)", originally sung by Melanie Thornton, titled "Coraz bliżej święta" (translated as "Holidays are Coming") which featured the finalists of the sixth season of The Voice of Poland" - I'd suggest simplifying this to "The singer appeared in two Polish Coca-Cola advertising campaigns, performing covers of two songs".

done. ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• • "and Margaret has said that it is about "a very hot chick [...] rhythm, moves and sexiness"" - I'd suggest cutting this

done. ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• "has said that she had more artistic control over its creative process than with her debut album" - do we know what this involved? (both for the first album and this album?)

she was more involved in the songwriting, having co-written 10 out of 12 songs on the album. ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do we know why she released a jazz album at the time she was building a career as a pop singer? It seems an interesting change of pace and genre. Given that it's a bit outside her main focus, did the album get good reviews?

I would compare this turn to what Lady Gaga did when she recorded a jazz album with Tony Bennett. It was "out of love to jazz". + I didn't find any reviews from high profile magazines/websites in Poland. ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not really on top of the Eurovision qualification process (despite Australia bizarrely now being a participant!), but how did she qualify to potentially represent Sweden? Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

“But the main reason that I’m here is the God of Melodifestivalen liked my song — that’s the main reason.” That god, of course, is Mr Christer Björkman, the head honcho of Melodifestivalen who will also help produce Eurovision 2018 in Lisbon. “It turned out that Christopher saw me somewhere on TV here in Sweden, and we prepared a song and they liked it. And here I am.” (http://wiwibloggs.com/2017/11/28/melodifestivalen-2018-margaret-tells-us-whats-cabana/202715/). ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

So you don't need to even be a resident of the country you're representing? Eurovision is even wackier than I thought! (come to think of it, I vaguely remember an Australian representing the UK a few years ago). Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I know, it's mad. But actually Sweden is much more strict on having only Swedes (or someone with Swedish background/Swedish residents/citizens) representing them in Eurovision than other countries. Margaret was asked to take part, because she's signed with Swedish label and had some success there. That's what the show's producer said - http://wiwibloggs.com/2017/11/29/christer-bjorkman-says-melfest-2018-line-filled-hits-alcazar-reveals-svt-rejected/202777/. ArturSik (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D thanks for your comments. I've left my replies under each one of them. ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D thanks, appreciate it. ArturSik (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Panagiotis Zois

• It should be "born on June 30, 1991", not "30 June 1991". This applies to both the lead section and her early life section.

The article is written in British English, so I'm going to stick with the dmy format. ArturSik (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ohh shit. I hadn't thought of that. Well, in that case, forget I said anything. 15:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Considering how Margaret's mother's maiden name isn't stated, you can just remove the first Jamroży after her father's name.

removed. ArturSik (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'd change "after the win" to "after winning".

changed. ArturSik (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Don't you mean she "bagan a promotional tour in Italy"?

I believe both options are acceptable. ArturSik (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure it should be in, rather than of. With stuff like that, you can ask the question "Where did she begin a promotional tour?". The answer would be "In Italy", not "Of Italy". PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

changed. ArturSik (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• In "for a fashion retailer Sinsay", remove the A.

removed. ArturSik (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "also featured in Deichman's", add the "'s".

added. ArturSik (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• February 10, 2018, not 10 February.

That's pretty much it. Very well-written and informative article. I even listened to "Thank You Very Much"; weird video, but the song is catchy. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois thanks for your comments. ps. haha yeah, it is a bit... weird. ArturSik (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, with those things out of the way, I happily give my support to this article. I may even listen to some of her other songs. Good job with the article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. ArturSik (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Source spot-check from Laser brain

As with the source review, I struggled to find things I can actually check since most of them are in languages I don't speak. The citations I could check support the text provided, and are free from plagiarism problems:

• Fn 16a, OK
• Fn 35, OK
• Fn 55, OK
• Fn 83, OK
• Fn 99, OK (although I'd prefer we convey criticism and reviews in our own voice instead of just copying quotations)

I haven't spotted any source reliability issues, but again I'm unfamiliar with the Polish and Italian sources and can't accurately assess their reliability. --Laser brain (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks for doing as much as you could have done. Really appreciate it. ArturSik (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I have reviewed the article and find it to be comprehensive and basically complete.BabbaQ (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. ArturSik (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. In good shape, and meets the criteria from the point of prose. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. ArturSik (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from John

It's looking good; I remember looking at this a couple of months ago. Do we really need During the concert, she talked about a 19-year-old boy Adrian Rypiński suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy whom she previously visited at home and who was unable to attend the event due to his condition? --John (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

John the whole initiative was about each celebrity becoming a "guardian angel" to a child and during the show they told the child's story and asked viewers to donate money to support them and then they sang for them, so I think mentioning only her performance wouldn't paint the whole picture. ArturSik (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Part of the challenge in getting an article to the highest standards possible is knowing what to include and what to leave out. To what extent is this a central part of her notability? In 50 or 100 years, will this be a part of the story that is told of her? --John (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed. ArturSik (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, that's appreciated. One big(gish) question and one tiny one. First, regarding her name, shouldn't we call her by the name she used at the time (Małgorzata) up to the point in her life where she changed to using her stage name? This only affects the second paragraph of the Early life and education section. Secondly, I think there's a word missing from "Polish music manager Maja Sablewska stated that Margaret has a "beautiful" timbre and interprets her lyrics indicating that she knows what she is singing about." Maybe "as"? There are a few other minor infelicities of this nature scattered through the article and once they are cleared up I will be happy to support. --John (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the same point was made when Lady Gaga's article was up for FA and it's been decided that she should be named Gaga throughout the whole article, so maybe this would work better here as well + where exactly this word is missing? ps. English is my second language so my grammar may not always be correct. This is why I was hoping that other useres would help out with that. Regards. ArturSik (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem to do a wee last touch-up of the prose. The naming issue slightly bothers me though. "It's been decided [at another article]" isn't a reason. Let me think about it some more. --John (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Here's another. "In October, Margaret was a judge for Poland's national selection for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2016." Is this really important to include? --John (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Really appreciate your help. I have changed the name and removed information about her being a judge. ArturSik (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, your previous message got me thinking and I think that maybe it would be better to get rid of the philanthropy section because it’s not really something she’s known for and maybe only leave the information about her being featured on the charity album and just blend it into her bio. What do you think ? ArturSik (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that'd be fine. --John (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Done:) ArturSik (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support With the fairly minor improvements over the last days, I think the article now meets my standards. Well done! --John (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

