Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2016

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2016 [1].

Handel's lost Hamburg operas[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In his youth, George Frideric Handel served a kind of composer's apprenticeship at the Oper am Gänsemarkt in Hamburg, where he wrote several operas of inordinate length. The first of these, Almira, has survived, and is occasionally performed; the music for the other three has disappeared except for a few scraps. This article examines what remains of these lost operas, and thus has something for everybody. Handel buffs can ponder the possibility that more of the missing music might one day come to light, while those who regard Handelian opera less reverentially will hope that these works stay lost forever and that perhaps others of the opus might one day join them. The article has been charmingly and thoroughly peer-reviewed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review - I did an image review at PR. I've just double checked, and all images are okay — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • "Handel, George Frideric: Halle". Oxford Music Online. Retrieved 25 November 2015. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant source deleted
  • "How much of it is yet in being is unknown". To my American ear, this sounds grammatically problematic. Could we use a paraphrase? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After his Hamburg baptism " Literal or figurative? I always read from the bottom up, so it may turn out to be the former, but if the latter please find a synonym. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Handel's Hamburg years provided" the words "apprenticeship..in which" seem to mean "during", which is chronologically a bit vague given that it is something which spanned his entire career. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "violinist in the orchestra at the Oper am Gänsemarkt, the city's famous opera house" can we drop the word "orchestra" and use "violinist in the city's famous opera house, the Oper am Gänsemarkt"? Were violinists always in the orchestra?
  • "Daphne metamorphosised" and 'Daphne metamorphosed' both used. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not altogether clear what you're asking for. The English title forms are from the translation of Hinsch's preface, contained in Burrows et al. It's all we have; none of the other sources in their analyses translate the titles beyond "Florindo" and "Daphne". Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for these comments. I have acted on all of them except your translation point. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support thank you for the article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did a peer review and have glanced over the article again. Excellent work, as always.--Wehwalt

(talk) 08:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another peer reviewer looking in. My few and minor quibbles were dealt with then, and on rereading the article now I find it top notch, fully meeting the FA criteria. Very happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 18:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yet another peer reviewer re-visiting. My points were dealt with then, and a further read through shows it to be an excellent and interesting piece. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Non-peer reviewer making a first time visit having returned from a break. I read this in Italy and consider it to be a wonderful example of Wikipedia's finest. CassiantoTalk 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all the above for their comments (PR), helpand support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

  • Might be worth mentioning Germany somewhere in the lead. I'd expect most readers to understand that Hamburg is in Germany, but to be safe...
  • Worth linking Handel's name again after the lead?
  • University of Halle - worth linking (redlinking?)
  • Early 18th century engraving - I believe there are supposed to be hyphens in here (early 18th-century engraving, if I'm not mistaken)
  • with supposedly a capacity of 2,000, - Perhaps this is correct in BrE, but I'd find it easier to read "with a reported capacity of 2,000"
  • et al. - Several style guides, such as APA and Chicago prefer a non-italicised form; do British style guides proscribe italics? You don't use italics further down, and in some cases (viz. Burrows et al 2011) you don't use a full-stop either.
  • I adopted italics in the text at the suggestion of Tim in the peer review, and have now made the format consistent.
  • "Nero's play, "The Judgement of Paris", and a spectacular representation of the burning of Rome do not advance the plot, but occupy much of Act III." - Do not advance the plot strikes me as something which should have a reference. "Many digressions" and "spectacular" as well (We're not simply reporting what happens, but offering judgment on the contents; see WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation needs a secondary source").
  • I agree with you concerning "spectacular", "do not advance the plot" and "many", and have adjusted accordingly. I think "digressions" unadorned is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth linking the Roman deities (Cupid, etc.)?
  • British Library - Link?
  • John Mainwaring - worth noting in-text when he was writing? Speaks as to how early these works could have been lost by

An absolutely delightful read. Nothing but nitpicks from me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Review and comments much appreciated. I have dealt with them all, only commenting as required. Thanks, too, for the above source image review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BlueMoonset[edit]

It is indeed an excellent article overall, but the Almira section has some accuracy issues that need to be addressed:

  • The assumption from reading the first sentence is that Keiser had completed Almira when he left Hamburg with it for Weissenfels. According to the second chapter of George Frideric Handel: A Life with Friends by Ellen T. Harris, he "left without completing his setting".
  • This is what Hicks says: "...the libretto had been prepared for Keiser himself, who had already set it to music; only his enforced move prevented its performance in Hamburg. (He produced a revised version at Weissenfels on 30 July 1704; his original setting was never performed.)" This clearly suggests completion of Almira before Keiser's flight. Perhaps it wasn't finalised ready for production; Dean and Knapp report considerable confusion over Keiser's versions of Almira. This isn't really germane to Handel's lost operas, so I'm inclined to let the point go. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph gives a false impression of the plot: someone reading this would assume that Almira's father is actively choosing his daughter's husband. In fact Almira, who is crowned Queen of Castile in the opera's opening scene, having just reached her majority, is faced with a directive left by her several-years-dead father to marry a son of the house of Consalvo, Prince of Segovia, who had been her guardian while she was underage.
  • The World of Opera citation (28) at the end of the penultimate sentence is incorrectly dated in the reference section: the Boston performance being broadcast is from June 2013, so 2011 is not possible. I don't know whether the broadcast was later in 2013 or in a subsequent year, but I'm sure the information must be available somewhere.
  • Well spotted. The web page is not specifically dated – I must have picked up 2011 from the range shown at the bottom. I've removed 2011 from the citation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of additional things:

  • in the Keiser and Mattheson section, Keiser's birthdate of 1774 has to be wrong.
  • in the Afterwards section, Deidamia's date is given as 1740, but the premiere (according to Deidamia) was in January 1741. Wouldn't the latter year be more appropriate?
  • Not really, as I'm referring to composition dates rather than performance dates. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, and for these helpful comments, generally taken up and dealt with. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently and appropriately cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2016 [2].

Allah jang Palsoe[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Kwee Tek Hoay's first published stage drama, a morality play written to be performed at charity operas ("opera derma") and inspired by the style of Ibsen. The bulk of the article was written several years ago, but I never took it to FAC because I'd yet to consult the first edition for possible information. Now that that's done, I've updated the article and brought it here for your consideration. My gratitude to SchroCat and Wehwalt, who gave great input during the peer review.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Henrik_Ibsen_by_Gustav_Borgen_NFB-19778_restored.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't find anything much at the peer review, other than excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All are constantly cited and of encyclopedic quality, except:

The two multiple sources (12 and 26) lack periods at their end which all other cites have.
Do we really treat differently Roman numerals couched in capital letters (Kwee 1919) vs. lower case?
  • In the original sources, Damono's page numbers are formatted lower case whereas Kwee's are formatted as capital letters. I've standardized, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Jakarta Post story has an accessdate prior to the archiving date.
  • That's the date the story was published. That's the only instance of "Cite News" in the article which does not have an author, hence why the format is different. It's automatic with the template. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The intalicisation in the Sutedja-Liem source, regarding the word or term Njai could use clarification. If Njai is a non-English word, then it should be translated, if it is a name, then I don't see why you are setting it off in the translation.
  • Switched with Kwee, 1980, which supports the information and does not have such a word in the title (long story short, njai in the context of the title is not readily translatable) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the source review.

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

When I saw the word "opera" in the blurb, I thought "Aha!"... Oh well, I read it anyway. Outside my usual orbit, but nonetheless fascinating and instructive. I have a few issues, mainly minor:

  • Apologies. The term "Opera" in the Indies was essentially short hand for "stage play" or "troupe" (viz. Orion Opera, Dhalia Opera; probably worth writing a paper in RL if I can get the sources)
  • I'm not sure about "Analysis of the play has also shown a Chinese nationalist identity..." – "national" rather than "nationalist", which seems overtly political. Also, perhaps consider "influence" rather than "identity"
  • Went with "Chinese national identity"
  • "the published stageplay was a loss". What exactly does this mean?
  • Wehwalt brought that up as well at PR. I'd thought that its position right after "commercial success" would make the implication clear, but switched with "sold poorly" now
  • By 1930 the play, though deemed a difficult one to stage, was performed by various ethnic Chinese troupes to popular acclaim;" For "was" read "had been". Also, I suggest you replace the semicolon with a full stop, and start a new sentence at "It also inspired..."
  • "editor-in-chief" is a hyphenated term
  • The word "bursary" seems the wrong term here. A bursary is a grant used to finance a course of study; what we have here sounds more like a bribe. Suggest replace "heavily influenced by a monthly bursary of" with "in return for a payment of".
  • Switched with "payment"
  • "During the following week the family sell their belongings..." What family? If you mean Kioe Gie, he has a wife, but there's been no mention of a family.
  • Indeed. Oxford Dictionaries definition 1.1 includes this possibility in its definition. Changed to Kioe Gie and his wife, however, as it is a new paragraph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...because the widow has the same surname..." The point here is not clear.
  • Hence the footnote. Kwee doesn't explicitly say it (expecting his audiences would get the implication) and so it's not stated in the running text, but for the ethnic Chinese of the time marrying a woman with the same surname would be incest. We don't seem to have an article on incest in Chinese culture, sadly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comes and warns him" – delete "comes and"
  • Who is Lauw Nio, mentioned at the end of the Plot section? Oddly, he's not in the list of characters.
  • When/where did Kwee Tek Hoay apologise for the quality of the stage play?
  • "After condemning contemporary playwrights who merely wrote down existing stories..." Ironically, this is what Kwee Tek Hoay seems to have done!
  • With some adaptations, but yes. Not unusual for him (Marsiti's ghost turns up in Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang, despite Kwee being a self-avowed realist, for instance) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other readings have been more diverse" – unnecessary editorial comment?
  • Hmm... I'll have to think of another segue. We spend two paragraph talking about money, then go to Chinese national identities etc. It would be too abrupt (IMHO) without anything to signal transition. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "Allah jang Palsoe also contains themes unrelated to money"?
  • "pipe-link "sinologist"
  • "leaving his comfortable job rather than promote become an apologist for..." – delete either "promote" or "become an apologist for".
  • "Release" is not the right word for a stage play, so consider changing the heading to, perhaps "Performance and reception". Is there really no knowledge of either the date or location of the premiere, and no way of finding out these details? Hard to believe, but if that is the case, it should be clearly stated in the text.
  • Changed to "Performance and reception", but with reservations (as follows) I will double check the sources I have, but I can say right now that none of the sources explicitly say "the date of the premiere is lost to time". I also asked a friend with a focus on Chinese opera in the Indies (which was also popular around this time) if he has any information; sadly, he didn't. I suspect, based on the below quote, that the play was first published as a script, and only staged sometime later, by someone else; none of the sources thus far say that Kwee actually directed any performances, nor do they mention performance aspects. Sources treat Allah jang Palsoe predominantly as printed media (Sidharta terms it a "naskah drama" ("stage script"), for instance, and see Kwee's letter quoted below) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't press this point, only to say that the statement "Allah jang Palsoe was well received, though initially criticised for emphasising everyday clothing over interesting costumes" appears to relate to performance rather than to a published text (the "interesting costumes" bit is surely a visual criticism). But if the sources aren't there, we can't invent them. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tens of times" is not an English idiomatic expression. We say "dozens of times" or "scores of times" or "hundreds of times", but not "tens". If, however, this is the precise wording in the poster, the wording should be enclosed in quotes.
  • Indeed. In quotes now (twenty, after all, would be "tens" of times but not "dozens", and without anything more concrete we can't assume the latter is correct) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Another of Kwee Tek Hoay's works, Korbannja Kong-Ek, was inspired by a viewer, who wrote him a letter asking for a comforting and educational play." This information has no relevance in this article.
  • Respectfully disagree. Kwee writes (translated) "When Allah jang Palsoe was published [Ed: not staged, interestingly], I received many letters about that book [Ed: again, treating it as a publication only] .... One of my friends, a well-known Chinese journalist who was in Europe at the time, wrote me as follows: "I've already carefully read Allah jang Palsoe and hope that you will continue to writer stage plays. ... You have much talent for fully and broadly [luas] depicting characters, so it would be a shame if you did not write a spirit-raising play full of healthy ideas and strong morals like Allah jang Palsoe". Kwee goes on to write that this is what he did with Korbannja Kong-Ek. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having raised this point, I'm happy to defer to your judgement. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy that my concerns have been addressed. This is a worthy (and pleasingly unusual) candidate for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review and support! The article looks much nicer now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- this, like all your other Indonesian-based articles, is one of much interest. I do have one minor nitpick, however:

  • There is a slight inconsistent use of the definite article: "Allah jang Palsoe was the first stage play by journalist Kwee Tek Hoay." Then we say: "According to the historian Nio Joe Lan, Allah jang Palsoe..." -- I'll let you decide which version to use, although I've just noticed you do use the latter thereafter. CassiantoTalk 09:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM
  • "Analysis of the play has also shown a Chinese national identity and depiction of negative traits in women." This doesn't read very well- what has the identity, and what depicts the traits? [A PS from after I've read the rest of the article- I originally understood this as claiming that the play depicted women in a negative way, while, instead, the claim seems to be that a particular character is a woman who is unvirtuous. Obviously, these are different things.]
  • Nixed altogether, as it appears every wording has been problematic. Re: Particular character: "she finds Houw Nio to be a depiction of how a woman should not act: selfish and addicted to gambling." (i.e. Houw Nio is held by Sidharta to represent all things a woman shouldn't be). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is stamboel? Is that not a bit technical to be in the lead unexplained?
  • Reworked. Less specific, but main point remains the same. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to leave for a competitor" A competitor of whom? His brother or his current boss? I assumed the latter, but his brother's response suggests the former?
  • The latter. Kioe Gie is asking Kioe Lie to remain ethical in his business: someone helps you rise from poverty, it's best to not simply abandon him and take his customers with you because you get a better offer. Reworded.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a betrayal to ethnic Chinese" to the ethnic Chinese?
  • "Passing through Cicuruk, Kioe Lie's car breaks down and, while the chauffeur attempts to fix it, he takes shelter in a nearby home." The "he" is ambiguous; how about "Passing through Cicuruk, the car breaks down and, while the chauffeur attempts to fix it, Kioe Lie takes shelter in a nearby home."
  • Perhaps columns would make the character list look a little neater?
  • "raised in Chinese culture" I defer to you, but this looks grammatically rather odd to me.
  • yet "in a Chinese cultural context" (as opposed to, say, Sundanese culture, which was common for peranakan children raised by their [indigene] mothers) would be a bit too verbose.
  • "considering the story to flow well" I'm not super keen on this either; how about "feeling that the story flows well".
  • Is stamboel worth a redlink? Either way, we're going to need some context, I think
  • Definitely worth a redlink; there are entire books on the subject. Will add a footnote. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote added. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of such a technique" What do you mean by this? That they're unscripted, that they used fantastic settings or both?
  • "He writes that such is life even in the best of times" It's not clear to me what you mean by this
  • "do as Tan Kioe Gie, not as Tan Kioe Lie" Is this overly elliptical? How about "act as Tan Kioe Gie does, not as Tan Kioe Lie does"?
  • "issues of a Chinese national identity" Issues with a national identity? How about "issues relating to Chinese national identity"?
  • "Sumardjo writes that, though Allah jang Palsoe was published seven years before the Rustam Effendi's Bebasari (generally considered the first canonic Indonesian stage drama), Kwee Tek Hoay's writing shows all the hallmarks of a literary work" I'm not clear what showing all the hallmarks of a literary work has to do with being published before Bebasari?
  • Sumardjo's comment implies that, if the Indonesian canon were determined by the literariness of a work in question (rather than the ethnic origin of the author or register used... there's a long story there) Allah jang Palsoe would quite likely be in the canon. He doesn't come out and say it, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mainteater (id)" I'm not too fussed about this, but I know that there has been some recent discussion about the appropriateness of this template in FAs.
  • "heavily edited to last an hour" It's difficult to contextualise this without knowing how long it would normally be.
  • No sources say how long a performance would usually be, so reworked (for context: the play proper is north of 80 pages in the 1919 edition, and very dialogue heavy). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you cite "Lontar Foundation 2006, p. 95." to the book as a whole rather than the particular chapter/entry?
  • I can cite the chapter as well, if need be, but here I figured that to cite that something was included in a book one must cite the book itself, rather than a chapter in the book. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to miss the translations of chapter titles in a few cases in your references?
  • Done. Both were deliberate (albeit inconsistent): the titles were of literary works already mentioned in-text. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a well-researched, well-written and carefully structured article. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Josh, what do you think about the edits I've made? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry- I have seen this, and will make some time for another look through soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, sure thing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support. This strikes me as a very good article. As one closing thought, perhaps you could be clearer that "Kwee Tek Hoay wrote that he had drawn inspiration from the realist Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen" refers to the later work, rather than the subject of the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2016 [3].

South Park: The Stick of Truth[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 role playing video game developed by Obsidian Entertainment and based on the long running comedy television show South Park created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The article has been left for a while as I was waiting for any further developments/dlc and the like, but none of that has materialised and now I believe the article to be as complete as can be providing a thorough background to the well-received game that had a somewhat difficult creation cycle. Thanks for reading! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

  • Support I've read through the article and I couldn't really find flaws. In the end having "fiftieth" and similar stuff instead of just 50th seems a bit tedious. I am wondering if it is worth mentioning explicitly that the humor follows that of the show really well, including childish jokes like use of "PP" for mana. Nergaal (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nergaal:, I added a note on the "peepee" thing, and a different user has added a quote from a review stating that it follows the same style of humour as the show. That plus the commentary on how it looks like an episode of the show I think might cover what you're asking. I also changed the fiftieth and similar to the numerical versions. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
seventh is probably better. Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

I might come back later on for more, but felt this should be done first. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like to add the year just so people are clear that the image is not to do with the promotion of the game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from jfhutson[edit]

I'm not inclined to read this article, but I saw two comma errors in the lead:

  • "The Stick of Truth '​s production was turbulent, its release date was postponed several times from its initial date in March 2013 to its eventual release in March 2014." Comma splice
  • "There was also a change of publisher, following the bankruptcy of THQ, the original publisher." The first comma is not needed. --JFH (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from David Fuchs[edit]

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Overall, very solid. Some comments follow:[reply]

  • Why are the series of slipped release dates mentioned twice (first in the last part of the Development section, and again in the release?)
  • References:
    • Looks like all the refs are archived, good for being proactive.
    • What makes Topless Robot a high-quality reliable source?
    • I've spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 5* (fast travel), 10, 18, 34, 40, 41, 42, 49*, 55, 74, 75, and 83.
      • Ref 5 states: "Well, you'll roam around just like a typical RPG (with fast travel in tow, compliments of Timmy), discover loot, find some quests for your quest log, and complete the main story along the way.", which does not adequately cite the entire statement in the article: "The game features a fast travel system, allowing the player to call on the character Timmy to quickly transport them to any other visited fast travel station". I would fix this and double-check the rest of the gameplay section for these sorts of source-stretching; it's difficult to fact-check each statement throughout this article because you are often citing long stretches to multiple sources.
      • Sources 74 and 75 conflict, with one saying there were six scenes censored and the other saying seven.