John Brilliant. Thank you so so much. I really think that now, after your input, the article looks the best it ever did. Best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

John one more thing. here: ", and accused YouTube of censorship" do you think "accused" is the accurate word, I think it's a bit too strong. wouldn't it be better to say she criticised YouTube for censorship? ArturSik (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course. --John (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Margaret (Małgorzata Jamroży) By Daniel Åhs Karlsson (cropped 4).jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Margaret Tarnów (altered).jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Małgorzata Jamroży Aka Margaret By Daniel Åhs Karlsson (cropped).jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Margaret Feb 2017.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Margaret in 2016 (cropped).jpg: License and use seem fine for me.

No comment on ALT as others have already looked at that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose now that we've got 10 (!) supports, image review and the sources review is completed do you think it can be promoted? ArturSik (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Given Brian's sign-off on source reliability, Andy's spotcheck, and the other recent commentary I think we're probably good to go but I won't be able to go through in detail till tomorrow -- tks for your patience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thank you:) ArturSik (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2018 [32].

---

Wood stork

Nominator(s): RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the wood stork, a stork found in the Americas. Hope you find the article and its subject interesting! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• Before reviewing, I defintiely think the image selection could be improved. For example, we should always show the eggs[33], and there are other interesting images available of juveniles/nests[34][35][36][37], a mating pair[38], and a foraging individual.[39] This is also a nicer photo of a flying individual than the one currently shown:[40] FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a picture of a foraging individual (not the one you suggested, as I don't think it shows the wings very well), the one of the eggs, the mating, the flying individual, the photo with a wood stork shading its nest, and one of the juveniles. As always, thanks for your comments on the images in the article. I do wish I had polished the image selection up a bit before sending this to FAC. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Great improvement. Perhaps Nikkimaria wants to take a look at the new images, though their sources looked good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

They're a little odd - as US federal government works I'd expect them to be PD, not CC BY. Either way they're fine to include, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Any reason why synonyms aren't listed in the taxobnox?

Nope. Added (although there only seems to be the one). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Seems a bis strange that aggressiveness needs its own, tiny section, when it is pretty much just about nesting behaviour.

Removed/merged. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• The intro seems too detailed and long for an article of this size.

I tried to cut it down a bit on this. I removed some excessive detail and made sentences more concise where I could. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• "the jabiru-guacu" Which is what? If this bird, simpkly state "wherein it is referred to as the jabiru-guacu" or some such.

Added after I introduced T. loculator. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• "by Mark Catesby under the name of wood pelican" From when?

1731; added. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• "North American fossils from that time are of an extinct larger relative, M. wetmorei." What's the difference between the two?

Size and the curvature of the mandible. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• "It also has been given the name of the "American wood stork", because it is found in the Americas" Doesn't this imply that there are wood storks elsewhere?

Sort of; the yellow-billed stork is sometimes called the wood stork or wood ibis. Should I add a hatnote about it? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I at least think it should be explained somehow. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a hatnote about it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Give the source of the cladogram in its caption.

Added. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The clade that it is basal to is the clade that has the yellow-billed stork being basal to the milky stork and the painted stork" This is a clunky sentence. For example, you cna start it with "it is basal to the clade that contains the yellow-billed stork, which is itself basal to..."

Reworked. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• You could state what this phylogeny is based on in the text, and when it was published. DNA work?

Added. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Wood stork copulation" Why not copulating?

Changed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Two wood chicks" Wood stork chicks, surely?

Good catch. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• You mention a decline in the population, due to what?

Added why. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not a big deal, but I would maybe move the flight section to the beginning of behaviour, as it is a pretty important, constant aspect of the bird's life?

I think it might be a bit better to keep it where it is. This is because I mention certain things, like how fast it flies to foraging areas, that are better understood with prior knowledge (in this case, how far away foraging areas are) mentioned before. I will, although, move the flight section above the excretion/thermoregulation section. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "about 200 kilograms (440 lb) is needed" Are needed?

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "it used about 35%" It is used?

It should be "is" instead of "it". RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The water that it forages in during the dry season average about" Averages?

Corrected. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "the water usually is about 10 centimetres (3.9 in)." Add "deep".

Added. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "with a central area green area" Wrong?

Corrected. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The one metre (3.3 ft) nest" You could specify it is the diameter, otherwise it is vague what s meant.

Specified. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think the sentences about predation should come first in the third paragraph of the intro. Doesn't make sense to have it between text about man-made threats.

This is how I think about the structure of the third paragraph: overall status, and then individual threats, with predation being a subsection of that. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - looks quite good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Good article, a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• It was originally described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758.—not sure why this stand-alone fact needs to go in the intro

The reason why I think this is good to include is because it can tell you some things about the bird. First, it can tell you that it wasn't differentiated on the basis of phylogeny. Second, it tells you where the birds were probably described (as only certain parts of the Americas had been explored before 1758). Third, it tells you the obvious, that it was described by Linnaeus in 1758. So, it tells you at least three things. Also, since this is one sentence of two sentences on taxonomy, I think it deserves to be included. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not totally convinced, but your call Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Of the extant members of its genus, the wood stork is basal, being the first off-shoot from the genus' common ancestor. —again, this technical stuff seems likely to scare off the casual reader. I agree with FunkMonk on this

Removed the sentence. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• It prefers those surrounded by water or over water—those what?

I actually just merged the sentence with another one. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• ''They fledge after 60 to 65 days after hatching—"after" repeated

Removed one instance. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• You don't give the etymology of the genus name even though it's on your linked Nellis page

Did that. I managed to compress the etymology of the specific and generic names in the same sentence. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• because it is found in America—I'd prefer in the Americas, otherwise it will be confused with the US

Changed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Regional names include—what regions? US? Caribbean?

Not specified. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• it is found to northern Argentina— add "south to…"

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Para 2 of "Breeding", "greenery" is overworked

Hopefully it's fine now. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• anywhere between November and August—any time

Done, although I said "anytime". RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• 62%, meaning that about 62%...—avoid repeating figure

Removed the repetition. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Both of these methods are non-visual.—" perhaps Both these hunting methods are non-visual.?

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• The temperature at which this takes place is slightly above the threshold for which panting takes places, the latter of which takes place—repetitive takes place

Reworked. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Where it occurs, the crested caracara—now split. Is this C. cheriway, C. plancus or both?

At least C. cheriway. The paper gives the specific name as plancus, but the study was done in Venezuela, where C. cheriway occurs. Thus, it is before they were split, so where that statement would include C. plancus is unknown. Other caracaras are occasionally nest predators, so I just changed the sentence to start by saying "Racoons and caracaras, especially northern crested caracaras..." RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• link levee, thermoregulation at first occurence

Done RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Query need for a separate "Aggression" section, as above

I removed it, as I saw no need for it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the rest of the responses, so changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Shouldn't the article be written in US English since the species is not found in any other English-speaking nation? LittleJerry (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Bahamas, Belize, Cayman Islands, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago and the Turks and Caicos Islands presumably don't count? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 3: The source is largely illegible, but the language does not appear to be English

Latin. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 4: appears to be lacking a publisher

It was published by Catesby. He does seem to be a member of the Royal Society, and this book seems to be accepted as accurate in terms of natural history (considering when it was published, of course). So, I think that it is ok to keep it even if it is self-published. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 21: What language is the source written in? Also, check the page range (given as 96–10)

Spanish. It seems that I (or somebody) forgot to add the final digit. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources are consistently presented and are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

• Three consecutive sentences in lead start with "It..." - needs some rejigging.

I merged a sentence, and made that one not start with "it". RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• The head and neck are not feathered and dark grey in colour. scans oddly with the negative, how about, "The head and neck are bare of feathers and dark grey in colour.", or "The bare head and neck are dark grey." "In colour" is redundant as well. I'd also switch this sentence to after the one on plumage.

Done the first one, but not the second. This is because I prefer to go from top to bottom in terms of body morphology. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• All of the plumage is white - well...it's not, so how about just, "The plumage is white"...

I didn't say that. I said "the plumage is mostly white". RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• The habitat of the wood stork can vary, but it must be tropical and with fluctuating water levels. - tropical refers to climate and not habitat...and you've mentioned that it is subtropical as well above. I'd remove the reference to tropical here.

Fixed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• The one metre (3.3 ft) nest is found in trees, usually surrounded by water or over water, and especially mangroves and those of the genus Taxodium. - they don't nest in mangroves? this sentence parses oddly.

Sorry; must be the order. Switched around. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• These are incubated for around 30 days, and hatch altricial. - the eggs are not altricial but young are...if the lead is long I'd leave this sentence out altogether.

Corrected. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• M. americana and T. loculator are synonymous - link synonymous here

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録

• Singularise the male and female sentences on mean wieght.

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'd leave the second estimate of mean weight sourced to a 1962 book.

What do you mean? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant leave it out. But not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it in, as there is nothing besides that statement that deals with the average weight as a whole. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• ''This stork is able to adapt to a variety of tropical wetland habitats - again, need to reconcile this with "subtropical" mentioned elsewhere...

Added "and subtropical"

• Link primaries and secondaries.

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The latter part of the article reads well - I will take another look at the lead and description sections later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good comprehensiveness and prose-wise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: The duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. I don't think this needs to hold up promotion, but someone should take a look. Sarastro (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2018 [41].

---

Henry Petre

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Henry Petre (pronounced "peter") was one of the pioneers of Australian military aviation. Along with Eric Harrison, who you may well see at FAC in the not-too-distant future, Petre founded the original Central Flying School at Point Cook, Victoria, in 1913–14. Unlike Harrison, Petre a) saw extensive service in World War I and was highly decorated for his actions, and b) didn't join the RAAF, resigning from the military after the war and returning to his first profession, the law. He never lost his enthusiasm for flying, though, which he continued to do privately at least up until the 1950s. I took this through MilHist A-Class Review five years ago and have recently polished it and added a few more snippets of info that have become available -- not a long article but I think it's comprehensive, so have at it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• All of the images need info about when and where they were first published, per the tags in use. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Tks Nikki -- I think all available info is there already; the current tags are what passed muster a few years ago, probably we're safer applying PD-AustraliaGov instead? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Sure, that should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "the Australian Flying Corps, predecessor of the Royal Australian Air Force." - might want a "the" before predecessor
  • I thought there might be too many "the"s in there but don't mind adding it.
• " gaining employment as a designer" - assume you mean airplane designer, but it's a little unclear
  • Fair enough, will do.
• "and was commissioned a lieutenant in the Australian Military Forces." - might just be me, but seems like there's an "as" missing before a lieutenant
  • The expression as we have is quite common in military articles but I don't minding altering..
• "he commanded No. 75 Squadron" - given that other proper military nouns received "the" before them, it only seems logical to carry that over here and put a "the" before No. 75
  • I'm afraid numbered RAF (and RAAF) units rarely if ever take the definite article so this really should stay as is.
• "continued to fly recreationally before his death in 1962" - might just be me, but I think "until" flows better than before
  • Will do.
• "Petre gave up his legal practice, borrowed £250 and proceeded to build his own aeroplane," - given that elsewhere you've used the serial comma, I'd use it after "borrowed £250"
  • Will do.
• "to become, as George Odgers described it," - a brief explanation of why Odgers's opinion matters/who he is might be useful
  • Odgers is another official RAAF historian; I introduced Gillison because he had no article and left Odgers alone because he did, but no prob making it consistent.
• think Indian Government needs an NBSP
  • Okay.
• "airdrop grain supplies (and a millstone for grinding), medical supplies and equipment" - same note as above about the serial comma consistency
  • Will do.