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. With the release dates, my thought process is that the Development section talks about the kind of the behind-the-scenes reasons and is more focused while the release section talks more about the public knowledge of release dates, and things like the delay only being known when Ubisoft omitted it from its release schedule. If I'm wrong though let me know and I can try to integrate it more into the development section.
  2. Topless Robot is owned by Village Voice Media so it does have oversight by a legitimate company that owns multiple news outlets.
  3. I've added an additional clearer source for the Timmy fast travel (bonus, it contains information about characters in the game I was struggling to find, so thanks for making me look)
  4. Did the same for the censorship conflict, more sources said seven were censored so I added an additional ref to back that up and moved the Guardian away from backing that particular claim up.
  5. Aside: I will go through the article and review multiple refs for single statements. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Has there been any discussion about the reliability solely focused on Topless Robot? I'm hesitant to consider it high quality just because of its parent company. As for the release dates, I think it's fine to mention earlier in the development, but it's pointless to restate the exact dates; you can just say earlier that the release date slipped and leave the hard dates for later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion that I know of. They do have a privacy policy dictated by the parent company but that's all I can see here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the Development release dates to ", pushing its release date back by six months to March 2014."Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just remove the questionable source? It seems like most of the content is cited to other better sources anyhow, so as long as it doesn't leave something orphaned source-wise it shouldn't suffer for lack of it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs, just checking if you saw my response? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, thanks for pinging me. I'll take another look at the article tomorrow and see if there are any other outstanding issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

only one character can be active at any time - I'd be inclined to make this contrastive - ", though only one character can be active at any time" as it links better to previous like this (with comma rather than semicolon).

Looks good prose and comprehensiveness otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I think I support this on those grounds....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2016 [4].

Juan Manuel de Rosas[edit]

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC) • Astynax talk[reply]

Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the key figures in South American history, probably the most well-known 19th century dictator in that region (after Francisco Solano López). For a brief moment he was almost able to turn Argentina into the main power in South America, and almost conquered nearby countries. He became so powerful that the Empire of Brazil under Emperor Pedro II forged an alliance with his enemies to crush Rosas. This article uses dozens of well-known sources in academia, although is mostly based on John Lynch's biography, regarded as the best one available in any language. Lecen (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for its previous FAC; I wasn't catching everything then, but I see that a lot of helpful copyediting has been done, and I'm happier with this version. I can't really comment on questions of tone and NPOV, which I'm not in a position to judge. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • ready to Support pending comments from those who know something about the subject. A good read. Are there no depictions in film etc? A character in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories is very clearly based on him in exile - the "Tiger of ..." somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • John, it's good to see you here. I'm afraid we have no Wikipedians with true knowledge of Platine history, except for me and Astynax. About your other comments, Rosas showed up in movies indeed. We left out pop culture facts on purpose, since there are already two articles focused on Rosas' legacy. We kept what was most important, as to maintain the article simple and straight forward. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything on films (which generally should not be referred to as "pop culture") in other articles - where? Even if there is, it should be summarized briefly here. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I couldn't find an equivalent section in other FA biographies, which seems that any mention in movies is optional. Since Rosas's appearances in other media is not vital to his character, I can't see the reason to add something here, especially because it would be pointless to add a line saying "Rosas appeared in X movie". What would that add to the article? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been several depictions in literature, films and television but almost entirely in Argentine media and much of it unabashedly partisan exploitation feeding on the ongoing historicity problem mentioned in the Legacy section. Although depictions of Rosas in literature and media might be appropriate for some sort of separate list linked to within the article's Legacy section, there is also the problem of finding coverage in reliable historical sources that establish the notability of these and their relevance to political and popular culture. If a RS comes to light that explores how Rosas has been depicted in media then I see no problem of including a mention, but I cannot recall coming across such material. • Astynax talk 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod: The Sherlock Holmes story is Wisteria Lodge (1927), the second part of which is The Tiger of San Pedro, here for easy reference [5]. Rosas is disguised as "Don Murillo". Conan Doyle would have got the reference from W.H. Hudson. Far Away and Long Ago (Dent:London and Toronto:1918), pages 107-8, here: https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_EF0_AAAAIAAJ#page/n121/mode/2up . Might it worth doing two lines as per "In fiction"? Ttocserp 09:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll support. I think it's pretty good. And I believe you can add my name to Lecen and Astynax to those who have some "knowledge of Platine history" (sorry, had to get that off my chest!). Ttocserp 09:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Well written article on an important figure in South American history. It covers Rosas extensively and does so in an objective light, on par with the quality of other featured articles, such as Pedro I of Brazil, another of the great articles worked on by Lecen. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet supporting Always good to see another piece of work by Lecen. I'm not sure the prose is quite there yet; I've gone through as far as "Apogee and downfall" and picked up some points below:

  • It isn't clear who some of the quotes are from; e.g. 'Clemente López de Osornio, "a tough warrior of the Indian frontier who had died weapons in hand defending his southern estate in 1783."' If this is Lynch himself saying it, I'd expect it to be attributed in-line, e.g. "according to the historian John Lynch, "a tough warrior..."". If it is a contemporary quote, from Lynch, then it should be similarly attributed, e.g. "according to XXXX, "a tough warrior...". Ditto "in other words, "unbridled dictatorial powers"" etc.
  • "although it is thought that he was barred" - I'd prefer it to say who thinks he was barred, or just say "although he was probably barred" if that doesn't matter.
  • "owners of large landholdings (including the Rosas family) provided food, equipment and protection both for themselves and for families living in areas under their control. " - I didn't think the food and equipment made sense in relation to "themselves" - i.e. leave the other families out of it and you'd have "owners of large landholdings provided food, equipment and protection for themselves". It wouldn't make very such sense; who else would provide them with food and equipment?
  • "Shaped by the colonial society in which he lived, Rosas was conservative, an advocate of hierarchy and authority.[11] He was in this way merely a product of his time and not at all unlike the other great landowners in the Río de la Plata region." - this felt overly complex, and the "merely" felt a little condescending. Could it just read : "Like the other great landowners in the region, Rosas was conservative, an advocate of hierarchy and authority."?
  • " and acquired real property in the process. " - "real property" isn't a common phrase for most English readers. Would "real estate", "landholdings" or "lands" be more natural?
  • " Rosas, like many landowners... Like many landowners..." - repetitious, and I think the reader has probably got the idea by now!
  • "Colorados del Monte" ("Reds of the Mount") - just to check, is "reds of the mount" the standard translation? It read a bit oddly to me.
  • "At the end of the conflict, Rosas returned to his estancias with acquired prestige for his military service." - "with acquired prestige" read oddly to me. "having acquired prestige"? "respected for his military service"?
  • "He was granted the rank of cavalry colonel " - would "He was promoted to cavalry colonel" be simpler?
  • "By 1830, he was the 10th largest landowner in the province of Buenos Aires (in which the city of the same name was located)," - I thought the bits in brackets were superfluous; it would be my initial assumption as to where the province would be!
  • "300,000 head of cattle" - would "300,000 cattle" be simpler?
  • "with the severe deficits, large public debts and currency devaluation which his government inherited" - can you inherit a devaluation? It's an event, not an object. You could inherit the "impact of a devaluation" though.
  • " he improved revenue collection (while not raising taxes)" - the brackets here felt clumsy to me.
  • "the government's financial issues" - I think issue is wrong here; for alleviate, I'd recommend "problems"
  • "curtailed expenditures." - I'd have gone for "expenditure." in the singular
  • "called for the adoption of a Constitution" - why the capitalisation on constitution?
  • ""The fine territories, which extend from the Andes to the coast and down to the Magellan Straits are now wide open for our children." - I don't think the linking within the quote complies with the MOS guidance on this.
  • "reelection and assumption of dictatorial powers. " - "reassumption", as he'd had them before?
  • "The result of the 1833 election was a predictable 99.9% "yes" vote" - would the MOS prefer "percent" rather than "%" in this sort of article?
  • "Rosas believed that rigged elections were necessary for political stability" - would "Rosas believed that the manipulation of elections..." be somewhat closer to his actual beliefs?
  • "Catholic clergy in Buenos Aires willingly backed Rosas' regime." - given that the Jesuits don't in the next sentence, would "Most Catholic clergy in Buenos Aires willingly backed Rosas' regime." be more accurate?
  • "None of the lands confiscated from Indians and Unitarians were turned over to rural workers (including gauchos)" - the bracketed bit felt clumsy.
  • "Rosas was not racially prejudiced. " - this seems a remarkable and quite exceptional statement for the time. Do we really mean he wasn't racially biased at all...?
  • "a threat that historians have considered state terrorism." - just to check... do all the cited sources in the reference use the term?
  • "His targets were denounced as having ties (real or invented) to Unitarians. " I'd have gone for "His targets were denounced as having ties, sometimes inaccurately to Unitarians."
  • "Although a judicial branch still existed in Buenos Aires, " -"a judicial branch" seemed oddly worded to me. "Although courts still existed..."?
  • " Terrorism was orchestrated rather than a product of popular zeal, was targeted for effect rather than indiscriminate." - felt repetitious; you've already said this in preceding sentences.
  • "the port of the city of Buenos Aires, " - would "the port of Buenos Aires" (the title of the wiki article linked here) be simpler?
  • "Rosas either imprisoned or executed the plotters." - unclear if this means we are uncertain what he did, or that he imprisoned some and executed others.
  • "In the countryside, estancieros (including a younger brother of Rosas) revolted" - I'd have gone for commas rather than brackets here.
  • "Men who tried to escape had their throats cut and their heads put on display." - I'm not sure this makes sense. Why only men who tried to escape?
  • "Around 1845, Rosas managed to establish absolute dominance over the region, with no challenges to his authority remaining" - second half of the sentence felt redundant, given the first half.
  • "Rosas had been raised from colonel to brigadier general (the highest army rank) since 18 December 1829." > "Rosas had been raised from colonel to brigadier general (the highest army rank) in 18 December 1829." "or "Rosas had been promoted to brigadier general, then the highest rank in the army, in 18 December 1829." (which might flow more easily)
  • "which by 1831, following the Federal Pact (and officially from 22 May 1835), " - the brackets felt awkard here
  • "claiming that " - "stating that" would be more neutral in tone
  • "Rosas was a closeted monarchist, " - "closet monarchist" would be the normal rendering
  • " as had been many of his fellow countrymen. " - "had been" or "were"? If the former, the statement seems a bit irrelevant.
  • "Nonetheless, in public he claimed that his regime was republican in nature." - "claimed" > "stated", especially since we've just said that we don't know what his actual beliefs were. Hchc2009 (talk)
  • It's really good to see you here, Hchc2009. Your suggestions are great and I implemented them all. Just a few notes: 1) I've seen one historian call the "Colorados del Monte" "Red Rangers" and another "Red Soldiers of the Wild Country". There is no standard translation, thus I opted for a literal translation. Anything else would be Original Research, I think. 2) Every single source presented call Rosas' regime an sponsor of "state terrorism". That's why I added so many sources (as I did when I mentioned that he headed a dictatorship): to show that it is the prevalent opinion within historiography. As far as I know, there is no one that says that he was not a dictator nor that his regime did not sponsor state terrorism. 3) John Lynch is the one who says that Rosas was not racist, but later on the book he shows a quote from Rosas himself calling Brazilians blacks "monkeys". I chose to remove the mention of non-racist. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some of its territories were separated and became the independent nations of Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay," - would "some of its territories declared independence as Paraguary, Bolivia and Uruguay" be more accurate and possibly simpler? (unless someone externally separated them)
  • "and regarded it a rebel Argentine province bound to be reconquered" minor, but "and regarded it a rebel Argentine province that would inevitably be reconquered" would prevent a potential misreading of "bound to" as the reader moves through the sentence.
  • " had either collapsed and disappeared" - I wondered if you could lose "and disappeared" here, as collapsed sort of implies it, and it would make the sentence read more simply
  • " like Gran Colombia..." - some would argue that "like" isn't strictly correct here, and "such as" would be more appropriate (although in normal writing, no-one would complain!)
  • "The undeclared war" - "This undeclared war" might make the paragraph flow more easily.
  • "the loss of trade with Buenos Aires did not compensate free navigation with other ports " - I think there's a word missing around "compensate free navigation"
  • "He declined to meet with his ministers and relied solely on secretaries who matched his own heavy workload." - I don't think you need the "who matched his own heavy workload" here; it doesn't really fit with the flow of the paragraph or the first half of the sentence.
  • "gave aid to the Uruguayan government " - "provided support to"?
  • "but could hardly disguise his ambition" - slightly unclear if this means that he did disguise his ambition, or if he didn't. How about "but did not disguise his ambition"?
  • "The new Argentine government confiscated all of Rosas properties" - a missing apostrophe after Rosas?
  • "More than 30 years later, in 1961, " - I don't think you need both of these as it is close to the previous date (i.e. either go for "More than 30 years later," or "In 1961,"
  • "who "have long been fascinated and outraged" by him" - unclear who the quote is from without in-line identification.
I've implemented most of your suggestions. A couple seemed to require a bit of response in addition to edits:
  • Regarding your first point in the list immediately above: The breakdown of central authority produced a vacuum that took years to sort out. Argentina itself took years to emerge as a nation. I have changed the sentence to read: "The breakup of the old Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata during the 1810s eventually resulted in the emergence of the independent nations of Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay in the northern portion of the Viceroyalty, while its southern territories coalesced into the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata." Getting into the maze of rebellions, competing regional claimants, territorial shifts and factious infighting that took some time to work out would be a fine addition to the current Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata article, but could easily become a distraction here.
  • Regarding "hardly disguise his ambition": I am unsure how to reword this one. His ambition was known, but not explicit. Like Caesar refusing the crown but wanting the power at some point, Urquiza did not want to openly advance his ultimate aim, and thus risk alienating some of his allies, while things were still in flux. I have changed to: "Once one of Rosas' most trusted lieutenants, Urquiza now claimed to fight for a constitutional government, although his ambition to become head of state was barely disguised."
I hope these edits make things a bit clearer, though further suggestions are welcome. Thanks for your input. • Astynax talk 09:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hchc2009, is there anything still missing that we should improve in the article? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay in replying, happy to now support. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- image/source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, Nikkimaria already did an image review in previous nominations. Nothing changed on that regard since then. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • For the Meade reference, is the book title wrong? It is the same as Miller below, I'm assuming a copy/paste error.
  • No other issues noted. --Laser brain (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laser_brain, I made a mistake. I added the correct title. Thanks for noticing it! --Lecen (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2016 [6].

Killer Instinct Gold[edit]

Nominator(s): czar 00:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing 90s video game history comes with a special set of source issues: a world of consumer magazines too young and insufficiently nostalgic to warrant systematic online archiving, and too old to be around in any form on the Internet or in public libraries. This is my second 90s game article (first FA being Mischief Makers though Deathrow was not too far behind in years), and I can say that it's really rewarding to track down every extant, major source on such a topic. I think this article makes an easy FAC because of this element of completeness alongside easygoing and engaging prose, and I hope you'll think the same.

This is a fighting game from a prominent video game series. It is enough of a one-off to not have a WP article until we started the recent 31-article Rare Replay project, but conspicuous enough to let us make some instrumental statements about its era. The article went through peer review mid-year. I'll note one technical point: that the Reception section publications are sometimes referenced as metonyms (that the publication said something rather than an author at the publication), and I kept this because those publications did not list authors in those works and thus the reviews were speaking as the publication's voice. I don't think it should be an issue. Thanks for your time (but don't be a c-c-combo breaker), czar 00:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Techtri[edit]

Extended content

Under Lead:

  • Players press buttons punch and kick their opponent in chains of successive hits - doesn't read right, something missing here. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a minor inconsistency between the lead Killer Instinct Gold uses many of the characters, combos, and 3D, pre-rendered environments of the arcade version while in the Gameplay section The game uses all of the characters, combos, and environments available in the arcade Killer Instinct 2 - is it many or all? Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Gameplay:

  • I'd prefer to see the footnote "Not all characters from the original reprised their roles." separated from the references.Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gameplay section mentions it excludes some voiceovers from the arcade release. I noticed the IGN article [7] mentions that all the FMV sequences from the arcade release are omitted in Gold also, is this worth mentioning? Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Development:

  • during a time when British company was becoming a prominent second-party developer and ally for Nintendo. - I'd like to see this claim sourced. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rare's Killer Instinct series served as Nintendo's brand of the popular Mortal Kombat. Needs rewording, I'm guessing we're trying to paraphrase "Killer Instinct was essentially Nintendo's version of Mortal Kombat", but using the word "brand" here isn't right. Also do we need to mention that MK was popular? Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its soundtrack was released on compact disc, which was rare for 90s video games. - Would it be better to use "1990s"? Also I think the source only refers to it being a rare thing for a UK/US game. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under reception:

  • But while GameSpot wrote that Gold was decent - "Decent" looks a little out of place when used here. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under References:

  • The "Game Informer" ref appeared to be a dead link for me. If that's not a temporary issue, deadurl needs to be set to yes to swap over to the archive link. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too sure if the archive.org scans of the print sources should be linked to or not. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Thanks, @Techtri! I think I've addressed your concerns, if you'd like to take a look. My understanding is that the Internet Archive has unique permission to make specific, otherwise out-of-print, archival works available to the public, and I don't think it has been an issue before. czar 14:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Comment on sources: The sources which you cite are all wholly appropriate for an article of this sort, but I would like to make a quick comment about formatting. It seems that in many cases what you're citing first and foremost is the physical magazine, with the online source being a mere courtesy link (this is especially true, for example, in the case of the Archive.org links). As such, you should really be citing them as magazine articles with URLS, rather than as web sources. So, as a "for instance", your Scary Larry source could specify that this was volume 9 and issue 2 of GamePro, and then there would be no need for an accessdate (as the source would clearly be the magazine, and not the webpage). Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn, nice catch—fixed! Any more comments on the source review? czar 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some inconsistency when it comes to providing publishers for magazines/websites; I honestly wouldn't bother. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added GamePro's publisher but what are the other inconsistencies? The other publications either had no publisher or gave their name to the parent company. I'd also be amenable to just scrapping the publisher field for all of the refs in this case, as they are almost all hyperlinked and it's doubtful that they'll be misconstrued. czar 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about things being misconstrued, I'm worried about consistent/professional formatting. So, I know that Destructoid's publisher is Modern Method, but I don't know the New York Daily News's publisher; I know that Nintendo Life is from the Gamer Network, but I don't know where Next Generation comes from. And so forth. When I say "I wouldn't bother", I mean I wouldn't bother providing the publishers- I can't say I've ever seen publishers provided for magazines/newspapers/journals in more traditional academic sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because the Daily News's publisher is the Daily News (same for the NYT, etc.) and the standard is to not repeat in those cases—hasn't been an issue in my previous FACs. But as I said, I too don't see the publishers adding more clarification than clutter here, so they're gone now. czar 14:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that this is a very strong article- well-written, well-sourced and an appropriate, scholarly tone. I made some copyedits; please double-check them. I have two "big picture" comments.