These are just some nitpicks. Once these are addressed, I'll be happy to support on the prose. ceranthor 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review, Ceranthor -- I'll make these changes later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely fixes. Support ceranthor 04:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources are in good oreder and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Tks Brian! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Pretty minor points all of these.

• in Early career, his full name isn't given and cited
  • Good point, tks.
• when first used, RAAF should probably be in full so people don't have to join the dots from the lead
  • Fair enough.
• when he is first mentioned, perhaps mention that his brother Edward was also interested in flying, as it seems a little abrupt when he is killed in a flying accident
  • Hmm, I felt it was pretty clear given he assisted Henry designing an aeroplane.
• "established the CFS", I know dropped the definite article for squadrons and wings is standard practice in the RAAF, but I think one is needed here
  • Boy, you army types have never given up the dream of controlling the air arm, have you...? Just kidding, will do... :-)
• suggest "Sufficient aircrew and supporting personnel were available for only half a flight, so the unit..."
  • Okay.
• what did he get the MC and DSO for?
  • I'm afraid none of the short bios on the man, nor the Gazette, the AWM, or his personnel file at NAA provide the specifics.
• Richard Williams could probably just be Williams on second mention, as there doesn't appear to be any other William's mentioned
  • Okay.
• suggest at the RAAF Museum
  • Oh all right... ;-)
• Henry Petre could probably just be Petre
  • Okay.
• date ranges in the infobox in full per the new guideline eg 1919–1920
  • If I recall the new guideline correctly, the abbreviated form is acceptable in infoboxes owing to the space limitations.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Tks for reviewing, PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

No prob. Great article BTW! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Good article – nicely researched and well written. Three tiny points for you to consider, but I leave it up to you what steps (if any) you decide to take with them:

Early career

• Should née be italicised?

• Wouldn't hurt.

• "and later its chief": is "chief" a bit too informal?

• The source said he "took charge", without proving a formal title, so I said "chief" but it could be "head" or something else -- any thoughts?

• "Head" would work for me too. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done -- tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Link to World War I?

• Generally I don't link the world wars when they form the backdrop to a significant part of an article, since we have more granular/meaningful links to campaigns, battles, etc.

• Fair enough! - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That's it from me – all good otherwise. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Gavin! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2018 [42].

---

Operation PBHistory

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a CIA covert operation in Guatemala, one of many articles I worked on related to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, which became an FA in 2017. It's based on pretty much every scholarly discussing the subject. I feel it's comprehensive. Shearonink provided a detailed GA review. This is my second effort at FAC; the previous one was archived, essentially for lack of participation. At that FAC, it received an image review by Nikkimaria, a source review by Brianboulton, and comments from Dudley Miles and SchroCat, whom I am pinging to see if they have anything to add. The article has not changed significantly since that review. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The previous nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation PBHISTORY/archive1. The article was retitled following a discussion there. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley Miles

As I said in comments on the previous nomination, there are still two issues which you did not address. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I apologize for missing your comments: I was away for a few days and did not check the page thoroughly enough on my return. I have tweaked the wording in both cases to try and address your points. Let me know if that helps, or whether further clarification is needed. With respect to your second comment, I've simply removed the phrase referring to Castillo Armas "taking power", because I realized it was ambiguous in this case: Castillo Armas held power both as leader of the junta and as President. Vanamonde (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

My second query has been dealt with but I still cannot see what you are getting at in the last sentence of the lead: "Historian Max Holland stated that 'PBHistory ultimately could not repair the damage caused" by the fact that the US could not hide its involvement in the overthrow of Árbenz,[2] while Bevan Sewell wrote that it was an "ill-fated" operation, and that "the level of discord that US actions had caused in the region overshadowed any attempt to publicize [their] success."' In the first part you appear to say (or quote historians saying) that the US agents unsuccessfuly attempted to conceal their involvement, and in the second part that they attempted to publicise their success. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. My remaining query has been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: I don't believe you've completed the nomination process, as this is not listed on the WP:FAC page Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I have done so now. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• No changes to the sources, which I approved last 4th October. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: for the sake of completeness: two sources have been added following a conversation with Finetooth below [43], [44], and one has been moved to further reading. Any comments?

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This generally reads well. I made about 30 small copyedits here as I went, and I have a few other suggestions and questions.

Your copy edits look excellent to me.

Lead

• ¶2 "The first phase of the operation began soon after Árbenz's resignation on June 27, 1954, with several agents being dispatched to Guatemala beginning on July 4." – Replace the "with plus -ing" construction? Suggestion: "After Árbenz's resignation on June 27, 1954, the CIA sent several agents to Guatemala beginning on July 4."

• Done

• ¶3 "In summarizing the impacts of the operation, Historian Max Holland stated that 'PBHistory ultimately could not repair the damage caused' by the fact that the US could not hide its involvement in the overthrow of Árbenz, while Bevan Sewell wrote that it was an 'ill-fated' operation, and that 'the level of discord that US actions had caused in the region overshadowed any attempt to publicize [their] success.' " – I agree with User:Dudley Miles that something here is not clear. I'd suggest recasting this paragraph as follows: "PBHistory documents were used to support the CIA's existing operations Kufire and Kugown, which sought to track Latin American communists and to disseminate information critical of the Árbenz government. Documents were shared with the Kersten Committee of the US House of Representatives, which publicized PBHistory within the US, and the documents helped Guatemalan intelligence agencies create a register of suspected communists. Yet Operation PBHistory failed to find evidence that the Soviet government controlled the Guatemalan communists or to counter the international narrative that the United States had toppled the Árbenz government to please the United Fruit Company." Then I would suggest moving the direct quotations to the last paragraph of the "Aftermath and analysis" section, and recasting them with clarity in mind, possibly omitting the Holland quote altogether since his point seems to be made adequately elsewhere in the article.

• After reading your comments and those of Dudley Miles, I read the source yet again, and now I have come to the conclusion that the contradiction is in the source itself. I have copied the paragraph below, but in essence it seems as though Sewell is claiming that PBHISTORY was about publicizing the coup, which it was not: it was about justifying the coup. Accordingly, I've just removed the quote. If either of you see a way to salvaging a useful, non-contradictory, non-redundant quote, I'd love to hear it. Vanamonde (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Further damage to Washington’s image would be done by the administration’s actual covert act of removing Arbenz from offi ce (Rabe, 1988: 42–64). While the inflexible stance taken by the US over economic issues had, undoubtedly, contributed to a deterioration in inter-American harmony, the role of the US in bringing about Arbenz’s downfall had an even greater impact. Paradoxically, this was in spite of the fact that Eisenhower and his advisors considered it one of their greatest successes in the region. Following the overthrow the US attempted to publicize it through the ill-fated Operation PBHistory (Osgood, 2006: 147–148; Holland: 323). The level of discord that US actions had caused in the region overshadowed any attempt to publicize its success. Such sentiments were, as Mark Stoler (2007: 662) has outlined, expressed with great vehemence by Oscar Waiss, leader of the Chilean Socialist Party. ‘It is certain that the United States has lost more than it gained [. . .] it has lost forever the friendship of the peoples of Latin America and the possibility of being considered [. . .] as a “good neighbour” [. . .] Latin Americans will not forget Guatemala so easily.’ And, as the decade wore on, this disconnection between the administration’s rhetoric and actions would continue to intensify. (Sewell, 2008, page 303)

First phase

• Flip three sets of back-to-back citations in the first two paragraphs of this subsection to ascending order?

• Fixed. I usually do a check of this, neglected to do so in this case...

• ¶2 "...purchase of weapons from Czechoslovakia..." – Link Czechoslovakia?

• Done

Second phase

• ¶4 "750 photographs of this material..." – The MOS advises against starting a sentence with digits.

• Done

Operation Kufire

• ¶1 "Operation Kufire was a wide-ranging operations..." – To avoid repeating "operation", replace the second instance with "effort"?

• Done, also fixed typo

Operation Kugown

• ¶2 "...convinced American journalists such as Donald Grant..." – Can you identify him further? Who did he write for? Was he an editor, a publisher?

• Done, but I'm not terribly happy about this. Holland describes him as "one of the most experienced and respected U.S. journalists covering Latin America at the time", but neglects to mention his affiliation. The cited article of Grant's is from a journal (which I've now cited), and it says he is with the St Louis Post Dispatch, which is a fact I've added. But, there's a slight possibility he was not with the SLPD during the time of the Operation: the source is only good for its time of publication. Nonetheless, an improvement, I think, so I've left it in for now.

• Looks good to me. Via newspapers.com, I checked for and found Donald Grant articles published in 1954 for the SLPD. One that popped up almost immediately is a March 1954 article about Dulles, communism, and Guatemala. I could add a citation to it, if you like, to make the SLPD part of the claim airtight. Finetooth (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Kersten Committee

• ¶1 "...the Kersten Committee held a number of hearings" – I'd either add the exact number or delete the vague "a number of".

• Done

General

• The mural has alt text. Concise alt text for the other three would be nice even though not required.

• Done, but I'm terrible at alt text, feel free to suggest modifications.

• You have all the skills necessary to write them. I modified a couple and added the two missing ones. Finetooth (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• No disambiguation problems.
• No dead URLs.
• The main text includes duplicate links for Dwight Eisenhower (3 links), United Fruit Company, psychological warfare, and Office of Intelligence Research. You could safely delete the duplicates.

• Done: I like to use a link at the first use of a term in the body even if there's one in the lead, but I've removed the rest.

• A map showing the position of Guatemala in the Western Hemisphere might be useful. I didn't find one that I thought was a perfect fit, but there might be one lurking about. Finetooth (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done: It's only of North America, but it's better than nothing.
• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Finetooth: thanks for a detailed review. I believe I've addressed all your points. Vanamonde (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Switching to support on prose. I don't think you need the Sewell quote unless fresh eyes see something I'm missing. Let me know if you want me to add the Donald Grant (SLPD) citation. Finetooth (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Finetooth. If it's not too much trouble, please add that newspaper source: do prefer to have things watertight. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Background

• "Philosophically conservative": neither our article on JJA nor the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état article, nor the one of the two sources uses this phrase, which is an odd one, and which raises more questions than it answers for what was a socialist/radical politician. Is there a way to re-phrase to give clarity?

• Well, describing him as a radical is hardly accurate. To quote Streeter (2000): "Although he borrowed many of his ideas from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, he also spoke of “spiritual socialism,” an unfortunate expression that misled many U.S. officials to brand him a communist [...] In truth, Arévalo barely qualified as a social democrat. Spiritual socialism was a nebulous philosophy which asserted that a “harmonious society” could be achieved through psychological liberation rather than a redistribution of wealth. Arévalo rejected classical Marxism in favor of liberal capitalism, whose rough edges would be smoothed by legislative reforms." In other words, he's not particularly different from any mainstream European part today. He was also a staunch anti-communist. I think this is a bit much to get into here, so I've just removed the descriptor, and stuck to describing his policy.