  • First, I know that you and I disagree about how to refer to our sources in the text; I aim for the citing of authors rather than the citing of publications. We can perhaps pin this on stylistic differences. However, I note that while you often approach this how I would (eg, "Doug Perry (IGN) found Gold '​s music to be crisper,[3] though he and Ed Lomas (CVG)") you sometimes refer only to publication, even though we have an author name (eg, with Allgame). It may be preferable to provide the author where you can.
  • Second, are you completely opposed to a character list? I note that a lot of video game articles would have a story section, but such a thing would (I'm guessing?) be inappropriate here. (That said, there must be some thin premise that explains why all these people are fighting each other- something about "Ultratech"? Shouldn't this be in the article, even if only in passing?) However, given that this is something discussed at length by commentators on the game and surely part of any enduring appeal of the series, maybe a list of the 11 characters (name, very quick description, notes indicating whether they are a new arrival, hidden character or what-have-you) could be added to the end of the gameplay section? It could even be a collapsible list so that it's only looked at by those interested. On a related note, it seems that the main character list article doesn't even specify who is and isn't in Gold.

I am close to supporting, but I'd like to hear your response to these. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn, thanks! Since many of the reviews did not have a lead reviewer listed, I think it's safe to assume that reviews were definitely speaking on behalf of the publication staff as a whole. I'd go further to say that the magazine is a much more useful metonym for the individual reviewer, especially when we are not expanding on their individual preferences at length and just giving basic overviews of their thoughts (which are presented on behalf the publication). Anyway, I updated Allgame and a few other examples to associate with the author but let me know if I missed any. I checked the manual (which comes with the game) and its story section says nothing about an Ultratech plot, nor does it show up anywhere else. None of the reviews mentioned it either. The manual didn't include any background on the characters either (just lists of the move sets, no personal background). I'd say that since both the reviews and manual didn't find it important enough to explicate, that it shouldn't be important to us either. This said, I think it would be fine to show continuity of characters in the section/article dedicated to the series characters. But for the sake of the encyclopedia article on the game, I'd say that the fictional character detail falls on the far side of video game trivia. czar 07:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence here. I'm inclined to think that plot/character details are important, and that the article isn't complete without them. I'm going to mull this over a little and see what other reviewers think. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though, to reiterate, I do think it is a very strong article! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn, any last thoughts on this? czar 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my last thought is that I am very much not opposing. I am not of the view that this fails the FA criteria. However, I'm afraid I am not comfortable supporting at this time. I'm sorry to be such a pain, and I sincerely hope that this does not negatively affect the nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Alright, enough messing around, let's do this.

Lead

  • Killer Instinct Gold uses all of the characters, combos, and 3D, pre-rendered environments of the arcade version, but adds a training mode, new camera views, and improved audiovisuals. Change "all of the characters" to "every character, combo, and 3D pre-rendered environment".
  • Following the success of the 1995 Killer Instinct port for the Super Nintendo home console... Why not just say it's full name?
But that is its full name—and the other details are included to provide background for why there was a sequel in the first place czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewers preferred the Gold Nintendo 64 port to its arcade equivalent. I'd remove Gold, since it's more or less redundant.
  • Critics recommended the game primarily for fans of the series and genre, but IGN reported that even fans were upset by changes in the combo system and the absence of several well liked characters. Why is IGN in italics? Also, link IGN, as most casual readers won't know who they are.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". In the article's context, IGN exclusively refers to an online publication that produces original/creative content (and in no capacity as a network/company) czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

  • The game uses all of the characters, combos, and environments available in the arcade Killer Instinct 2. Once again, change all to every, and reword as "every character, combo, and environment".
  • There is also an additional hidden character. You should mention how to unlock this character, if one of the sources mentions it. While playing Rare Replay, I remember unlocking the extra character with a cheat code for an achievement.
None of the sources said anything more about it czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Development

  • The Killer Instinct series began as an arcade game (1994) and became known as "Nintendo's version of Mortal Kombat" upon its release on the company's Super Nintendo (1995) and Game Boy (1995). Once again, why not just simply write out the full name for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System?
  • The image states that the game was included as a launch title, but this is contradictory to what is stated in the third paragraph. If you meant to say it was originally meant to be included as a launch title, reword.

Reception

  • This is the one section that's a real problem in my mind. The problem is that you jump all over the place. Like seriously all over the place. One minute, it mentions the music, then the framerate, then whether reviewers recommend the game, then a reader's poll, and finally a quiet European release, in just one paragraph. I honestly can't support this article until a little more order is brought to this section. Take for example The Last of Us (no particular reason for choosing this game, other than it was the first one to pop into my mind). That article's reception section gives individual aspects of the game their own section, as to what reviewers thought of it (plot paragraph, characters paragraph, gameplay paragraph, etc.) I can see the second paragraph of this article working, because talks soley about the sound and backdrops, but still, this section as a whole needs a good reworking.
I didn't think this was off, but I've tightened this based on your feedback. TheLast of Us comparison isn't apt—the game launched a thousand think pieces and reams of Reception on its constituent elements (on each, separately!) Game reviews from the 90s are shorter and less detailed (print mags), especially on games not considered masterpieces. The goal is to adequately summarize the reviews, and the reviews were generally thumbs up/down for sound/graphics/gameplay. Anyway, I think you'll like the cleanup. czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • No problems here.

Like others have said, this is a VERY solid article, just need to cleanup the reception section to get my support. In regards to a plot and characters section, I think it would be quite pointless, since this game really doesn't have a plot other than "an evil guy is evil, and you need to fight him" or something like that (I never made it very far in this game to find out). Famous Hobo (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo, appreciate the review. I think you'll like the changes, but let me know what you think? czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh definitely, that reception section looks better. Sorry about the comment about the reviews, I don't deal with a lot of old games. Anyway, I'd still like to get a clarification on the N64 caption as to whether it was a launch title, or if it was pushed back, but other than that, you got yourself a Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks czar 22:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink[edit]

Support. I stumbled here from my own FAC, thought I'd comment.

  • " Characters including a gargoyle, a ninja, and a femme fatale fight in settings such as a jungle and a spaceship" - could use a comma or a dash after the "characters"
  • "Rare was a prominent second-party developer for Nintendo" - specify when (the 1990s)
  • "It received a wider release in May 1997." - maybe specify "worldwide" instead of "wider", for people who don't know that term.
  • An announcer narrates major game moments with phrases like, "Awesome combo!" - this could be an odd comment, but are there any other phrases from the game that might be a bit more.... appropriate? Don't get me wrong, it's fine, but it doesn't have a ring of excitement, especially involving a major game moment. If you don't have sources to any other phrase, it's fine, it just struck me as somewhat odd for an article going for FAC.
  • "There are ten characters in total: three new and seven returning from the previous title." - new from the arcade port? Or the original?
  • "There is also an additional, hidden character." - no comma needed
  • I feel like this sort of sentence is missing from the lead: The reception was mixed. I read half of the article before realizing not many people really liked the game (I especially liked the quote about its shelf life being weeks, not months). Given how negative and mixed some of the reviews were, I think adding that sentence would help set the tone earlier on.

All in all it's a really good article. My comments shouldn't be too hard to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink, thanks! I think I've addressed them all, if you'll take a look. Awesome combo was the best direct quote that I saw in the material—I don't think it's so bad an encouragement. Also no source summarized the reception as being mixed, so I thought it would be original research for me to conclude as such myself. Instead, I think I balanced what the reviewers did posit about the game. czar 07:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, thanks, looks good for me to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco[edit]

  • Lead strikes me as a bit long for the length of the article. I'd probably put less emphasis on the reviews
  • I'd try and reduce the lead's discussion of reviews to two sentences.
Reduced (reluctantly) czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the arcade version - Above you listed Killer Instinct 2 as a separate game, not a different version of the same game (which "version" implies).
  • You say it's a game based on a game. This implies that there are two games being discussed. "Version", meanwhile, implies that there is one underlying game, with different iterations. They are subtly but fundamentally different. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is both. It is both in the image of its model and its own entity. Fixed anyway czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the series remained dormant through its 2002 acquisition by Microsoft - might be read as only KI having been acquired by Microsoft, when it was Rare which was acquired
  • Again, this sentence as currently written implies that only the property was acquired by MS, rather than the company (viz. Bethesda's acquisition of Fallout, which did not include acquisition of Interplay). We should be unambiguous. "acquired by Microsoft through the purchase of Rare" or something more polished. Might work well as part of your discussion of the company in paragraph 2 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't imply anything other than that the series became Microsoft property, which is the only detail about the matter that I would consider important for the lede. The fate of Rare doesn't matter here for KIG at all, especially when I'm removing important parts from the lede for length issues anyway, no? czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with Czar; the fate of Rare is of limited importance, and the current wording does not imply, as far as I can see, that it was only KI that was acquired. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "combos" - why the quotes?
  • computer-controlled or human opponent - Although I know what you mean, this could be misread as the opponent being human, rather than the opponent being controlled by a human player.
  • the previous title - I don't think you've linked the original KI yet, outside of the lead. Might do it here.
  • Agree with Josh: a plot section is sorely lacking.
  • Page 7 of the manual, at the very least, says that it's some sort of tournament. Have you tried the game itself? That is an RS for WP:VG, albeit a primary one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this when I first wrote the article. (1) If the sources don't think that tournament plot is worth mentioning at all, I don't think it has sufficient weight to be rationalize its inclusion. (2) Plot in the instruction manual doesn't mean it's present in the game—in fact, many 80s/90s games included all kinds of backstory and plot completely peripheral to the final release. czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't say that it is entirely peripheral. If we read the article on Scorpion, for example, we see that it mentions character developments which occurred outside of the games proper (even in the early 1990s). If we don't have much detail on the plot proper, however, there's nothing to do. Guess I will (reluctantly) accept the lack of plot. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • games industry, game industry, or gaming industry? Don't think I've heard games industry before
  • Reviewers highly praised the game's sound and environment backdrops, and noted that the character animations were not as sharp in comparison. - "And" suggests that both are parallel (i.e. positive); is this supposed to be contrasting them? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492, thanks! What parts of the reviews would you recommend cutting from the lede? It's perhaps a sentence longer than I'd like but I consider everything there either highly cited or important for understanding the game and its context in a nutshell. I'm not sure where you read that KI2 was listed as a separate game? The "based on" section of the lede? I worked with that sentence for a while, but since sources were hesitant to call KIG a direct port, I prefer to say that it's "based on" KI2 and then later explain that it uses much of the same elements. After establishing that, it shouldn't be a stretch to refer to them as similar or different version of the same thing throughout the rest of the article, no? An alternative would be: "Killer Instinct Gold is the 1996 port of the arcade, fighting video game Killer Instinct 2." I thought it was sufficient to say the series was acquired—it shouldn't matter for KIG that Rare was acquired too. I used quotes as a term of art, to distinguish its usage (at least at first). Did you see my comments to Josh above about no source (not even the manual) mentioning a plot? Games/game/gaming industry are used interchangeably in sources (video game reliable sources custom Google search). I think I've fixed everything else, if you'll take a look. Really helpful—thanks! czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492, I think I've addressed your concerns, if you'll take a look. Appreciate your time, czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rhain1999[edit]

Image review:

All images have proper rationales, and appropriate captions, so I can support on images.

For the sources, I looked at this version, and checked sources 1–12, 14–15, and 17–28. As much as I'd like to leave some comments for you to fix, I could honestly find nothing here. Every fact in the article is immediately followed by a source, all of which are reliable, and all referencing is consistent and appropriately archived. So, with that, I'm happy to support on sources. Incredible work, as always. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Anything else needed here? czar 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: czar 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow response, Czar. I plan to go through the list to look for ready nominations today or tomorrow—I'll let you know if anything seems amiss. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2016 [8].

Temperatures Rising[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temperatures Rising is a sitcom that I enjoyed immensely when it originally aired in the United States on the ABC network back in the early 1970s. Although it has yet to be made available commercially on DVD I have been able to obtain some episodes via a private source. I still think it is a very funny show and would like to see it brought back into circulation. My interest in the series inspired me to learn as much as I can about its history. Thus I have spent the last few years accumulating a large amount of information about the series (mainly vintage newspaper articles). Using this information I re-wrote and greatly expanded this article last year and attempted to elevate it to FA status in January of this year. The article was not promoted despite the support of four people. Since then the article has achieved GA status. I have had several friends (many of whom are published authors) look it over and offer comments to improve it and, just last week, it received a "makeover" by the Guild of Copy Editors.

I am now making another attempt at FA status. If anyone can make suggestions on how to improve this article please feel free to over up any that you have. Also note that some of episodes of Temperatures Rising are available for viewing on YouTube. Take a look and have a few laughs. Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
;Comment by Birdienest81
  • Ref 31 is a dead link. Is there an alternative link, or can you find an archived version of it?
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • I'll take a more detailed run down tomorrow, but it looks good.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The prose looks fine. I can't fine any other issues. Great job.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from SchroCat[edit]

  • Four dead links need looking into
    • Three fixed and one deleted.
  • Pilato in the bibliography isn't used in the article and should be removed
    • Removed.

- SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle F. (October 16, 2007): I think we can cut the date back to 2007, rather than the full date.

Sorry it's a bit bitty, but I've got a full work schedule at the moment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – I supported last time. Looking at the later comments on that review I think I understand why that candidacy didn't go through, but this one looks pretty solid to me. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I have gone through the article and its previous archives to see whether or not everything has been resolved. I can't find anything to complain about. Good work. -- Frankie talk 16:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
  • Way too many fair use images. You could probably get by with File:Temperatures Rising.jpg and maybe File:Temperatures Rising Second Season.jpg, but File:Nancy Fox, circa 1971.jpg just doesn't meet the contextual significance criterion of WP:FUC. Her physical appearance does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", and removing it would not be "detrimental to that understanding". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit of a loss to fully understand how a mere three photographs could be construed as "way too many". However, I have removed the portrait of Nancy Fox per your suggestion. The other two show the different cast members of the first and second seasons so I think they're essential to the article. Jimknut (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read WP:FUC if you are not sure how three photographs is too many, particularly the part about "minimal usage" and "contextual significance". Although one is preferable to two, considering the drastic cast change you're illustrating, I am alright with the current selected images.
      • However, it would be best if your fair use rationales could explicitly say why these two images are contextually significant, rather than simply saying "The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): The first season cast of Temperatures Rising" and forcing readers to make the connection (i.e. that there was a drastic shift in the cast appearance and composition between seasons, and that this is most easily illustrated visually) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- have I missed a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the newspaper articles that I used I copied onto Word files. I would be more than happy to send them to you. Jimknut (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I was talking about was a check of formatting and reliability or sources but I think SchroCat may have done that after all. OTOH, I'm gathering this will be your first FA if successful, in which case I would like to see a reviewer undertake a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing (request can be made at the top of WT:FAC. Also I noticed several duplicate links in the article that you could review/rationalise using this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The formatting and reliability of my sources was addressed last year during my second attempt at FA status. Likewise, I believe the accuracy and close paraphrasing was addressed as well. I had several friends who are published authors (among them Frank Thompson) look over the text and they give it a "thumbs up". Regarding duplicate links: I used the system you recommended and, yes, there are some. However, none appear near the other (i.e. they are not within a sentence or two of each other but rather are separated by several paragraphs) so I strongly believe that the use of the duplicate links are fine. Jimknut (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing wrong with peer reviewing outside WP but we would need someone to do such a spotcheck within the FAC nom, and I'm happy to place a request for such at the top of WT:FAC. Re. duplinks, it's not something on which I come down hard, I mainly like to ensure the editor is conscious of it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • About the WT:FAC: Yes, feel free to place a request. Jimknut (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm willing to give the article a spotcheck, Jimknut. If you have copies of the newspaper articles for the footnotes, can you send me the ones for the footnotes which are multiples of 5? (In other words, the Hardester article used in footnote 5, the Page article in fn 10, the Thompson article in fn 15, etc.) You can e-mail me through the link on my user page, and I'll reply to receive the copies. Imzadi 1979 → 10:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Imzadi1979[edit]

Stumbling here from my own nomination:

  • Constructions like "fictional Washington, D.C. hospital" need a comma after the district name to balance the one between city and district, or "fictional Washington, D.C., hospital".
    • Fixed.
  • "led to him being cast in" is an awkward and clumsy construction of the "noun plus -ing" sort. I'd suggest recasting that as "led to his casting in" to avoid it. There are be some additional opportunities to fix other similar issues in the prose.
    • Reworded per your suggestion. (This article did go through a peer review and rewrite.)
  • "Little's casting reflected: 'pressure...'" the colon there isn't needed since the sentence flows right into the quotation.
    • Fixed. (Actually I did not have the colon in there to begin with. Someone doing a peer review and rewrite added it in.)
  • There's a bit of inconsistency in subsequent references to people in the article, In most cases, after the first mention, the first name is dropped and all subsequent mentions do with just surnames, but once in a while the first names re-appear. Obviously you shouldn't alter direct quotes, but our prose should be a bit more polished in its presentation in this respect.
    • I'm holding out on this. I used full names when a person is first mentioned and refer to them by the last name only in subsequent sentences. I return to using their full names only in later paragraphs - often in different sections of the article. I don't think there is any wrong wth this but if you (or anyone else) strongly objects to it I'll change it.
  • Also, we should be consistent where dealing with the distinction between actors and roles. By this, we have :

    Subsequent episodes feature Noland performing a secret operation on a young baseball player while Campanelli deals with a hospital inspector, Ed Platt,[19] and John Astin as a gangster wanting Noland to be his personal physician.[20] In another episode, Noland hypnotizes a patient (Alice Ghostley) and, accidentally, Nurse Turner as well. This nearly costs the hospital a large donation from a potential benefactor (Charles Lane).