• It comes across as a bit of an Easter egg, so "under [[Soviet Union|Soviet influence]] would be better as " under the influence of the [[Soviet Union]] (it may be my background, but when I read of 'influence' in geopolitical terms, I think of Sphere of influence, which is confusing.

• Done.

• Probably worth linking Dwight Eisenhower

• Done

• "a CIA operation" -> an operation by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

• Tweaked

• "Operation PBSUCCESS" to "Operation PBSuccess" and pipe to 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état?

• Done through the article, linked as suggested

• "Washington issued a series of statements". No it didn't. A city did nothing of the sort, but perhaps a government department or agency or "the American government" did.

• True: this is just the tendency for the sources to fall into journalese. Fixed.

• Any reason for the difference in capitalisation between the Britain's Labour party and the Swedish Social Democratic Party? I seem to remember that it was the Labour Party at the time

• None: fixed.

• "one observer stated" probably best to say who it was: "John Smith of the important government stated..."

• This was Daniel James, author of Red Design for the Americas: Guatemalan Prelude; but though he may be notable in his own right, he's being cited more as a topic-specific authority: even the text of the source only calls him a "keen observer", his name is in the footnotes. I've added his name nonetheless, but I'm not too sure it's an improvement.

• It's partly so that appropriate weight is given to the comment, and partly because at some point someone will come alone and put a tag against "one observer", so it's to 'future-proof' against the need for it to be re-addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• "In addition, due to the quick overthrow": it's not 'in addition', because it's a continuation of the same point as the previous paragraph (so it should really be in the same paragraph as above, ('one point: one paragraph' is an excellent rule of thumb to remember). "Because of the quick overthrow" is much better.

• Tweaked.

Done to the start of "Document analysis". More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I've addressed all the points you've raised so far, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Second batch

First phase

• "arrived in Guatemala City on July 4, 1954": the year isn't needed, so close on the heels of the previous date

• Done

• Link to counterintelligence, just for clarity?

• Done

• De-link Austrian – too common a term to link

• I'm not sure the average reader knows of Austria, but okay.

• "The initial targets of the operation were the personal possessions and documents of Árbenz and those of Carlos Enrique Díaz (who had been chief of the armed forces under Árbenz, and briefly his successor as president), as well as the headquarters of the Partido Guatemalteco del Trabajo (PGT), and the offices of trade unions, known front organizations, and police agencies". A bit lumpy, given the number of "and"s in the list: better if the "and" is removed from "and the offices of trade unions"

• Tweaked: the "offices" refers to the front organizations and police agencies too.

• "At Wisner's request, Tracy Barnes created a booklet": another candidate for a tag (and an invitation for readers to click away to see who Barnes is and never come back). A word or two of introduction works well: "At Wisner's request, Tracy Barnes—principal manager of CIA operations in PBSuccess—created a booklet"

• Done

• "and Árbenz's wife Maria Cristina Villanova's copy of a biography of Joseph Stalin": a bit bumpy. "and a biography of Joseph Stalin owned by Maria Cristina Villanova, Árbenz's wife"?

• Done

• "After the presentation, Frank Wisner": Wisner is fine without the forename

• I agree: it was only added by someone else during the course of the review.

• "bureaucracy and intelligence service but also": but implies a reversal of the first part: "and" would be more inclusive (and the "also" isn't needed)

• Done

• "However, the Guatemalan group": opening a paragraph with "however" is always a bit questionable, as it questions something in the previous words, but there are no previous connected words in a new para (some reviewers have a deep-seated dislike of "however" opening a sentence, but that's a moot point). Is "the Guatemalan group" the Comité? If it's a new para then best to give the full details for clarity.

• Done

Second phase

• I'm not sure we need to the quote in the training involved "screening, classifying, indexing, and carding of the confiscated documents [and] the rudiments of mail control, logging, abstracting, and cryptic reference": this can easily be rewritten to hold the same information without the need for a quote.

• I've trimmed the quote: I'm not sure we can do away with it altogether because it's a bit of jargon which cannot be paraphrased

• "the original copies of every document was to remain": copies is plural and as you've got "document" earlier in the sentence, you should reframe as "original copies of every one were to remain";

• Done

Sorry this is all a bit piecemeal, but RL is somewhat hectic at the moment. More soon - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem: I appreciate the depth of the review

Batch 3

Document exploitation

• The link to CIA operations redirects to the Central Intelligence Agency, to which you've already linked

• Removed

• You move from Comité to Comite in this section: I suspect the former is correct, but it should be consistent

• The former is indeed correct. Fixed.

• ("Later We Discover the Truth"): MOS:ITALICTITLE suggests we should have the translation as italicised as well. Although it's self-explanatory, it may be worth putting as (trans: Later We Discover the Truth), although I leave that to your choice

• Done, left out the "trans"; seems clear enough

• St. Louis Post Dispatch: I think it's hyphenated as Post-Dispatch, and it should be italicised

• Done

• "PBHistory documents were used by the officials of various governments": all the examples are of US use and "various governments" suggests other countries used them. Were there other countries, or it is 'officials of different arms of the US government'?

• Primarily the Guatemalan. Clarified.

• "Additionally, Congresspeople": No need for "additionally"

• Removed

• "Operation WASHTUB" to Operation Washtub

• Done now: thanks for fixing the DAB

• "Office of Intelligence Research": you've already shortened to OIR further up the page, so you could use it here too; you should certainly use OIR in place of "The Office" (which reminds me of farce, rather than political intrigue!)

• I used the acronym the second time: I'm trying to avoid confusion by spelling it out again the first, as there's rather a lot of names floating around.

More to follow - SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Sure, no problem. Done so far. Vanamonde (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Final batch...

• "the operation provided the CIA its first detailed look": this may be an AmEng thing, but in Britain we'd say "the operation provided the CIA with its first detailed look". I leave it to your better judgement as to whether the first is OK in the US.

• I've changed it, as it seems to read better.