    The first sentence puts the actor's name in commas after the reference to the character, but the last sentence has the actors' names in parentheses. Neither is wrong, but the inconsistency is a bit weird to me.
    • Fixed for more consistency. (This is another case where a peer reviewer made the change.)
  • Footnotes 17, 30 and 44 have access dates defined in the citation templates, but no URLs, a situation which prompts an error message (at least to those of us who have all of the error messages displayed).
    • URLs are now removed. (These articles used to be available online but have since been removed.)
  • There's a bit of a formatting inconsistency between the footnotes and the bibliography. In the former, state names are spelled out in full for locations, while in the latter they're abbreviated. Consistency is a key for promotion to FA status, so this should be fixed.
    • States are now spelled out fully in the bibliography.
  • Now, in my experience, it's not necessary to list a city of publication for a newspaper unless the newspaper's name lacks the name of a city. So the Los Angeles Times doesn't need it, but The Sun (Lowell, MA) does. In any case, it doesn't hurt to include them where not needed, but they don't need to be wikilinked, especially if the newspaper name itself is/can be wikilinked as a more specific target. Also, if locations are going to be included, they honestly need to be included even when the same paper is being cited again, as a matter of consistency. Why bother to include it for the Los Angeles Times in footnote 3, but then drop it in footnote 18?
    • Here's what I did: All newspapers are linked if there is a Wikipedia article for them (in the case of the Los Angeles Times it is linked only in the earliest citation). Location names are only presented when there is no Wiki article. (I'm presuming that readers know that the location for the Los Angeles Times is Los Angeles, California, and not Los Angeles, Texas.)
  • It looks like a few newspaper citations are not using {{cite news}}, so the location isn't being displayed in parentheses. Also, in at least one case (footnote 13), the paper name is apparently put in the |publisher= parameter, so it's not in italics and it comes after the location.
    • See above comment. Footnote 13 is fixed.
  • One final note about the citations, but you can, and should, harmonize the capitalization style for the article titles. Some are in Title Case, and some are in Sentence case. Harmonizing this would make everything look more polished.
    • Capitalization is now harmonized. (Actually, I was presenting the headlines as they actually appeared in the newspapers.)
  • Now, having said all of that, I think the article is a great read. It's a matter of polishing some details before promotion, that's all. Imzadi 1979 → 11:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hope this brings the article closer to FA! Jimknut (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Imzadi1979[edit]

Ok, as noted above, I'm auditing the footnotes divisible by 5, so approximately 20% of the sources. I have tagged any footnotes that failed verification in the article.

  • The source in n. 5 does not support the cited sentence. The article does not mention any connection between Temperatures Rising and This is a Hospital? at all, and it only mentions that a certain actress had appeared in the pilot for This is a Hospital?.
    • n. 5 has been moved to the next sentence. Since it presents an article from 1965 it is obviously not going to discuss a TV series made seven years later. However, n. 6 does state that Temperatures Rising derives from This is a Hospital? However it states that the unsold pilot was from the "mid-1960s"; n. 5 is therefore used to pinpoint a more accurate date.
  • n. 10: the first passage is verified, but you lifted the phrase "always covering up for the inept crew" from the source without putting it in quotation marks in the article. The second direct quote from the article is also verified.
  • n. 15: the brand name of the toothpaste for the commercial does not appear in the source.
    • Changed to state only "a toothpaste commercial".
  • n. 20:, verified.
  • n. 25: Albertson is not mentioned in the snippet, so that fails verification as well.
    • A second source is now added to verify that Albertson is in the episode.
  • n. 30: verified, and properly quoted for attribution purposes.
  • n. 35: verified.
  • n. 40: verified. I didn't receive a copy of n. 41, but the content of nb2 can be verified to n. 40 alone.
  • n. 45: verified.
  • n. 50: verified.
  • n. 55: verified.
  • nn. 60–61: basically verified. n. 60 doesn't explicitly say that it was the last episode, but the replacement the following week in n. 61 does imply that.
  • n. 65: verified.

The items marked as failing verification need to be rectified. I added the missing quotation marks myself. Given that over a quarter of the sources checked revealed issues. I'm going to ask for additional sources to see if they weren't aberrations, or to see if they're part of a pattern here. Jimknut, please supply copies of the sources for the footnotes that end in 3 or 7 so that I can do further verifications. Imzadi 1979 → 14:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changes made. Next batch of sources in the works. Jimknut (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next batch sent. Jimknut (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the latest batch to be checked:

  • n. 3: verified in all usages.
  • n.7: verified.
  • n. 13: verified
  • n. 17: verified. (as a note, this would verify the brand of toothpaste that n. 15 couldn't.)
  • n. 23: verified.
  • n. 27: verified (and isn't the expression "card shark" and not "card sharp"?)
  • n. 33: verified.
  • n. 37: verified.
  • n. 43: verified
  • n. 47: I'm not sure why this appears after "As to why the series was not cancelled, Asher remarked, 'I can answer that in two words: Paul Lynde.'" because that quotation only appears in n. 3 and not n. 47. Otherwise, this one is verified.
  • n. 53: verified.
  • n. 57: verified.
  • n. 63: verified.
  • n. 67: verified.

Overall, this is much better than the last batch and counters my fear that there was sourcing issues in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 14:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review. Concerning your comment for n. 27: "Card shark" and "card sharp" are interchangeable; however, Wikipedia has an article under card sharp and it is also what appears in Webster's online dictionary (as one word: cardsharp) described as "someone who makes money by cheating at card games". Hence I will stick with my spelling. Jimknut (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2016 [9].

Union Station (Erie, Pennsylvania)[edit]

Nominator(s): Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While there are several railway station FA's (mostly British), there isn't one from the US, only a handful of GA's. Wasn't sure there would've been enough for an FA when I started, but was surprised by Union Station's unique, and often overlooked, history as well as how it went from neglected and abandoned to being revitalized and a hub of activity. This article has previously been reviewed by Finetooth and West Virginian who were instrumental in helping to get the article ready for FAC. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Erie_PA_Panorama_c1912_LOC_6a14402u.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced from the Library of Congress who indicate that it's original copyright was to Haines Photo Co. in 1912. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but the tag you're currently using is intended for images published, not just taken, before 1923 - do we know whether the company published the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been...it is listed in the 1912 Catalog of Copyright Entries as "Erie, Pa. two panoramic views. © Sept. 18, 1912." [10] (page 20049, if you're interested). Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then just add that detail to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added, thanks for doing the image review. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginia[edit]

Support As Niagara has stated above in his nomination of the article, I've already engaged in a thorough and comprehensive review at this article's peer review. All my comments and suggestions were addressed there. I still assess that this article easily meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria because it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, and has a lede that adheres to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Once again Niagara, you've done a splendid job illustrating the storied past and revival of this historic building. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Finetooth[edit]

I peer-reviewed this article in August 2015 and did some minor copy editing, and all of my original concerns have been addressed. I'm leaning toward support, but after re-reading the revised article again today, I have two (or several, depending how you count) additional suggestions:

  • I see four sentences in the article that appear as unsourced last-sentence additions to paragraphs. The first of these (Fellheimer) is at the end of the first paragraph of the "Design" section, and the second (railroad offices) ends the third paragraph of the "Design" section. The other two are in the "Operations" section, at the ends of paragraphs 2 and 3 (express trains and Bliley). Can you add reliable sources for these claims?
  • For the books in the bibliography that are too old to have ISBNs, I would add OCLCs as in the Harriet Tubman bibliography. You can generally find these via WorldCat. For example, WorldCat lists the OCLC of History of Erie County, Pennsylvania as 8622308 here. Readers who use your bibliography will then be able to click on an OCLC link to see the WorldCat listings, which include information about other editions and formats and where to find them. For example, the History of Erie County, Pennsylvania, has appeared in nine different forms, including a 2006 reprint. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added the appropriate sources and OCLC numbers. Thanks for catching those! Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very well-done and interesting article. Finetooth (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dudley[edit]

  • "The first railroad station in Erie was established 1851" Is "established 1851" AmerEng? I would say "built in 1851".
Missing preposition, should read "established in 1851". Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Superintendents for both the New York Central and Pennsylvania railroads, as well as other railroad officials, retained offices on the second floor of Union Station." "retained" does not sound right to me - maybe "had"?
Replaced. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " early-1960s" Why the hyphen?
My thinking was along the lines of MOS:DECADE which specifies that prefixes for decades like "mid-" or "pre-" should have hyphens. If I'm misinterpreting it, let me know and I'll remove the hyphen. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Philadelphia and Erie continued to maintain its original station on State Street" You refer to this as if you have already mentioned it.
Changed to avoid making the reference. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lake Shore '​s demise.[43][44] Erie remained devoid of any passenger rail service until the Lake Shore Limited was introduced on November 30, 1975" This is a bit confusing. How about something like "until November 30, 1975, when service was restored, named Lake Shore Limited after its predecessor."
Changed, but actually named for the original, New York Central train. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Train arrival times - I think they are too detailed for an encyclopedia article as they will be subject to frequent change.
It was suggested in the peer review that they be added. I could be less specific and just say "early morning" if that's any better. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I disagree with the PR comment. You provide a link for the times. However, if you added "As of December 2015" and deleted the actual times that would be a compromise. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The microbrewery details are excessive and verge on advertising.
Obviously I'm better at historical and architectural/engineering writing than about businesses; I'll work to tone it down. If you have suggestions on what is the most egregious, I'll have a better idea of what needs to be changed or removed. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at it again, the same comment applies to Logistics Plus. I do not think that details about commercial tenants belong in an article about a railway station. If any are significant enough to have its own article you can wikilink it. I suggest instead of one section on "Major tenants", two sections headed "Railway services" and "Commercial tenants". In the latter you could list them in one paragraph, with maybe a sentence about the most important ones. You might also change "art gallery" to "art studio" as it is a commercial business rather than a public gallery. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've cutback on extraneous details. I've also retitled the rail section "Services and facilities", which appears in other Amtrak station articles, and decided to reorder the sections for a more logical progression. Did I miss anything? Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed, but there has been a dramatic revival of passenger numbers in Britain. I assume from this article that there has been no US revival?
When oil prices were high, Amtrak ridership did increase and had a record ridership of 30 million in 2013. But, outside of the California and the Northeast Corridor, driving and (as is often the case) flying is faster. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first rate article. All points are minor apart from advertising for the brewery. Dudley Miles (talk)
  • Support - although I would delete the last sentence as close to advertising. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Imzadi1979[edit]

Just some comments after meandering here from my own nomination:

  • "with stairways leading to the platforms" would read better, and avoid the "noun plus -ing" issue. I suggest "with stairs that lead to the platforms" as a neater replacement.
    • "with the remainder having level crossings" likewise would be better as "and the remainder had level crossings"
    • "with trains traveling west to Cleveland" would be better as "with trains that traveled west to Cleveland".
    • "Conrail, in turn, was dismantled on June 6, 1998, with the former New York Central rail lines going to CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway gaining control of the former Pennsylvania lines" → "Conrail, in turn, was dismantled on June 6, 1998, and the former New York Central rail lines were transferred to CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway gained control of the former Pennsylvania lines."
  • "early-1960s" doesn't need the hyphen like "mid-1960s" or "pre-1960s" would.
  • "...waiting room could patronage its... " → "...waiting room could patronize its... "?
  • "moved from 8th and Peach Streets" → "moved from 8th and Peach streets" to match how other similar pairings of streets are named in the article.
  • "continued to operate a New York to Chicago train" → "continued to operate a New York-to-Chicago train" or "continued to operate a New York–Chicago train" because the two cities form a compound adjective to describe the noun "train".
  • In footnote 33, there's a [sic]. For something as minor as a missing space, I'd have just silently fixed the issue and avoided the notation. Correspondingly, over on footnote 47, there's an apostrophe error that has no notation (assuming that isn't a transcription error and it's an actual error in the original source).
  • Looking back at the source, the exact format was "Gradecrossing" which means it was intentionally one word; the other footnote was a transcription error on my part. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's possible to add the missing page numbers for news sources, they should be provided for articles not published/re-published online. I'll take you at your word though if those articles came from databases that omitted the page numbers. (If possible in the future, if you can make a trip to a library and find the original articles on microfilm and add the page numbers, that would be a benefit to our readers who may want to verify sources in the future.)
  • I had intended to do that, but never did. The articles had been clipped from the original newspapers and sorted by subject; most did not have the page numbers included. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think the article is in great shape. My comments above are really quite minor and could be fixed in a few minutes' time, except the missing page numbers. On that last point, I wouldn't oppose promotion over that issue, and I'm inclined to support overall pending fixes. Imzadi 1979 → 10:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the article. I have also made the grammatical and punctuation changes you've recommended. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—everything looks good now. As I said, adding the missing page numbers is a bonus, and not something I'd hold up promotion over. Imzadi 1979 → 06:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]

I'm far from a railfan, but I'll give the best lay review I can.

  • The first railroad station in Erie was established in 1851 - was this on the same site? If yes, probably worth mentioning in the lead. If not, definitely worth mentioning in the body.
  • The sources I have say only say that it was "replaced by" the 1866 station; that could mean either way. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • rough brown firebrick and sandstone - though you are using others' wording, I'm not sure you need the quotes. I mean, Fire brick and sandstone are both technical terms, and "rough brown" is not a unique idea in and of its own
  • I've left "rough brown" in quotes as its not a phrase I would come up with on my own to describe the building materials. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entrances from 14th Street open into a large, - what period is this paragraph talking about? And the next? Some may facilities have lasted for 50 years, but restaurants and lunch counters generally don't have that kind of longevity.
  • How many entrances on 14th street?
  • There are two other sets of doors in addition the main, but they may or may not be original. It is likely they were added when the building redeveloped, but I don't have any sources that indicate which is correct. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link locations etc. on first mention outside the lead as well?
  • Name of the restaurant?
  • Been two years since the feasibility assessment was undertaken for the high-speed line. Any follow-up yet? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last October, the group raised enough money to fund the the study; if that's relevant I'll add it. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... no, I guess that's not sufficient development in and of itself. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I believe I've taken care everything; let me know if I've forgotten anything. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2016 [11].

Palmyra[edit]

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. This is the second nomination following a previous one that spent a month without any input by other users save for the Image review. The article is a GA, recieved a Peer review and a copy-edit. Plus, it was translated to Portuguese and Afrikaans and it is now a featured article in Portoguese, Afrikaans and Azerbijani Wikipedia pt:Palmira, af:Palmyra, az:Palmira.

Palmyra was a unique city and a melting pot between the East and the West. Its warrior queen Zenobia left a lasting romantic impression in the minds of classical writers and its ruins are (were) one of the best preserved from the Roman era. Sadly, a monstrous militia (ISIS) is destroying it piece by piece.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • Now Support, as points fixed - Fine Work! Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a pity such a fine, and (sadly) topical, article received no comments last time! By the way, this got 256K desktop views in the last 90 days. I have I think edited it a few times. On a first look:
  • Lead: I might shorten para 3, but include a link to the short-lived Palmyrene Empire. No need to drop the next one.
  • Sections: My main comment is that the sequence of the sections, though in the conventional WP order, does not serve this subject, treated at this length, at all well for most readers. They mainly want information on the ruins, their recent destruction, and the culture that produced them. At the moment the main "Notable structures" section begins on the 16th screen down on my computer, which is just far too low.
    • Taking them in turn:
Location and etymology - I'd split this, & put etymology at the end of the article. I'd add the "City layout", now many screens lower, to the current 1st para on "Location".
History - very long, and not the priority for most readers. Move lower. You might even split the section, keeping the pre-Muslim history higher, but the commendably full subsequent history much lower, as until ISIS this contributes very little to the fame of the city.
"People, language and society" then "Culture" - ok to follow location and layout. I'd then have "8.2 Cemeteries and 8.3 Notable structures " next, with the ISIS destruction just after. Excavations might go into the history section.
Government, Religion and Economy next, but the rulers table right at the bottom of the article. I even wonder if all the redlinked Al-Fadl dynasty should not be moved out to a dedicated list page. If that is done the House of Odaenathus might go below the relevant section in the history.
  • If not this, then something else needs to be done.

Thanks for taking the effort. I dont mind the rearranging of the sections but would like propose a similar arrangement. The etymology section (as I've seen in most articles) is always at the beginning. It is just too out of place to have it at the very end.
Para 3 of the lead is the shortest and probably summaries the reason why Palmyra is famous : Odaenathus wars and the rebellion of Zenobia. I feel strongly that it should remain.
I made the changes you asked but kept the etymology up. Im thinking about creating an article for the list of rulers. Hope this is adequate.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think that's much better! The removal of the rulers reduces the crude size somewhat, to 177K, which is a good thing also. I'll do a detailed read-through, but not today. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, this will have to wait for a few days. I am likely to support, & I'd encourage you to stick with the process, tedious though the referencing issues are. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some small copyedits for language. In the notes, I can't be bothered to hunt these down:
  • Palmyra as a polis is not extensive, and the earliest known reference is an inscription dated to 51 AD, written in Palmyrene and Greek, mentioning the "City of the Palmyrenes" in its Greeks section.
  • No evidence for Germanicus visiting Palmyra exist.
  • Although a mainstream view is that Palmyra benefited from Petra annexation,
  • The Mesopotamian Jewish population was deemed by the Palmyrenes as loyal to the Persians. - "regarded" better than deemed.
  • Richard Stoneman propose that the law regulated taxes imposed on goods destined
  • Let me know if the problems with these aren't obvious. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will support when remaining points sorted. Excellent article! Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Beginning, as is my custom here, by examining references and reference formatting:

  • Right off the bat, I have to note that you're doing some very nonstandard things with your reference formatting. In particular, I'm not certain what criteria you're using to include books in the bibliography; there are a considerable number of book-format works referenced but not included therein. Also, while things like sfn aren't required, there's no connect between the citations and bibliography entries. The net result makes it rather difficult to evaluate the referencing properly. Considerable editorial discretion is given to reference format choices, but this may actually rise to the level of MOS-noncompliance.
  • You format author names first last in citations but last, first in the bibliography. Regardless of choices within editorial discretion, you need to be consistent about the standards you enact.
  • As an apparent consequence of the referencing formatting choices, print sources that appear in the citations but not in the bibliography do not have a full bibliographic entry anywhere in the article. Murtonen 1989, for example, lacks a publisher or ISBN. Charnock 1859 lacks a publisher (and, ideally, an OCLC). And so on.
  • In what is currently citation 1, you italicize and wikilink CBS News. In citation 11, you do neither for BBC News. Italicization of web sources is a contentious topic in the MOS at this time, but here, especially, consistency needs to be applied.
  • You've fallen prey to what I'm increasingly deeming the "Google Books trap". Google Books does a terrible job at extracting bibliographic information from scholarly journals that it has indexed as if they were books. The material you have cited as "Space archaeology" by Shiruku Rōdo-gaku Kenkyū Sentā isn't a book at all, but a journal: Silk Roadology, the published proceedings of the Research Center for Silk Roadology. I don't have access to this material, so I can't even try to construct a proper citation, which would need the article title, author, and pagination, in addition to the volume (and issue, if assigned) of the journal. None of which can Google Books be trusted to accurately provide. I offer no opinion as to the reliability or academic rigor of this source at this time.
  • The same is true of Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. This is actually material from Les Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes, a journal published by the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums. I'm not convinced this was an Arabic-language publication, either (or, alternatively, that the cited volume is incorrect). I know that AAAS changed publication language several times, and relatively recent volumes exist in both Arabic and English, but as of volume 42, may have still been in French. Regardless, whatever is being cited here needs confirmation from a more accurate source.
  • Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is a scholarly article republished in a book-form journal proceeding. This one does appear in the bibliography, but isn't formatted appropriately in either location. Among other issues, it needs to include the editors of the bound work.