• Would Kate Doyle be notable enough for an article? If not then the redlink can go.

• I think she is notable as a historian of Central America, if only just

• ' "intelligence goldmine", and the register': bit of a comma splice. Try ' "intelligence goldmine"; the register" for size

• Better, done

• " in an attempt to prevent Árbenz from moving to Mexico, where opposition to Castillo Armas' regime was coalescing" -> " in an attempt to prevent him from moving to Mexico, where opposition to Armas' regime was coalescing"

• Done

• "its version of the history of the Árbenz government and the coup were not gaining traction." – "the history" is singular, so it should be "was not gaining"

• Yes, done

• "on information that Schneider gathered" -> "on information that he gathered"

• Done

• "However" at the beginning of a para again

• Missed this one, fixed now.

• "A October 1, 1954, CIA report" -> " A CIA report, published in October 1954, ..."

• Done

• "Schneider's balanced account": "balanced" according to who? As that's in WP's voice, you need to be careful about giving what looks like an opinion

• True. The description is from Holland: added.

• "A scholar who was given access" -> "Political scientist Jeremy Gunn, who was given access"

• Done

• "when Castillo Armas was overthrown" First name not needed. You should probably spin through the whole thing to make sure the main players are only first named on the first mention – I may have missed some further up

• Castillo isn't his first name; it's his patronymic last name. The full name is Carlos Castillo Armas. Spanish naming customs would usually mean that he would be referred to as Castillo, but for some reason, the sources tend to do "Castillo Armas", so I've stuck with that.

• "Writing in 2008 author Jeremy Gunn compared" As you've now named him a little further up, "Writing in 2008 Gunn compared" will suffice

• Done

That's it: an interesting piece on the power of what the 'man from Delmonte, he say' had behind them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thanks again for a detailed review; I think I've addressed everything. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support You still have to address one point - the "However" that begins a paragraph, but aside from that, this is in excellent shape and meets the conditions for FA from a point of the prose. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: I notice that there a few uses of "however", which often attract criticism based on WP:HOWEVER. It isn't worth holding up over, but it is worth the nominator taking a look to avoid any problems further down the line. Sarastro (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2018 [45].

---

Bill McCann

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Bill McCann, a decorated soldier of World War I, a barrister, and a prominent figure in the military and ex-service community of South Australia during the interwar period. The article successfully went through GAN and Milhist A-Class review in July–August last year, and has been stable since, just waiting to have a run at FAC. All comments and suggestions gratefully received. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, Nikki! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

I made minor copyediting changes to the article as listed here. Please revert any that you think are misguided. Below are further questions and suggestions.

They look great, particular thanks for editing out the passive voice (which I do have a tendency to fall into). I will get onto the rest of your comments shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Gallipoli campaign

• ¶1 "During that period, the 10th Battalion suffered casualties of 13 officers and 453 men." – Would it be possible to say how many officers and men were in the battalion before these casualties or to render the losses in percentages?

• Added and expanded footnote to cover it.

Western Front

• ¶1 "...fight over the O.G.1 trench system..." - Link or explain O.G.1 trench system?

• Added a note. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• ¶3 "In February 1917 he was evacuated suffering from illness,..." – Slightly smoother as "Suffering from illness, he was evacuated in February 1917,..."?

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• ¶4 "...before being seconded to a training battalion..." – Link "seconded" to secondment?

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Interbellum and later life

• ¶1 "McCann commenced studying as an articled clerk in December 1920, and married Mildred Southcott on 20 August 1921, there being two sons and one daughter from the union." – This sentence bothers me in two ways. The "with plus -ing" construction is awkward, and "from the union" seems anachronistic. Suggestion: " McCann commenced studying as an articled clerk in December 1920 and married Mildred Southcott on 20 August 1921; they had two sons and a daughter."
• ¶1 "In 1921 he commenced..." – Replace "commenced" with "began" since the sentence before this one uses "commenced"?
• ¶2 "...defended the status of Anzac Day as a public holiday against protests from the retail sector,..." – Why did the retail sector oppose the holiday?
• ¶2 "...was a foundation member..." – Should that be "founding" rather than "foundation"?
• ¶2 "When the National War Memorial design was being finalised, McCann strongly advocated for the inclusion of the names of all South Australians who were killed in World War I inside the memorial;..." – The sentence is a bit wordy, and the South Australians weren't killed inside the memorial. Suggestion: "As the memorial design neared completion, McCann strongly supported including the names of all South Australians killed in World War I;...".
• ¶2 "...McCann sharply criticised the defence policy of the Federal Government, "[d]efence has been brought down to such a low point," he said, "that it is now an absurdity." – Can you add any specifics? What in particular was he objecting to? Too few soldiers? Too little training? Too little money? Outdated weapons?
• ¶3 "the Unattached List" – Should that be linked or explained?
• ¶6 "...resulted in his home being deliberately set alight." – Were the culprits ever identified or charged with arson? What was the extent of the damage to the house?

• All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

General

• Some images have alt text, but others don't. Concise alt text for all of them would be nice even if not required.
• No dead URLs.
• No disambiguation problems.
• Duplicate links in the main text include University of Adelaide, 9th Battalion, counter-attack, and Anzac Day. I don't think you need the duplicates. I doubt that you need the three duplicates in the lead; they are the OBE, etc. in the first sentence, followed by Officer of the Order of the British Empire, etc., in the last.

• alt text and duplinks fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• All done, Finetooth. Thanks very much for your thorough copy-edit and other suggestions. Here are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good. Switching to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

I can find nothing to quibble about! All sources in good order and of appropriate reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Brian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian

Recusing as coord, I copyedited as usual so pls let me know any concerns; outstanding points:

• He attended various public schools then Adelaide High School -- sounds like Adelaide High is/was public too, so do we mean various primary schools before Adelaide High?

• Yes, they were called public schools at the time, changed to primary and linked

• and "was an inspiration to his men" -- can we attribute this quote inline?