At this point, I'm done attempting a thorough survey of the sources. Many, perhaps most of the sources used here lack a complete citation. At least two, and likely more, are cited in a factually incorrect manner because of mangling by Google Books. That is especially problematic for obscure and foreign-language sources as used here. Accordingly, I have no choice but to strongly oppose promotion on 2c and probably 1c grounds. No opinion on prose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OH WOW , strong oppose because of this!!!!!!!!!!!! imagine if the article lacked some sources, whats then ? delete the article ?!!!. I didnt expect that FA was a process to see if the sources are neat, tidy and packed in a pretty way. I thought this was about articles being informative and cited. This is a very shallow criteria to oppose !!! its not because the article isnt sourced but because the sources change the style of naming the authors !!!! Does it really matter to the reader !!!! He can click on the link and the book and page will appear in front of him, is he really going to care that the name order is changed between the cite and the biblio !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dont think that the reader immediately jump in excitement to the bibliography section once they have clicked on the article. So it doesnt matter using the most reliable academic sources or comprehensiveness but the way the name of the author is given in the citation and the bibliography or the italicization of BBC and CNN!

Now, to tackle your issues :

  • I know for sure that I have the privilege of choosing my style of citation and since I've chosen a way that doesn't require a bibliography (templates) then I've decided to delete the bibliography all together
  • I provided every citation with full information to compensate the deletion of the bibliography so now every source have a complete citation.
  • As for the journals, they are now in an adequate format : (cite journal). So Space Archaeology is properly cited now
  • As for the Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes : you said a more accurate source. AAAS is one of the most reliable sources about Palmyra, you cant get more accurate than that. The issue cited is in Arabic and you dont need to doubt it. If you dont know for sure then you really shouldn't doubt that it is written in Arabic or not. I wrote the key word Qatna in Arabic so you can see that it is written in Arabic.قطنا but anyways, it is not needed as the next source also cover the subject so I deleted the AAAS.
  • This journal "The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Difussion of Useful Knowledge" from 1840 didnt normally mention the names of its authors so I cant have them.
  • This book for example : Local Etymology: A Derivative Dictionary of Geographical Names by Richard Stephen Charnock is from 1859 and have no ISBN. Many old books and journals have no ISBN or ISSN, how can I get you ones ?!!!!
  • Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is now properly cited.
  • BBC and stuff are consistence now in regard to italicization. By the way, it wasnt me who italicized CBS. I didnt add that reference and the difference isnt because of intended italicization but because of the templates. the "cite news" template will give you an italicized publisher while the "cite web" template will give you a non italicized publisher. I cant even believe that this is a serious problem !!!!!
  • You cant oppose this on bases of 1C. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable
  • I just spent 7 continuous hours to make every citation full, hope this is appreciated and will make your strong opposition a normal one. If this way [1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) is the only accepted way of citations and the citation templates are refused then Im gonna think about withdrawing the nomination because this is just a complete child play. Spending months writing and reading hundreds of books then getting the article refused because "the style of the citations isnt pretty to my eyes".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Featured Article process is very demanding. It makes expectations not only of the quality of the prose and references, but that references are fully cited and presented in an internally-consistent manner (which, no, does not mandate short-form references). I realize that this isn't the "fun" part of article writing, but it is a well-established aspect of the Feature Article candidacy process. Please don't take it personally; my interest is in ensuring that the articles we highlight as our best work meet all of our criteria for that standard, even the ones that aren't exciting. Taking a moment to opine, I often wish that the GA criteria were more stringent, so that the leap in expectations between GA-quality work and FA-quality work were not so large as it is. But we work with the criteria we have.
  • Following up on your comments about AAAS: AAAS is, without question, a high-quality source. My suggestion that you might need to consult another source was not meant to imply that it was unacceptable, but that Google Books was giving you insufficient and possibly incorrect material. Specifically, as with several other references, this is a scholarly journal; citations to it need to be to the individual articles, not the journal as a whole.
  • Publishers should generally not be abbreviated. For the Bryce source, Oxford University Press, not OUP. And definitely not "OUP Oxford", even if that's what Google Books claims in its sidebar.
  • The Arbeitman source is not correctly cited. Yoël L. Arbeitman is the editor of the book, not its author. Each section is an independent article with its own title and author. Arbeitman needs to be moved to |editor and the article title and author indicated with |chapter and |author. In this case, "The etymologies of Tadmor and Palmyra" by M. O'Connor (at least for anything citing pages between 235 and 254, inclusive). Ideally, the citation would provide the full pagination of the cited article within the larger source, but citing exclusively to the referenced page is probably acceptable under the MOS, and I won't quibble. Pedantically, the publisher is styled as Peeters, not Peeters Publishers.
  • Brill, not BRILL, in the Murtonen source. This is one part of a very large multivolume work. The full set of sub-subtitles here is unwieldy, and can probably be safely omitted, but adding |volume=13 is probably warranted. Murtonen is correctly identified as the author here; whether you also indicate J.H. Hospers as editor is probably discretionary. Use this tool to convert the ISBN to a properly formatted ISBN-13.
  • For works like Charnock, that predate the establishment of the ISBN system, it is possible to provide an OCLC number, which can be found via WorldCat search. There is some art to using WorldCat, as individual printings often receive different OCLC numbers (and sometimes, due to errors, the same printing may have more than one OCLC number assigned). When you can unambiguously identify an OCLC number, and no ISBN exists, it's helpful to include it, because it makes it easier for readers to access the work. I will note that OCLC numbers are sometimes assigned to e-copies of books. Established precedent indicates that when you are working from a faithful reproduction of the print source (as full Google Books scans [usually] are), you can cite the original format of the work; that you are working from an archive doesn't change what you're actually referencing. In any case, always use OCLC numbers, not OCoLC numbers. Accordingly, to get things started, Charnock is OCLC 4696115.
  • In the Le Strange source, "A.D.", not "A. D.", and "to", not "To". Cosimo is a print-on-demand publisher and so its works would often not be deemed reliable sources; in this case, however, this is a reprint of a work now in the public domain, so you're fine in that sense. The publisher needs to show the actual imprint it was published under, Cosimo Classics, and not the parent company. Finally, you should add the original date of publication, 1890, using |origyear.
  • The BBC article, "Syria uncovers 'largest church'" has an explicit date: 14 November 2008. Because you provide these dates (when available) for other web sources, you need to be consistent.
  • Convert the ISBN for Stoneman.
  • There are still problems with the Izumi source that you have styled as Space Archaeology. Because you split the author name into the |last and |first fields, it displays in last, first order. Personally, I prefer that. But elsewhere you've used |author and forced names to appear in first last order. You need to be consistent, whichever you choose. More importantly, this journal is not called Space Archaeology, despite what Google Books is telling you (that's basically the cover story of this issue). I don't really blame you for getting tripped up by this. Situations like this got me in the past, too. Google Books is very, very bad at dealing with digitized journals. Very bad. The journal is actually styled as Silk Roadology. Scholarly journals do not need their publisher specified.
  • Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is still not okay. You need to indicate that those three individuals are the editors of the work (use the editor fields). The title of the work should be the title of the book: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 29 March–3 April 2004, Freie Universität, Berlin. Use author and chapter fields to specify the individual article and its author. Finally, this is a multi-volume work, so you should indicate that you are referencing |volume=1
  • For Dirven: again, Brill, and ISBN conversion.
  • For Young, Google Books malformed the date range in the title by converting an unspaced endash to a spaced hyphen, because Google hates typography, or something. That part of the title should read 31 BC–AD 305.
  • For Smith II, Oxford University Press, not OUP USA.
  • The "'Imitation Greeks'" source is problematic. This isn't actually a book published by ProQuest (they aren't really a publisher; they are a microform reproduction distributor). What this actually is is a doctoral dissertation by Nathanael John Andrade. Material such as this is sort of in a gray area regarding WP:RS, as noted in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you can replace this with a higher-quality source, that might be ideal. If consensus here is that it is acceptable to retain, you'll need to reformat it with {{cite thesis}} and include the relevant bibliographic information.
  • Some days I hate Google Books. I don't know what they did with the source you cite as Hillers and Cussini, but the cover and copyright page make clear that Eleonora Cussini is the sole editor of the work. As in several other cases, restyle the publisher and convert the ISBN. Also, this is another case where the chapters are individual articles with their own authorship. Page 55 is part of "The City of the Dead" by Michal Gawlikowski.
And here I'm stopping again. I've gone through the first 25 of 389 references. Some of these are problems are nitpicking concerns over styling. But several are significant problems with the accuracy and completeness of citations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt take it personally but a strong oppose without giving me directions on how to fix the problems (since Im a noob here, I didnt even know that there are editor and original year parameters) made me upset (and my insomnia didnt help me to stay calm). Now when I read back, i can see that I was rude and overreacted. apologies.
  • Yoël and Charnock fixed
  • OUP and BRILL fixed
  • I replaces the cosimo la-Strange with the original one
  • BBC date for the church fixed
  • last name/first name problem fixed
  • Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner fixed
  • Young and ISBN's fixed
  • Andrade took his PHD thanks to this thesis and got it printed as a legitimate book by Cambridge university press Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World. But anyway, I replaced the thesis with other sources.
  • Hillers fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well. A belated welcome to FAC, then! My apologies for not recognizing that you were new to this process, which can sometimes very much be a trial-by-fire. I'll certainly have more material to address when I get a few minutes to review further. The goal, as always, is better articles. As a drive-by comment, there's absolutely no problem with citing Andrade from the Cambridge University Press book, just a problem with citing the Andrade thesis directly. But if other sources serve just as well, that works too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an IP[edit]

  • "The Palmyrenes were primarily a mix of Amorites, Arameans and Arabs,[2]" The lead should ideally be devoid of any inline citation. The information cited is something that should be discussed in the main prose, where the inline citation should go.
  • "In 1929, the French began moving villagers into the new village of Tadmur." Is there a way to avoid this repetition?
  • "its incorporation into the Roman Empire in the first century." AD? Such as this, "By the third century AD"
  • "Palmyra was a prosperous metropolis and regional center" is there something missing? center for?
  • "Before 273 it enjoyed autonomy for much of its existence." Is this a date? Sorry, not an aficionado.
  • "In 260 the Palmyrene king Odaenathus defeated the Persian emperor Shapur I. He fought" I suppose "he" refers to the king Odaenathus?
Fixed. As for the citation in the lead: We have a problem with Assyrian nationalists who go around and remove the word Arab from every article about a historic Fertile crescent civilization before Islam. Thats why the reference is important or the word Arab will be removed by one of them. It is encouraged to have citations in the lead for any information that can be disputed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations.
For the regional center: nothing is missing, it was a center of its own region.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Al Ameer son[edit]

I contributed to this article not too long ago (added a bit of content to the "Arab caliphate" section and otherwise made some copyedits here and there). I've already commended the nominator for his efforts and I do so again. With what has been happening to Palmyra lately, many people who don't know much about the city but hear about its ongoing destruction on the news will come here to learn about the site. I'm glad someone has devoted their efforts at improving their learning experience.

  • That being said, having read the entire article, it clearly meets criterion 1a, 1b and 1d. There has not been any real edit warring, but whenever Palmyra is in the news cycle, the article attracts some unnecessary additions made in good faith, but overall it meets 1e. From the outset, the article appears to meet 1c, but I cannot say for sure yet because I haven't gone through all the sources. I will verify a sample of citations throughout the article and anything that seems extraordinary, and from that I can confidently make a conclusion regarding 1c soon.
  • The lead is a bit too long, but not totally overwhelming. I think it could be shortened and maybe even restructured a bit to be less a summary of the entire history from the Neolithic period until the present day and more a summary of the article, i.e. the site and its major ruins, the parts of its history most relevant to the ruins and its role as an ancient power (including the city's distinct ancient culture and civilization). Currently, the lead focuses too much on history. The current structure of the article, after Johnbod's suggestion, is fine. The citations format is consistent.
  • There is excellent usage of pictures in the article and it appears any issues with the images were addressed in Nikkimaria's image review in the first FAC.
  • The article is lengthier than the average FA, but deservedly so due to the sheer amount of information on Palmyra's ruins, history and culture. The article does not go into unnecessary detail, although the lead might. Then again, this is just my opinion.

As of right now, I can say with confidence that the article meets criteria 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2b, 2c, 3 and 4. I await the nominator's response to my suggestion on shortening and possibly restructuring the lead. I will give my take on 1c soon, although I'm pretty confident that the nominator, who has been researching the subject and has been working on the article for so long, has been diligent in adding material that correctly reflects the many and diverse sources he has used. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes, now, the political history isnt the focus of the lead. I will be thankful if you have any specific suggestion (i.e specific sentence to be deleted and another to be written).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is much better now, in my opinion. I just made a few copyedits to it as well. After the changes you've made, I think the following fragment could be removed: "The city was governed by a senate", unless you think this line is critical to the lead. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the first line is grammatically correct: "is an ancient Semitic city in present Homs Governorate, Syria". Shouldn't it be "in present-day Homs Governorate"? If a copyeditor or reviewer previously copyedited the article, it wouldn't hurt to ping him or her and ask if they could take a look at the revised lead and see if they could make further improvements. You could also ask someone who has never read or edited the article before to do the same thing, but that would likely be a longer process since they might not make any comments about the lead without reading through the article first. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Senate part deleted. It was the copy editor who wrote (present). I added (day). No new sentences were added, I just deleted some, so the lead didnt change grammatically and pinging the copy editor wont be necessary.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support After a few days of looking through various citations to see if the sources matched up with the text (for verification's sake), I am confident that this article meets criteria 1c. As I noted above, I also believe it meets all the other FA criteria as well. This is a highly informative, beautifully written, and well-sourced article that should grace Wikipedia's home page in the very near future. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Al-Ameer.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by FunkMonk[edit]

  • Support - I GA reviewed this article, and I can see it has been significantly improved since then, and now lives up to the FA criteria. Would be interesting to see if Squeamish Ossifrage is satisfied with the changes done since his review, though. I think every effort should be made to help the nominator get this article promoted instead of archived, as it is his first nomination (and English is not his first language), but also due to the high importance of the subject, and its current, dire situation. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • Comments: I have quite a bit of experience with writing about archaeological subjects here at Wikipedia and thus I am gratified to see that such a lot of admirable work has been paid to this article. However, I have some concerns about the Etymology section. For instance, why is there no link to Pliny the Elder when he is mentioned? Why are citations 3 and 7 placed next to each other when both are citing the same article; surely they should be merged? Why is there a single, solitary citation appearing in the lede; is this really necessary? Generally speaking, I think that this article could probably do with a good prose review before being taken to FAC, and for that reason am Opposed at present. I also wonder if a different citation system would benefit this article, given that a number of key sources are used repeatedly as references (see for instance the citation system used in the recent archaeology-themed FA, Mortimer Wheeler, and my GA at Coldrum Long Barrow, which is much cleaner and more user friendly). Moreover, I am very worried at what seems to be an over-reliance on Google Books as a way of finding references in this article. I do certainly appreciate that not everyone has access to university resources and all of the books and articles that they can provide, but really Google Books is too selective in what it offers to be truly reliable for something like this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1- the article was already copy edited by the copy-edit guild. It was also read thoroughly (specially the prose which was edited multiple times) by Jonbod, Al-Ameer son and Dudley Miles (in his peer review). How many prose read should this article get before it is just too much?. Another prose read will mean that this is the fourth time. This could go on forever and a line must be drawn at some point
2- Pliny was linked, I cant remember how the link was removed. Its easy to link it again and the source 3 was removed
3- The citation in the lead: We have a problem with Assyrian nationalists who go around and remove the word Arab from every article about a historic Fertile crescent civilization before Islam. Thats why the reference is important or the word Arab will be removed by one of them (look at the article history before I rewrote it). It is encouraged to have citations in the lead for any information that can be disputed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations.
4- I prefer this citation style in my articles as it can get you to the page in the source. It is not a criteria to follow a certain style
5- There is really no need to worry about google books. They are added for the sole reason of giving you a chance to read the source. I already have a large collection in my university library and I could have not provided any links to google books but I thought (and still convinced) that those links are helpful for users who want to inspect the source. All the recent academic books written on Palmyra were used. So no selectivity and Palmyra isnt a controversial subject to be afraid that the whole truth isnt present. Do you like me to delete the links to google books ?? this way only the name of the source will remain and it wont look like there is a reliance on a library called google books.
I dont think that you noticed that I used many old middle eastern sources that has no preview on google books. Yet, I added a link to google so that the reader can see that this book exist. Obviously, I didnt read those sources on google.
I have edited the article to address the real problems you mentioned.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I still don't think that the prose is up to full FA quality just yet. There are many, many sentences that I feel could be improved. For instance, the article refers to "by the end of the millennium Arameans were mentioned as inhabiting the area" but no statement is given as to where this was "mentioned". Names like Albert Schultens and Hadrian are dropped without explaining who they were. Wording such as "as an alteration (supported by Schultens)," could be improved considerably. I'm still opposed at this juncture, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this, and I would be willing to change my opposition to a support if I see these prose problems cleaned up. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you need to point the prose problem considering that 5 other experienced editors read the article and didnt see those problems. Throwing a random note doesnt help as those problems that you found werent considered problems for others. You need to be specific about what you think is wrong so you need to do a pros check yourself since a "problem" to you isnt a problem to another. There is no set of rules to count on, when trying to discover what you consider a problem, so you need to be more clear as other editors cant figure out what you would consider a problem.
Schultens and Hadrian need explanations ? this would most definitely be a distraction. The article is about Palmyra not about Schultens. The names are linked for people who dont know them. We cant explain about Hirohito (for example) in an article about a different subject.
The Arameans were mentioned by the Assyrians which is an information clearly written in the section Palmyra#Early_period. This section came in before the population section but I had to change its place due to Jonbod earlier review.
"as an alteration (supported by Schultens)". How can it get any more clearer ? I even wrote a note (note 3) which explain the alternation and it read like this : According to Schultens, the Romans altered the name from "Tadmor" to "Talmura", and afterward to "Palmura" (from the Latin word "palma", meaning palm),[2] in reference to the palm trees. Then the name reached its final form "Palmyra".[7].
I ask you to do a prose check and point the problems you see since other editors didnt find them and I cant be in your mind to see what you see as a problem cause I find everything clear for now, and so did the people in pt:Palmira, af:Palmyra, az:Palmira who promoted the article to FA. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to be a little more specific. I have tidied up the prose in a few places where I felt that improvements could be made. However, there are other instances where I feel that a rewrite is certainly desirable For instance, take the following sentence: "It is generally believed that "Palmyra" derives from "Tadmor" as an alteration (supported by Schultens),[note 3][4] or a translation of "Tadmor" (assuming that it meant palm), and derived from the Greek word for palm "Palame" (supported by Jean Starcky).[2][5]" That could clearly be improved. At present, it is quite clunky, what with the three uses of brackets and the use of terms like "supported by Jean Starcky". For me, it is the odd sentence such as this one which hold he article back from truly reaching FA quality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for this User:Midnightblueowl. Dudly Miles already conducted a full review of the article after you asked for one. He pointed whatever he felt "wrong" and so did the other reviewers. Now the ball is on your side. I edited the sentence which you felt needed improvements. I'll be waiting for you to point whatever you consider need improvements.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Others, such as Jean Starcky, considers" should be "Others, such as Jean Starcky, consider". There are a few other prose issues in this paragraph still. It's not a major thing, but for me it holds back the article from being FA. I'm happy to lend a hand and deal with these issues myself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks User:Midnightblueowl.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out my opposition to this page's nomination. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Palmyra changed hands between the different empires that ruled the area, becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD." For clarity I suggest something like "Palmyra changed hands on a number of occasions between different empires, before becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD."
  • "Among them is the Temple of Bel, on a tell which was the site of an earlier temple (known as the Hellenistic temple).[19] However, excavation supports the theory that the temple was originally located on the southern bank;" This is confusing. First you say that there was an earlier temple on the site, then that it was elsewhere.
  • Now you are saying " Among them is the Temple of Bel, on a tell which was the site of an earlier temple (known as the Hellenistic temple).[18] However, excavation supports the theory that the tell was originally located on the southern bank" This is even more confusing. A tell is a hill built up by successive occupation layers - it cannot move from the south to the north bank. I am still not clear what you mean. Is it that the Hellenistic temple on the north bank did not really exist, or that there was another even earlier temple on a tell on the south bank? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rearranged some of the People, language and society section. Change anything you are not happy with. I have bundled refs at the end of the section and they need sorting out. In the version before my revision there were three refs for "but after the invasion by Timur it was a small village until the relocation in 1932" - far too many for a simple statement and they are not obviously relevant.
  • Temples section. There are links to further information on the temples of Bel and Baalhamon, but Bel is not mentioned below and Baalhamon is spelled differently.

I fixed and did what you noted. I meant that the tell and the temple above it were south of the wadi; for clarity I changed the sentence to give this meaning. As for the temples section, Baal-Hamon is a different deity from Baal-Shamin. Since the temple of Bel and the temple of Baalshamin have their own articles I felt that its enough to give links to those articles, to avoid inflating the article of Palmyra with unecessary explanations.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The newcomers were assimilated by the earlier inhabitants, spoke their language" This is unclear. Were the newcomers the Arabs? Were they assimilated by the Arameans and did they speak Aramaic? If they learnt the language you should say "learned" rather than "spoke".
  • "Before 274 AD, Palmyrenes spoke a dialect of Aramaic and used the Palmyrene alphabet." You mention in a note that Aramaic is last used in an inscription of 274, but nevertheless languages spoken do not change suddenly in one year. I think it would be better to say "Until the late third century".
  • In the next paragraph you state that Palmyrenes were a mixture of different peoples until 273 - cities are almost always a mixture of different peoples and they do not suddenly stop being so unless there is mass ethnic cleansing. You say below that tribal identity lost its meaning in the third century, which suggests a gradual process.
  • Note 11 "E.g. by the second century, Palmyrene goddess Al-lāt was portrayed in the style of the Greek goddess Athena" I assume BC, but you should make this clear.
  • "Palmyrene bust reliefs, unlike Roman sculptures, are rudimentary portraits; although many reflect high quality individuality, their details vary little across figures of similar age and gender" I am not clear what you are saying here. if they are rudimentary portraits which vary little, how can they reflect individuality?
  • "Towers were replaced by funerary temples as above ground tombs after 128, which is the date of the most recent tower" This is puzzling and again you are using over-exact dates. 128 BC or AD, and the fact that that is the most recent known date does not mean there was a sudden change then. "as above ground tombs" is clumsy and superfluous.
  • Public buildings section. You only give a date for the agora and the Temple of Baal-hamon. An approximate date for the other buildings would be helpful.
  • In the temples section, I do not think your practice is correct. You should cover the most important temples for readers who do not want to follow links, not leave them out because they are covered in other articles. This applies particularly to the Temple of Bel, which is mentioned several times elsewhere 'Further information' is for more information about topics covered briefly, not to refer readers to topics omitted. If you are concerned about excessive length, you could create an article on Palmyra temples and refer readers to it for further information.
  • "a tessera depicting the sanctuary was excavated" This can't be right. A tessera is an individual cube in a mosaic.
  • "Further information: Great Colonnade at Palmyra" You do not give details about this. If it is not important enough to be in the article, it should not be in 'Further information'. (It could be in 'See also').
  • "The shrine might have been connected to the royal family as it is the only tomb inside the city's walls" You say this was built in the third century - BC or AD? Did not the Roman prohibition on tombs inside towns apply?
  • "to provide a costume barrier" What is a costume barrier?

Fixed. The Arabs are the newcomers. I clarified everything you pointed. I added small paragraphs for the temples and colonnade. Athena-Allat is AD actually. For the reliefs; I didnt write this paragraph as it was added by Jonbod. Some Palmyrene reliefs reveal individuality but the majority do not and I clarified this. The senate of Palmyra wasnt excavated extensively and no date exist. The Tarif court and Triclinium were part of the Agor complex and built at the same time and I clarified this.

For the tessera: the sources about Palmyra use this word and some of them were written by the excavators :

What is your suggestion on the tessera subject ?

I would say a mosaic but you could say tesserae (plural of tessera).

costume barrier as in a border to watch the merchandise entering the city or leaving it. As for the tomb : Palmyra always had more independence than normal Roman cities. The building no.86 is a tomb so obviously the city had the ability to break Roman law.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when Puzur-Ishtar the Tadmorean agreed to a contract at an Assyrian trading colony in Kultepe" I would add in brackets after Tadmorean (Palmyrene). It is easy to forget that you said Tadmor is an alternative name in the etymology section.
  • "In 217 BC, a Palmyrene force led by Zabdibel joined the army of King Antiochus III in the Battle of Raphia which ended in a Seleucid defeat.[" I would say by Ptolemaic Egypt. Did Palmyra stay Seleucid or the Ptolemaics gain temporary control?

Changed tessera to "mosaic piece". Done for Tadmoraen, and as for Raphia : Palmyra wasnt mentioned in the records of the battle. Only Zabdibel was mentioned and scholars concluded that he was a Palmyrene because that name was only found in Palmyra. We really dont know the situation of Palmyra back then and no source discuss it (I tried to look in my university's library as you asked this question in your last peer review but got nothing). Normally, Palmyra is part of Coele-Syria which would mean that it belonged to Egypt during the Syrian Wars but no scholar ever noted or discussed that. They do, however, consider Palmyra with the Seleucids from the beginning and since Palmyrene auxiliary served with the Seleucids and No Egyptian record exist about Palmyra during that era and the concept of Coele-Syria is very fluid in its geographic definition then probably Palmyra was not occupied by Egypt as those wars aimed at Coele-Syria which is an area that has different indications and a term that wasnt used by the Ptolemaic kingdom (hence, maybe they didnt consider Palmyra part of the region). We will never know as no source discuss it.

  • "Toward the end of the second century, Palmyra began a steady transition from a traditional Greek city-state to a monarchy;[178] urban development diminished after the city's building projects peaked.[179] The Severan ascension to the imperial throne in Rome played a major role in Palmyra's transition:" I find this and the following comments confusing. You say a transition to a monarchy, but the earliest recorded lord of the city is apparently 60 years later. Then you insert the apparently irrelevant truism that a decline in building projects leads to a decline in urban development. Then you say that the rise of the Severan dynasty assisted Palmyra's transition to a monarchy, and emperors stationed troops there and encouraged a transition to Roman institutions. None of this sounds like encouraging an independent Palmyrene monarchy. Later it appears that the election of a lord was a reaction to Roman weakness in the face of the Persian threat in the middle of the third century rather than the culmination of a long term trend.

The militarization of the city is what led to the monarchy. It was the steady centralization of power that led to monarchy. This centralization and militarization began with the Severans and their policy. The emperors obviously didnt have in mind to turn Palmyra into a rival but stationing the troops in Palmyra and the wars they engaged with the Parthians leading to damage for the Palmyrene trade led Palmyra to strengthen itself and its military. The Palmyrene troops began to protect the Empire instead of trade and it was inevitable that a strong general will someday turn those troops into a power base and end the semi-democracy of Palmyra (Odaenathus was this guy). I moved the sentence about urban development to the preceding paragraph. Now the transition paragraph discuss those changes without distractions. The election of Odaenathus was a direct reaction but the circumstances allowing this election and allowing an strong army to exist started with the Severans and their wars

The Camridge History is directly attributing the rise of the monarchy to those factors. In page 512, the section is titled : From city to principality and it talks about Palmyra's transition into a monarchy. In the preceding pages, it speak about the Severan wars and the Sassanid's caused instabilities, and then open in page 512 with a direct connection between those wars and Palmyra's transition when it say : In this less favorable economic climate, the political situation at Palmyra changed and then continues to describe the Palmyrene transition to a monarchy

  • "The nature of those deities is left to theory as only names are known," "left to theory" sounds a bit odd to me. Perhaps "is uncertain".
Done
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taxation was an important source of revenue for Palmyra." I would say to the Palmyran government - you say above that the caravan trade was most important to the economny as a whole.
  • " where a tax law dating to 137 was discovered" BC or AD?
  • "Antiquities scholar Andrew M. Smith II" "Antiquities scholar" sounds old fashioned. Maybe "Classlcist" for an assistant professor of classics.
  • "The oasis had about 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres) of irrigable land,[376] surrounded by the countryside.[377]" This is not quite right. The citation for the second half of the sentence just says that agricultural land was insufficient to support the city. Presumably it was surrounded by desert rather than countryside.
  • "Palmyra was a minor trading center until the Timurid destruction" I would repeat the date here to remind readers.
  • "Palmyra's main trade route ran east to the Euphrates, where it connected to the Silk Road.[381] The route then ran south along the river toward the port of Charax Spasinu on the Persian Gulf, where Palmyrene ships traveled back and forth to India." I think you need to state when this applies. The article on Charax Spasinu states that it was a major port in late antiquity. You say below during the Roman Empire - so the first 4 centuries AD?
  • "For its domestic market Palmyra imported slaves, prostitutes, olive oil, dyed goods, myrrh and perfume" But above you say agricultural products as well.
  • I wonder whether the section on destruction by ISIL would go better at the end after 'Excavation'. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done for all. the products mentioned arent the only ones that Palmyra imported. They are just examples. I reworded the sentence to give the meaning. The tax law is AD. I fixed the part about the countrysides to match the source.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article is nearly there - a few more queries.
  • "Benjamin of Tudela recorded the existence of 2,000 Jews in the city during the twelfth century." This does not belong in a paragraph about a period a thousand years earlier. I suggest moving it to after "mainly inhabited by the Kalb tribe".
  • "according to traditional scholarship, the Palmyrenes' Greek practices were a superficial layer over a local essence". The source says "scholars have often construed" - this is not the same as "according to traditional scholarship". Also you are implying an alternative view, but you do not give Andrade's alternative.
  • "After the Roman destruction of the city, Palmyra was ruled directly by Rome,[319] and its following states (including the Burids and Ayyubids),[248][320] or by subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks." This is confusing. Presumably "its following states" means the states which followed Rome, but they are dynasties rather than states. Perhaps "and afterwards by Moslem dynasties".
  • "The royal army was under the leadership of the monarch aided by generals" This is stated as a general description of the army, but it presumably only applied in the mid-third century?
  • "In 1902, Gertrude Bell visited the city and wrote extensive letters.[" I doubt that this is worth mentioning. The source does not say she wrote about or worked in Palmyra. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
cleared the royal army part and rewarded the sentence about traditional scholarship. I understood (and I could be wrong) that Andrade's view is similar to Millar; that is a fusion between greek culture and oriental one instead of a Greek layer over an oriental one. Since Millar is an A-list historian, I thought mentioning him is enough. If you see that there are differences between Andrade and Millar's views please tell me so I can fix it
I removed Benjamin of Tudela sentence. As for the states, I think its tricky, The Byzantine empire was Rome but it wasnt Rome at the same time. Yes, they are the eastern Roman empire but they are always distinguished from proper Rome. Even if we let go of the Byzantine detail, we still have the Moslims states, the Hamdanids were a dynasty under the Abbasid Caliphate but the Ottomans were their own state not simply a dynasty, so were the Mamluks but the Fadl were a dynasty under the Mamluks. I will wait for your reply on this matter and if you still believe that dynasties is better than states then I will replace states with moslims dynasties
Gertrude Bell part was inserted by an IP or a user, cant remember. I didnt like it but it had a source and I hate edit wars so I kept it. Now its removed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noted your note about the tell of Bel's temple. I mean that the diversion of the wadi's bed made the tell on its northern bank when the Palmyrenes modified the bed. So its not like the tell physically moved, but the wadi used to flow north of the tell then the Palmyrenes modified the wadi's bed to make it flow to the south of the tell. Can you give me a clearer formula to write ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not sure about the Greek culture issue. Andrade says that scholars have interpreted Roman and Greek influence on Palmyra as superficial and argues against it. Ball says the opposite: speaking more generally about the Near East, he says that scholars see Roman and Greek influence as dominant and argues against that view. I suggest contrasting their views without saying which is mainstream.
For "and its following states (including the Burids and Ayyubids),[245][317] or by subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks" how about "and then by a succession of other rulers, including the Burids and Ayyubids,[245][317] and subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks".
Done, I eliminated the names of scholars all together.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: I haven't exactly read a lot of it, but I can tell it looks pretty nice. I might do a full review or whatnot if I have the time, but how come most of the "Destruction by ISIL" section is a bulleted list? In this article it's completely the opposite and it would look more appealing if the section underwent some major changes. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I'll give it a read soon. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry for the long response. I cannot really detect any major issue, but I'm not sure if I can support because I am far from being familiar with this sort of subject. Judging from many other editors supporting this article it seems more than ready though. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- this has been open a very long time but we seem to be close to consensus to promote. Squeamish Ossifrage, are you able to revisit your opposition now? Also has anyone conducted a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, given this is the nominators first FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Al Ameer son made a full source content review.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comment I know almost nothing about Middle Eastern topics, so I shall not comment on whether this article deserves promotion or not. In my opinion, the nominator of this article should have demonstrated to address sufficient efforts to fix prose issues or other arrears that were pointed out by the opposing editor (ie. Squeamish Ossifrage), After which, if the opposing editor does not get back to the discussion, which appears to be hanging in the open, the nominator should then try to drop a reminder message or two on his/her talk page that the concerns have been addressed thus far. And if, after which the opposing editor does not respond, I think the FAC coordinators would then need to make a discretionary judgement on whether the "oppose" still stands. I have checked Squeamish Ossifrage's contributions page, and that his last edit on 29 October 2015. I don't think it is fair to the nominator, if he had made sufficient efforts to fix the concerns of the opposing editor, but the opposing editor appears to be AWOL/MIA at this point of time and this article fails this FAC as a result. Mr Tan (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2016 [12].

Isabella Beeton[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Beeton was a remarkable woman. Although thought of as a cook, based on her 1861 work Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management, she was actually a publisher, writer and editor. A tragically short life—she died at the age of 28—her impact has lasted over 150 years and her book has never been out of print, although she is much maligned by some modern writers. This has been through a hugely productive and constructive PR and is ready for FAC consideration. All constructive comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't italicize WorldCat
  • FN106 and similar: BBC is the publisher
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking - for example, OUP is linked in FN114 but not 102
  • Authors with the same last name but different first names should have the first person alphabetically placed first
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks Nikkimaria. All now sorted per the above. re your last point, I've gone for chronological order - oldest first. I think I've got these all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley: As a generally v. happy reviewer from the peer review I have only one quibble now: I still think the lead ought to reflect the fact that the "Mrs Beeton's" known to generations of late-19th and early/middle-20th century women was far removed from and inferior to the version put together by Isabella – Christopher Driver's phrase "progressive debasement", quoted in the main text, seems very much to the point – and I think the lead ought to make it clear that for many decades "Mrs Beeton's" was a poor and misguided version of Isabella's original. That apart, I have nothing but praise for this article, which I much enjoyed rereading. I shall support its promotion anyway, but I hope SchroCat will consider including the above point in the lead. – Tim riley talk 01:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim for your thoughts and comments both here and at the very productive PR. I hope this addition covers your very germane point. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Indeed it does, and I gladly support the FA candidacy. Meets all the FA criteria, most enjoyably. You've done Mrs B. full justice. Tim riley talk 21:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I had the pleasure of reading this article as a result of my involvement at the peer review a week or so ago. My comments there were all swiftly dealt with and I'm happy to support this culinary delight. CassiantoTalk 19:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Cass - your thoughts on the PR were very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks in good shape for FA, many comments seems ot have been addressed at PR. Excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed for the prose review at PR and your subsequent re-read – all very much appreciated indeed. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I, too, had my say at PR, and have since picked away at the prose. An excellent article on a valuable topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, many thanks indeed for your thoughts and comments at PR, and the subsequent prose tweaks. Your input has been much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As yet another peer reviewer whose concerrns were addressed there, I have only a couple of additional points to bring up here:

  • I may be pernickety, but is it accurate to describe Elizabeth David as a "cook"? Cookery writer, certainly, but did she ever earn her living slaving over a hot stove? I'm a bit dubious, too, about the badger-munching Dickson Wright, though she did sort of cook, as a so-called "celebrity chef".
  • The caption in the lead image, "Beeton, c. 1854", is a little too terse for my liking, and as she didn't marry Beeton until July 1856 she wasn't actually Beeton then. Your other captions are more generous; I recommend an extension to: "Isabella Beeton, née Mayson, photographed in about 1854" – or something along those lines.