• Done.

• he used three tanks to clear the area -- might seem pedantic but this makes it sound like he had three tanks attached to his company which I assume he didn't; can we say that he called upon the tanks from whoever it was that provided them?

• added that they came from the 5th Tank Brigade and expanded the footnote

• moving forward by "vigorous action and hard, confused fighting" -- these are Bean's words?

• Yes.

• Learning of difficulties due to German positions in Luc Wood -- wonder if we can elaborate on or be more explicit about the "difficulties", as the word sounds a bit odd to me in this context...

• reworded.

• clear the area. Along with flanking troops, McCann cleared -- can we avoid the "clear/ed" repetition?

• Done.

• In addition to the decorations previously mentioned, McCann was issued with the 1914–15 Star, British War Medal, and Victory Medal for his service during the war. -- I don't think we really need to mention medals that everyone on active service received; not too common in similar articles from memory.

• included for completeness. I did the same with Raymond Leane, which went through FAC ok.

• turned his hand to farming the previous month. He farmed at Truro and Manoora but was hampered by his war injuries, and abandoned farming in August -- do you think we could lose one of the "farmed/farming" instances?

• Done.

• McCann began studying as an articled clerk in December 1920, and married Mildred Southcott on 20 August 1921; they had two sons and a daughter. In 1921 he began an active association with the South Australian branch of the Returned Sailors' and Soldiers' Imperial League of Australia -- I'm not sure we need connect study and marriage in the same sentence; also can we pinpoint when in 1921 he joined RSSILA as that might influence where we put his marriage info...

• Split sentence, the source isn't specific about when in 1921 he joined.

• This led to public criticism by his potential political opponents -- I know we find him going into politics in the next para but this still caught me short; perhaps simpler to say he was subjected to public criticism and leave at that?

• Done.

• Now I check the ref, I'm not sure if one letter to the editor quite supports the idea of "public criticism" as I'd generally understand it -- did we lose another ref somewhere for this, as I can't see in the letter where the earlier bit about potential political opponents was supported either... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure how to integrate this into the article, but his critic wasn't just anyone, it was A. T. Saunders, well known public figure, an unofficial historian of SA, and a man who courted controversy. I'll have to dig around a bit more to see where that political enemies bit came from, I must have not added the source... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ian, I think I must have conflated the two issues. What I was thinking of was the controversy over the RSSILA prez running for politics. I've added a sentence on that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• His biographer described him -- have to admit that I think of a biographer as the author of a full-length work so would prefer to say "The Australian Dictionary of Biography described him", but happy to discuss...

• Done.

Structure and comprehensiveness seem fine; I'll take Nikki's image review and Brian's source review as read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• G'day Ian, thanks for the review! All addressed, here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Tks for prompt action, PM -- fine with all that except where indicated above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ian are you happy with my response above? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Tks for the ping, PM... All the queries above have been resolved satisfactorily, TBH I was just holding back and seeing if anyone else copyedited or commented because there were still one or two places I felt the prose could be improved but didn't really have any alternative wording in mind. Since nothing's happened in the meantime, I see no reason not to support -- it's a fine piece of work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Frickeg

Don't know that I've ever participated in one of these before but I did want to make a few quick comments on the political stuff since that's my area. I believe I may have raised some of these points in the past but I can't find where that might have been. Great to see the article overall looking in such good shape.

• Could do with some contextualising of Senator Elliott - or does this even need to be here? Senators (even out-of-state ones) helping out with local campaigns is pretty routine. What makes this notable?

• I have added that they first met at Gallipoli, where Elliott had offered McCann a commission in his battalion.

• Should give percentages of votes in addition to (or instead of) actual numbers. Should also indicate swing from the last election, mention that the seat was extremely marginal (Price won by fewer than 200 votes in 1928), and contextualise the election as a nationwide Labor landslide.

• Add a bit of additional context.

• There seems to be some interesting stuff in Trove about him being sought out as a candidate - presumably his candidacy was something of a boon for the Nationalists, and the sources seem to mention both PM Bruce and Charles Hawker were involved in convincing him to stand. Could be worth a sentence or two.

• The Nationalists seemed optimistic about his chances, but they would be wouldn't they. Clearly they had not grasped the reality of the swing to Labor. I did have a look for more info on his nomination, but whilst Bruce sent him a telegram when he nominated, and Hawker nominated for Wakefield at the same time, I couldn't find an article that explained how McCann was convinced to run, or who by.

Best of luck with the rest of the process. Frickeg (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Great work, all looks good. (I found the reason I thought Hawke was involved - an article on Trove titled "FEDERAL ELECTION LIBERAL CANDIDATE FOR WAKEFIELD MR. C A. S. HAWKER SELECTED LIEUTENANT-COLONEL McCANN TO STAND FOR BOOTHBY", which had a line break after "selected" that I didn't observe.) Frickeg (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I almost made the same mistake when I was trawling through Trove! Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day Frickeg for the benefit of the FAC coords, could you clarify if you support this article's promotion? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies - don't really know how all this works! Although I haven't looked at the article in detail, for the parts that I commented on I support promotion. Frickeg (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! That's how we generally do it. Some reviewers only support on prose, for example, so if you qualify your support in any way that is always fine. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support by Gerda

Thank you for another good article on the way to even better, about someone "directing and encouraging his men, and his fine example inspired all under his command"! Only minor points:

Western front

• It's possibly just me who wouldn't know what a "scouting, sniping and intelligence officer" is?

• Added links.

• "In addition to the decorations previously mentioned," - that seems redundant.

• Done.

General: I had twice to remember who "he" or "his" was after talking for some time about other people or groups. The lead has a litany of sentences that begin with "he", - perhaps that could be broken a bit. No reason to hold back support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I tweaked a couple. Thanks for taking a look Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: this one looks good to go, can I have a dispensation to nominate a fresh one please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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