Otherwise, first class stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian: those last couple of tweaks now made and I thank you for them, and youe earlier suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2016 [13].

Banksia caleyi[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a mission to get the whole opus of Banksia "complete" as it were (to FA standard). Here is the latest one of these - Banksia caleyi. I sprinkle these through every so often to 'mix it up' a little. I feel this is of a standard as the other banksia FAs. I'll fix stuff quick-smart I promise. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few quick comments:
    • The convert template makes the sentence beginning "Seedlings have cuneate (wedge-shaped) cotyledons" have a range of "1⁄2–1⁄2 in". Maybe there's a template parameter that lets you just put "about 1/2 in"? There's also a "5⁄8–5⁄8 in" earlier in that para.
I detemplated it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "lives" is confusing here: "Seedlings have hairy stems and leaves opposite lives..." Could it link to an article or have a parenthetical explanation?
I have no idea what happened there. Reoworded proper now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this sentence: "The caterpillar of the dryandra moth (Carthaea saturnioides) feeds on the leaves, though co-occurring dryandras are much preferred."
rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Missing subject? "Unlike many other Western Australian banksias, has had some degree of success..."
oops, added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For more logical flow, I would suggest reorganizing Cultivation thus: Seed germination time. growth time. flowers obscured by the foliage. tolerates light pruning, PH range, sun & shade. grows in more humid areas. attracts pygmy and honey possums. After all, who would not want their article to end with something as adorable sounding as pygmy and honey possums??
rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! delldot ∇. 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, everything's addressed, support. delldot ∇. 05:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've basically worked this out now, so I doubt I'll have much to offer...

  • The second paragraph of the lead strikes me as a bit choppy.
rejigged a little...can you be more specific? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "friable" jargon?
a little - changed to "crumbly", which is what it means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inflorescences eventually turn grey, the old flowers remaining as up to 25 large woody follicles develop." Is this what you mean to say? Old flowers remain while, at the same time, up to 25 large woody follicles develop?
yes - they remain on the spike. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George placed B. caleyi in B. subg. Banksia because its inflorescence is a typical Banksia flower spike" Is it?
the shape is...it's just upside down. I added "shape" to (hopefully) clarify this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They foreshadowed publishing a full arrangement once DNA sampling of Dryandra was complete" Are you missing a word or two here?
added "of Banksia" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by no means certain about this, but I'm not convinced that you can use "foreshadow" like that, if the "they" refers to the authors. The OED defines foreshadow as "To serve as the shadow thrown before (an object); hence, to represent imperfectly beforehand, prefigure. Also rarely (of a person), to have a foreboding of." So, the authors' current arrangement foreshadows the arrangement which will be forthcoming, perhaps, but if they are foreshadowing something, it's because they themselves are imperfectly representing it, or because they have some foreboding of it. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've changed to something simpler. How's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the tense a little; how's this? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. looks fine. behind the scenes folks are still squabbling a little about the sinking of dryandra into banksia - sensitive topic to some... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the caterpillar is parasitic, perhaps the paragraph could be merged with that of the mould?
merged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seeds do not require any treatment, and take 23 to 50 days to germinate." Needs more- a clarification that you're talking about cultivation? I know it's immediately below the section title, but still...
added "in cultivation" now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption "old flower spike showing large follicles – MHNT" is a little cryptic to me.
unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, very strong. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine- all freely licensed with details provided. The caption issue mentioned above is perhaps the only issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • George 1999 is missing a publishing location
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collins et al 2008 uses the long ISBN, others use the short. Consistency would be good.
done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need "via WikiSource"? I was under the impression that this was more for newspaper archives. You don't provide "via the Biodiversity Library", for example.
removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be inconsistent on whether you provide ISSNs- I wouldn't bother.
The 1981 Nuytsia one does not have any other identifiers I could find though..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Mast and Givnish 2002, your "main" external link is redundant to the DOI
I removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Lamont and Markey 1995, is "South-western" a proper noun? Same in Wiens et al (along with "Honey")
title cased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency's sake, do we know the first names of McCredie et al?
I found and added (finally!). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why title case for McFarland 1979, but not elsehwere?
oops, I like 'em all title case...done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Weins et al 1979, the JSTOR link is redundant to the DOI
removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's as picky as I can manage. Spotchecks came back OK. I certainly haven't performed a comprehensive literature search, but Google Scholar certainly isn't suggesting that you have missed anything significant. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very strong, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really necessary to mention that this species is found in Western Australia twice?
I removed one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • dieback - got a link handy?
Issue is dieback is a disambiguation page and the daughter article is the same as the mould. Should I link twice... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sure Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You gloss cuneate twice
I removed one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The annual rainfall is 550–600 mm (22–24 in). It is often locally abundant. - what is often abundant, the rain or the plant? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
rejigged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All looks good. Just one minor consideration left above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I've never reviewed a plant article before, so here goes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No photo of seeds?
Hmm, I don't have any. Will do a scour around.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No author dates after authorities in the taxobox, is this a plant convention?
Good point - I haven't done it for many that I can recall, so of the last 5 plants articles put through FA, Telopea truncata, Brachychiton rupestris, Acacia pycnantha and Epacris impressa were lacking in dates, while Banksia lemanniana had one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, comparing the respective Codes, zoology gives the date but botany generally doesn't. Choess (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The type specimen was collected by William Baxter, inland from King George Sound, in 1829." Not sure, but perhaps mention western Australia here?
Added it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The challenge failed, and Banksia L.f. was formally conserved." When?
Alright, all else seems good, how about this issue? FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It comes from "Sprague, Thomas Archibald. "Taxonomic botany, with special reference to the angiosperms." From: The new systematics (1940): 435-54" just trying to find it online.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George placed B. caleyi in B. subg. Banksia" This is the first time you use the name George alone, and the first time I read it, it confused me a bit, because there are already two George's mentioned (first names) in the text... Perhaps add dates to every time someone did something, to set them apart? Now you only do it for namings, but could be nice for revisions as well.
Added first name and context - it was the landmark 1981 monograph. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No cladogram for the DNA analysis? It seems a bit as if the long lists of arrangements are in vain (in comparison), since they're based on what appears to outdated methods.
The DNA agrees on its closest relatives. And no formal infrageneric classification has been published since all the DNA stuff. Have trimmed some redundant stuff from taxo lists. WIll double check to see what I can get in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banksia caleyi has had some degree of success in growing in more humid areas, such as Australia's east coast." In the wild? Has it been introduced elsewhere outside West Australia?
Nah, just in gardens. Most WA banksias die quickly when grown in gardens in eastern Australia, but this one is notable in being a bit more hardy... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the image selection is a bit "flower-centric", how about this, showing only leaves, which I guess is more typical of what one would encounter?[14]
The 'cf' to me suggests the photo-taker thinks they probably are caleyi but is not sure. Also, leaves can be seen in File:Banksia caleyi 02.png quite well, I do agree some more diverse shots'd be good. Will scour my computer for habit shots or anything else in a few hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banksia caleyi is classified as Not Threatened under the Wildlife Conservation Act of Western Australia." Only mentioned in intro.
Added to body now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No subspecies are recognised." Likewise.
Added to body now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sainsf[edit]

Hi Casliber, I like this initiative of yours. The article is indeed perfect on the whole, reviewers above have cleared almost all the flaws. Well, I have only a few points:

  • You should link shrub somewhere.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link or explain serrated (Lead) (it's also there in Description), dentate (Taxonomy)
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "described" (scientific description) and pistil in Taxonomy; and pH in Cultivation.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cotyledon" and "B. subg. Banksia" are duplicate links under Taxonomy
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a big deal but I think it would look better if we followed the sequence of the article in the Lead as well. I mean the Taxonomy details wold look better in the first paragraph of Lead. The bit about distribution need not be disturbed, but then the second paragraph would have to be expanded a bit. The second paragraph of the Lead could be expanded a bit using a few more details from Ecology and Cultivation, for instance I think the bit about pH is an important detail.
late here and I am tired - need a sleep and coffee before rjigging the lead.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support : All my issues have been addressed, and I notice no other flaw in this article so I believe this article will make a good FA. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2016 [15].

Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a coin that was actually sold successfully. The design may not have been all that was desired, but it's still nice and there's a nice little backstory about the towns of Lexington and Concord, such rivals that they apparently had to have different congressmen. I enjoyed researching this one, it's been a long time since high school history ...Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]

Support - Only two comments, both nitpicks.

  • Gage secretly ordered Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith on April 18, 1775 to go with 700 men to Concord and destroy the munitions there. - The order was issued on April 18, or the expedition was ordered for April 18? Or both?
  • He had alluded, in his report, to the well-known Ralph Waldo Emerson poem "Concord Hymn", with the phrase "embattled farmers", a reference which Arkansas's Otis Wingo used as an excuse to deliver a lengthy speech on tariffs, accusing the Republican majority of harming the farmer. - A few too many commas — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both dealt with. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. "By the rude bridge that arched the flood ... " I had to learn it though I doubt kids do today (in my mind I hear it being chanted by a classroom of children.)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Detroit_Photographic_Company_(0390).jpg: source link is dead, and how do we know this was published before 1923 when the date range goes to 1924? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped it for a user one. Thank you for the review.==Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What's the latest scholarship on Margaret Gage spying on her husband? That's a pretty major claim and should be cited independently from any numismatics books.
The most recent major source a hasty search is Fischer's Paul Revere Ride (1995), which is cited in the Gage article. A book review I saw of it on JSTOR (2947060) mentioned that Mrs. Gage "may have been" an American spy. I've added it as a source. Seems to be no documentary evidence. His ANB article avoids the question entirely, I'm sure intentionally.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's supporting a pretty general statement, but why should the History Channel be considered highly RS?
I don't see why not. They're reputable enough, and it's just a general statement of events.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Dawes and Revere arrive?
The events of Paul Revere's ride are a bit complex, and also I'm trying not to distract the reader with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding one with a Milhist angle. (And thanks for all the other FAs as well, we sorely need them at TFA.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets all the FA criteria in my view. As usual in this series, the article is a model of its kind, and will, I have no doubt whatever, further enhance Wikipedia's status as a go-to source for numismatists. – Tim riley talk 14:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: with a few minor quibbles and observations:

Background
  • "Gage secretly ordered..." I don't know, but surely such military orders would never be the subject of public announcement, so do we need "secretly"?
Legislation
  • "Robert Luce, also of that state, introduced an identical copy" – "identical resolution" would be clearer.
  • "were not jointly held" → "were not held jointly"?
  • "A maximum of 300,000 coins were requested" – maximum is singular, ergo "were" → "was"
  • "After the two congressmen appeared..." – I think they did more than just "appear"; maybe "testfied" or "had spoken"?
  • Just a thought: the requested $10,000 seems to have become $15,000 without explanation.
Preparation
  • "the committee from Lexington and the one from Concord each..." – a mite clumsy; why not "the committees from Lexington and Concord each..."
  • the commission had just had its monthly meeting, but that a quorum could be assembled to approve the coin" – not altogether clear. I imagine it means that a special meeting could be held to approve the coin; perhaps tweak for clarity?
  • ("Morgan had recently died..." - plus ça change...)
Design
  • "It was sounded again at 5:30 am" – we could do with a date here, or earlier in the paragraph.
Production etc
  • "An exceptional specimen sold at auction in 2014 for $11,880". What was its exceptional quality that priced it at more than ten times the higher end of the general price range?

The usual solid job. I echo Tim's views on this remarkable series, now more than 50 strong by my count. And the redlink informs me that we are by no means finished yet. Keep going. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2016 [16].

Peresvet-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The three Russian Peresvet-class battleships were designed to support their armored cruisers in a commerce-raiding war if war broke out with the British in the late 19th century. They were optimized for high speed and endurance to this end rather than heavy armor and armament, but the situation was vastly different in the war that they actually fought against the Japanese in 1904–05. The two ships that reached the Far East before war began fought creditably in the two major fleet actions with the Imperial Japanese Navy and were ultimately sunk in harbor. The third ship was part of the Baltic Fleet that was destroyed at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 and was the first ship sunk during the battle. The other two ships were salvaged and placed into service by the Japanese after the war. One was sold back to the Russians in 1916 and sank after hitting mines in the Mediterranean while the other participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in 1914. She was probably scrapped around 1923. It just passed a MilHist A-class review which included an image review. As usual, I'd like reviewers to look for examples of unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning support. Very nice effort. The usual quibbles:
Design
  • "gainfully employed" mildly dislike using "employed" in this context for non-people. Maybe "gainfully occupied" or just "busy"?
  • Shorter is usually better.
  • "To reduce biofouling, the hulls of the first two ships were sheathed with wood and copper, but this was eliminated in Pobeda to reduce weight. They had a partial double bottom and the hull was divided by 10 watertight transverse bulkheads" grammatically, "they" refers to "the hulls", ditto "their" in the following sentence. Suggest changing "They" to "the vessels".
  • "Their crew" maybe "Each crew".
Protection
  • 6 inches is never converted to Metric.
  • See the 2nd para of the design section.
History
  • "Peresvet, however, was scuttled in shallow water on that same day." I'm not seeing the however. Both ships went to the bottom. There's not much contrast there, especially since per your excellent Peresvet article, there is uncertainty as to the reason for the scuttling.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you may be overthinking things as the Peresvet article makes it clear that she was not sunk by Japanese shells and I carried that over into this article. Look over them both again and see if this is still a problem and we can discuss it further if necessary.
Support. What you say is satisfactory. Sorry to be slow in getting back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review All sources appear of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited with the following exceptions:
  • McLaughlin 2008. Should not the word "and" between the ship names be italicized? (if you agree, you might want to change it in the other articles in which it is used)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not assure that I understand your comment. The entire article title is enclosed in quotation marks via the cite journal template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is since ship names are normally italicized, you recognize this in this italicized book title by not italicizing them. However, the word "and" that lies between the two ship names should be italicized as it is just a part of the book title and not part of a ship name.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The Naval Annual should be italicized
    • Good catch.
  • File:Peresvet1901.jpg: when and where was this first published? Same with File:Suou1908Yokosuka.jpg
    • The former was discussed in the image review for Peresvet. I've fixed the license of the latter one as it was mostly likely taken by a sailor during the visit of the Great White Fleet to Japan in 1908.
  • File:Oslybya23.jpg: when and where was this first published, and under which provision do we assert it is PD in Russia?
  • File:Oslyabya1903Bizerte.jpg: when and where was this first published, and what steps have been taken to ensure that a) it is a EU work, and b) the author was never credited?
  • File:Peresviet_Port_Arthur_LOC_3f06353u.jpg: why the Japan tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch, I think I've gotten a bit too used to automatically assigning a Japanese tag for ships that served in the IJN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Might be worthwhile to mention that Japan and Russia were allies in World War I in the lead - readers might be confused why former enemies were trading ships. I might say something like this: "Peresvet was sold back to the Russians during World War I, as the two countries were by now allies, and sank after hitting German mines in the Mediterranean in early 1917. Pobeda, renamed Suwo, instead remained in Japanese service and participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in late 1914."
  • You might unpack the Russian decision to focus on a guerre de course strategy with Britain - I think readers might ask why after reading that line.
  • There's a link for mild steel that might be useful - on a related note, is the chrome-nickel steel used on Pobeda Krupp armor? Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these suggestions. I've done the first one already, but the other two are going to take some time to source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe not as much as I thought.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but I guess I wasn't clear enough on the chrome nickel steel - that's in the line talking about the deck armor. I'd assume it's Krupp armor, since there wasn't a competing alloy that I'm aware of, but the average reader won't know that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not Krupp armor, just a tougher alloy than mild steel, better suited to deflect glancing hits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2016 [17].

Norodom Ranariddh[edit]

Nominator(s): Mr Tan (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Cambodian prince, politician and law academic. Ranariddh is the second son of Norodom Sihanouk, the late King of Cambodia. He served as the First Prime Minister of Cambodia between 1993 to 1997, under a two Prime Minister arrangement, together with Hun Sen as the Second Prime Minister. He was also the 3rd President of the National Assembly of Cambodia, serving between 1998 till 2006. The article has been promoted to GA sometime back, done many rounds of copyediting, checking, as well as a good round of Peer Review. I do not see why there is any reason that I should hold back this article any longer, and all are welcome to appraise and critique. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Phase 1[edit]

Comments This is a very good article, on an area of learning where we have very few FAs. Nevertheless, it may need more work, and while I will do my best to help during the FAC, it remains to be seen if that can be fully done. I think the two main difficulties are lack of context and various infelicities of prose.

Extended content
Lede
  • Since you are allowed a fourth paragraph, consider splitting the first paragraph after the first two sentences.
Hmm....When I was drafting the lead, my thought was to try to give each of the paragraphs an approximately equal size, partly for aesthetics and partly for Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Paragraphs, whereby concerns were mentioned on very short paragraphs. Anyway, I wrote the lead using Barack Obama as the reference point... Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason Prime Ministers is capped? I agree that First Prime Minister and Second same, should be.
I've reduced the "Prime Ministers" to small caps, throughout the text where I thought they were applicable, using Elizabeth II (the Queen vs queen) and Obama's (President vs president) as examples. However, the "First Prime Minister" is an official title, and I feel that they should be retained in big caps. Please feel free to reduce them to small caps if you feel that there are other parts that are also supposed to be reduced. Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be obvious to Americans what a "law researcher" or "law lecturer" is.
Perhaps I hyperlink the "researcher" and "lecturer" articles? Mr Tan (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd backtrack here - these are common words and it would seem to be an exaggeration to hyperlink them (pardon me). I think, if readers have trouble difficulties figuring out common terms, then it would be the duty of the dictionary to enlighten the readers. Think of the case as to should we even hyperlink the word for example, Relationship? A relationship can be of a sexual/intimate nature, work-based nature, family nature. Sometimes it's apparent from the context, as we often point out. As you can see, the duty of the lead is to provide an overview, while details are meant for the article body. I think, so long as R's role as a researcher and academic is spelt out clearly in the main text, it should suffice. Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with the Cambodian People's Party (CPP)." I can guess what this refers to but this phrase hangs off the back of the sentence without playing a proper part in its structure.
Shifted this phrase to the centre of the sentence. Looks more appropriate? ..... Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "publicly disputed" I'd be blunt and say "publicly argued"
I thought of "arguing" as a verbal action, and "disputing" would be a more neutral choice of word. Anyway, I"ll accept... Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over issues that ranged from the implementation of construction projects, signing of property development contracts to their rival alliances with the Khmer Rouge." there's an issue surrounding the comma, which may need to be replaced by an "and".
Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Ranariddh briefly challenged" maybe "initially" for "briefly"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranariddh was seen as a potential successor to Sihanouk as the next King of Cambodia," delete "the next" as surplusage.
Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forcing" Ranariddh/him. Unless there's a gun to his head, I think "causing" better. YMMV, but "forcing" in my view is overused in the media.
Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which selected Sihamoni to succeed Sihanouk in 2004." possibly which in 2004 selected Sihamoni as Sihanouk's successor"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In March 2007, Ranariddh was found guilty of both charges and sentenced to imprisonment, which were commuted after he received a pardon in September 2008." what does "were" refer to?
Rephrased. Hope it looks clearer now Mr Tan (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • " primary school at Norodom School " can the duplication be avoided?
Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranariddh enrolled in the undergraduate programme of law at the University of Paris. In Paris," Was it the Sorbonne? Also note 2x Paris
The Sorbonne was not mentioned in anyway within Mehta's source, and I hence I can't say for sure. To do so, it may lead to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. Maybe I cite one of the phrases from the source, "...I went to the University of Paris for only one year because I was not very successful in studying in Paris, you see." Mr Tan (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " differing lifestyle norms " I'd make it clearer what you are talking about here.
The source states...."...He acquired the image of a playboy in the year he spent in Paris where, he admitted, he neglected his studies because of the social distractions. "It was not a question of girlfriends, it was a question of a change of lifestyle," he said. "It was very difficult to move from a boarding school where you had to be very disciplined, to the university where you were very, very free. There was a lot of freedom, you know. There was no system of control. In high school the teachers spelt out all the lessons, but in university it was a different style. Life in Paris, if you are not conscious enough, is not at all suitable for serious study." I've changed the phrase to "which he attributed to the social distractions that he encountered in Paris" - would that be better?.... Mr Tan (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Entry
  • "After being persuaded by his father, Ranariddh eventually joined FUNCINPEC in June 1983" not sure you need both "after" and "eventually"
Removed "eventually" Mr Tan (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make clearer whether the "personal representative" was a government or party office.
Well for example, Mehta (2001) - p. 67 states that "His first appointment was that of the personal representative of Sihanouk in Asia."
One US congress paper, also sees Ranariddh signing off as "Norodom Ranariddh, Personal Representative of Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia and Asia." You may wish to refer to [18], which has a snippet preview. In my opinion, it would be unnecessarily long to append "Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia and Asia" part to the prose, which may make it more confusing. This was Ranariddh's official position between 1983 till 1985, based on available sources. From the context, FUNCINPEC was still a resistance party at the time, and was not a government party as yet. Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on an interim basis at the United Nations" this also hangs off the sentence disconcertingly. / It's a bit vague what the function of the SNC was.
I thought that was the best way to define the role of the SNC. I agree that it appears a bit vague, but I suppose the vagueness is inherent in its nature.
I would recommend you to read Widyono's source at pp. 34-35 [19], and also [20] - p. 65. Basically, the SNC was an organisation which represented sovereign interests at the United Nations between 1990 till 1993, but it "delegated" day to day administration of Cambodia to UNTAC. If you have any proposals to make it better, I would be very keen to jointly consider with you.... Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Initial Years" section needs more context. I doubt many people who will read this article from outside Cambodia are familiar with the system of government. I can't personally tell if Ranariddh is getting these office because of competence, parentage, or a combination.
If I interpret your issue of context correctly, I suppose one area of your concern might be the text be "In March 1985, Ranariddh was appointed the inspector-general of the Armee Nationale Sihanoukiste (ANS), the armed forces of FUNCINPEC. In January 1986, Ranariddh was promoted to commander-in-chief and chief-of-staff for ANS." From the two sentences, you may be thinking who had actually appointed Ranariddh to the posts. From my contact time with the resources available, we can assume that it was probably his father, Sihanouk. The closest source that came to imply that Sihanouk elevated his son to the positions maybe found at Mehta (2001), p. 184 - [After he was removed in a coup in 1970, he persuaded Ranariddh to join him in his campaign to topple the Lon Nol regime. Sihanouk saw in Ranariddh a potential leader a quality he realised was missing in his other children. Ranariddh was elevated to the rank of Inspector General of the armee nationale sihanoukienne (ANS) in March 1985. He was appointed Commander-in-Chief, and Chief of Staff of the ANS in January 1986. Sihanouk's reliance on Ranariddh only grew after the signing of the Paris peace accord in 1991 that ended the civil war. The crowning glory was when Ranariddh became the head of his father's party, Funcinpec.] However, the source did not explicitly state that Sihanouk was personally involved in the promotion, and other sources that I have so far came across such as Narong, Ranariddh's autobiography only stated his appointments without really attributing to who did the promotions. If I were to slip in "Sihanouk promoted his son to the position of inspector general" and so on, and there is some other editors with the same sources do a spotcheck, I might be faulted for Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Text.E2.80.93source_integrity. Mr Tan (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In line with the material provided from the sources, I have expanded a little more on Ranariddh's entry into FUNCINPEC in 1983. Hope this helps! Mr Tan (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attacks and killings of low-level party officials from government troops, who were wary of FUNCINPEC's influence in the country" Why? And there's being wary and then there's killing people.
Rephrased the sentence - hope the point looks clearer now Mr Tan (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chief-de-mission" is this anything like a chef-de-mission?
OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not to use Sihanouk's name for the election" maybe "for the election" should be "during the campaign".
Added the word Mr Tan (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "threatened to secede eight eastern provinces from Cambodia" Can secede be used to refer to something else besides the subject?
I can't figure out what you are proposing to amend for this point....to me, the sources states very clearly that Chakrapong and Sin Song plotted and led secession campaign in June 1993. You may wish to directly look at Google Books [21] Mr Tan (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Head of State" lower case (2x)
I have reduced the second one, considering the sentence structure, but the first one should be kept. The "Head of State" is a formal position, just like the King and Prime Minister. If this is to be reduced, then the "King" may also needs to be reduced. Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and completed in early September 1993." needs "was" before completed.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More once I see how these go down.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! OK - I have addressed some of the issues which you have raised, and will look through the points by-and-by. Personally, I am amendable to revisiting a point more than once if need be. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to bring up additional points which you feel needs ratification or clarification. Cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have looked into all issues pointed out above, and am welcome to all fellow editors in suggesting, or pointing out more areas that can be improved further. I also welcome everybody to express their thoughts on this article's FA-worthiness. Cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming. Due to travel and commitments to do other reviews, and the fact that this is requiring considerable comment by me, which takes time, this is going to be piecemeal:
Lede response: I think you have to consider if you are going to be able to draw the reader into the article with a short opening paragraph, or a long one. Symmetry and even paragraphs are all well and good, but we are trying to transmit information.
I don't agree that a starting paragraph of moderate length would compromise drawing a reader's attention as compared to a short one. If so, then this would imply that other FAs besides Barack Obama, but also those of Benjamin Harrison and Calvin Coolidge should need serious reconsideration. My original lead (prior to 17 Dec) has a lead that is based on Obama's style.
I"ll concede on this point, as I have an impression that quite a number of articles such as Elizabeth II and John McCain have short starting paragraphs. While I have done as you have suggested, but personally, I don't really agree on this. As Wikipedia is a "free to edit" place, we should also think of making lasting edits. Perhaps, one, two or more years down the road, some unscrupulous editors can just merely siphon off the 3 lead paragraphs into an independent section, which is against Wikipedia:MoS. The fate of this article, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu's lead, is exactly what I am concerned with. I think using this format, would make it more tempting to unscrupulous editors to make such edits like Thieu's...... Mr Tan (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FAs, like other articles, tend to deteriorate over time from edits unless maintained. I'm not sure what to tell you about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, let us just say that I don't agree with this suggested edit, but I"ll accept for now. Mr Tan (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Initial years
  • I think Bangkok does not need a country inline.
I remembered somewhere (either in one of the GA or PR reviews) that as a matter of clarity, it would be good to provide the country after the city. Not all readers might be able to link a city to a country, hence the context-setting.... Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the city's famous enough, it isn't necessary. I think it's famous enough, but if you feel otherwise, I won't press the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This subsection seems rather dry, containing only R's appointments. Did he ever speak to the media? Do we know his views on events during the decade plus covered by this section.
I recalled that there were a few newspaper articles that Ranariddh used to give his opinion on the state of tripartite talks at that time. However, as I thought that they were not really significant, I thought that it would be better not to include them, as he was still not very notable during this point of his career. However, since you have raised this issue, I will run through the reference materials and add in one or two lines on this.... Mr Tan (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update Hi Wehwalt, I have gone through the reference materials, and while Ranariddh did sporadically give one or two interviews here and there, I'm afraid to say that there's really very little to say about his career between 1983 till 1990, although he did a couple of things mentioned in Mehta's biography. Examples (1) Making a brazen attempt into PRK-controlled territory in 1986 (2) Brokering peace talks between Sihanouk and Hun Sen - it was a claim that he made, not backed by any other sources; (3) Making a visit to the US to meet with President Bush for additional arms to the ANS, a request was initially accepted, but later rejected in 1990. (4) A Singapore press report on a split within ANS/FUNCINPEC, with Ranariddh saying that there were "6000 troops in Cambodia" (which, in my opinion, is not really relevant for the purposes of a biographical article) [22]
As you can see, he was not really a major personality as yet during this period of time (1980s). Furthermore, the information that I have gathered are so far quite vague and incomplete - just one isolated piece of information for each event, it would be difficult to write them coherently without making points "hangs off the sentence disconcertingly", concerns which you have expressed earlier.
I would think that the highlight of Ranariddh's life career would be the 1990s, when he won the 93 elections, becoming Prime Minister and most notably, the 1997 armed clashes (or coup), in which he was ousted from power. Doing a quick run through of the news sources attributed to him at [23], you may wish to note that 90-95% of news sources are about him from the 1990s. Thus, I can safely say that he is barely notable during the 1980s. With all these in mind, and keeping the cohesiveness of the prose in mind, I would think it would be best to leave the section as it is - besides copyedits, in view of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balancing_aspects on notability and the availability of sufficient/complete information Mr Tan (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1993
  • " FUNCINPEC started to criticise the CPP in its governance of the country, provoking much consternation from the latter." This may seem odd to a Western reader, where it is the opposition's job to criticise the government.
I think, you need to note that criticisms started as a prelude to the 1993 Cambodian general elections, when both parties (FCP and CPP) were about to compete against each other. They were on opposing sides back then.
Perhaps for your understanding, the relevant source states: "There were no real obstacles," he said. "Hun Sen controlled everything, and the atmosphere in Phnom Penh was normal. There was no immediate threat. But after we transformed Funcinpec from a movement into a political party, we were very aggressive in our words against Hun Sen. When Hun Sen saw clearly that the alliance [between Funcinpec and the CPP] would not work anymore, relations worsened." ... There was little to smile about when it came to the vexed alliance of Funcinpec and Hun Sen's CPP. Their political agreement lay in tatters following allegations that the latter party had intimidated and murdered candidates of Funcinpec. Ranariddh said that agreement between them was "in a bad shape". For its part, the CPP accused Funcinpec of being financed by the Khmer Rouge. But Ranariddh said: "Please do not believe I have got US$6 million from Mr Pol Pot." ... Mr Tan (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may need a little more context, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are a few ways I can approach this issue. Firstly, I can remove the second part of the affected phrase, but I guess readers would probably be wondering "FUNCINPEC started to criticise the CPP in its governance of the country". "And so, what about it?" kind of thoughts. Secondly, I can also propose writing this (note the bolded part) "At the same time, FUNCINPEC started to criticise the CPP in its governance of the country, provoking much consternation from the latter which had maintained coordial ties with FUNCINPEC since 1991.", but it appears to me that readers would be wondering further down the road "what about "coordial ties"?" As I see it, it probably ends up with a story that "snowballs" the more as we elaborate...
As much as we can try to make all the contexts conjoin and be comprehensive, nothing can be "waterproof". Personally, I think the best way would be to leave this point as it is. But if you strongly feels that it needs to be attended to, I"ll take either of the 2 approaches which you think best.... Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "declared their opposition to the announcement" possibly "to the plan" rather than "to the announcement"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "threatened to secede eight eastern provinces from Cambodia." I don't think that "to secede" can be used in this way, you can't secede someone else, all you can do is secede yourself.
Changed to: "to secede eight eastern provinces from the rest of Cambodia" Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and included an agreement" this is a sufficiently different subject than the earlier part of the sentence and so probably should start a new sentence.
Co-premiership
  • "out of fear in igniting a civil war with the CPP" of rather than in.
OK. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mutually agreeing on most policy decisions made[42] until early 1996.[43]" Reading this, it seems to me that source 43 must contain the information in 42, just time limited to 1996. Does it?
Yes. I gave double quote just to be on the safe side, not wanting to be caught over "text source integrity" issues as far as possible. As Source 42 does not explicitly indicate that the honeymoon ended in early 1996.
Source 42: "...the state during the 1993-95 period and partly with a less violent society. The coalition government functioned better than previous regimes. The two Prime Ministers agreed on major policies. Ranariddh worked well with Hun Sen to the extent that he was even willing to silence or purge his own dissenting party members. Moreover, the state did not face a threat from Sihanouk and the rebels, as the Khmer Republic did."
Source 43: "Until recently, Ranariddh had echoed Hun Sen's enthusiasm for the coalition government. Together they had shared the glory, the lucrative contracts and at least formally the power as well. ..."
  • It's unclear why joining the Francophonie was controversial.
Expanded somewhat - hope it looks clearer now. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranariddh and Hun Sen jointly applied to make the country a member" wasn't the country actually applying, and the two just officials signing on its behalf?
The sources states as follows: "Prince Norodom Ranariddh and Hun Sen, co-chairmen of Cambodia's interim administration, wrote a letter on July 28 to Head of State Prince Norodom Sihanouk, asking for his advice. "The provisional government sees the proposal for full membership to the Association of French Speaking Countries as important and useful for our country at this moment," the letter said." Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "joined in an application" for "applied?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " technical assistance in supporting Cambodia's language curricula" This seems vague
Never mind, I"ll remove that point, replacing it with another that can be more clearly explained. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Ranariddh saw it, these countries are characterised by hybrid regimes, active economic interventionism and limited press freedom, served as good models to propel Cambodia's socio-economic growth." There's a grammar issue here, possibly replacing "are" with a comma would do it.
That was the original form Brian did while he did CE, as I thought a second comma after 2 words looks inappropriate. Anyway I've restored the point here. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's still an issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mentions of Singapore Malaysia and Indonesia can surely be limited to once here. And it seems to me you are running around the point. He felt that Cambodia should worry about economic development first and human rights later.
How do you suggest in going about condensing the content so that the countries maybe mentioned once? To me, I can only think of removing a part or a whole of this sentence, [In the initial months of the administration, Ranariddh actively courted political leaders from various regional countries, including Indonesia,[47] Singapore[48] and Malaysia, with a view to encourage investment in Cambodia.], but doing so can leave a gap in context... Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just say he admired S M and I, and invited leaders from those countries. That sort of thing. That way you are keeping relevant content together.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • "As the chairman of the CDC, Ranariddh gave his approval to at least 17 business contracts submitted by Malaysian businessmen between August 1994 and January 1995." there's no hint as to how significant this is.
I thought the next sentence after this explains the significance - in the sense that, the nature/type of contracts that were awarded? Mr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " luxury cruiser" possibly "luxury cruise ship" as "cruiser" as regards ships, is ambiguous. We have articles on most cruise ships, do we know the ship's former name before being brought to Cambodia?
From the source, the cruise liner is "Heritage". I checked the disambig page for "Heritage", but I can't see anyone pointing to a cruiser or a ship.... Mr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cambodian government was unable ... were eager" Depending on ENGVAR, either singular or plural might be right. Both are not correct.
Removed the "were". I"ll take the Cambodian government as a single entity. Mr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more trees continued to be fallen" felled for fallen.
OKMr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicts
  • "but both prime ministers became uncomfortable working with Rainsy, because of his pursuit of corruption allegations from within the government" uncomfortable may be too sympathetic a term.
What word do you propose to change? Sources: [24], [25]
  • "Rainsy's questionings sowed unhappiness from the Ranariddh" huh?
Corrected Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who expelled Rainsy from FUNCINPEC in May 1994.[62] The following month, Ranariddh introduced a parliamentary motion to remove Rainsy as a Member of Parliament (MP) in June 1995.[66]" There seems to be an error in dates here, or perhaps it is inadequately explained, as "the following month" seems to me to be June 1994.
Sorry - an honest mistake, corrected Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hun Sen submitted a government circular to reinstate January 7, the anniversary of the liberation of Phnom Penh by the Vietnamese forces from the Khmer Rouge, as a national holiday. Ranariddh had complied by countersigning the circular, which incurred the ire of Sihanouk and several FUNCINPEC leaders" It may not be obvious to readers what "countersigning" did, nor the nature of R's compliance.
"adding his signature"? I think the compliance was part of the still-good working relationship which Ranariddh and Hun Sen still had at that point of time, but it's not explictly stated or explained in the sources. Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Complying is generally in response to a request. Possibly "agreed" or "concurred" might be better.
Done Mr Tan (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bordering Vietnam" surely unnecessary.
It's necessary - otherwise context would appear ambiguous. Sources: [26], [27]
  • "Ranariddh intended to test Hun Sen's response over his accusations, of which the latter chose to remain quiet" multiple grammar problems, "response" and "over" do not match, and I'm not sure where the "of which" is coming from.
Changed "over" to "to". Will be glad if you can fix the "of which" if you think it still looks inappropriate. Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " for which he had signed an earlier agreement with Ariston in January 1995" "earlier" can be deleted, it is implied.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an apparent act of retaliation" I think an inline source necessary here.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the country, citing the absence of casino laws in the country" 2x "in the country", should be avoided.
Changed to "by-laws"? Mr Tan (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arranging a meeting" If R was there, then the language is fine, though R's presence should be mentioned. If he was not, then "arranging a" should be deleted.
OK, done Mr Tan (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CPP's outstanding delays in appointing FUNCINPEC district officials as district chiefs." I am not sure what the "outstanding" adds here.
Sorry...wrong choice of word Mr Tan (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed (except for one) Mr Tan (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the final point. Mr Tan (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Phase 2[edit]
Extended content
Conflicts
  • "in May 1995.[62] The following month, Ranariddh introduced a parliamentary motion to remove Rainsy as a Member of Parliament (MP) in June 1995.[66]" I would strike either "the following month" or "in June 1995".
Ok Mr Tan (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and questioned the CPP's of their delays in appointing FUNCINPEC district officials as district chiefs." this doesn't make sense.
Sorry, typo Mr Tan (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A month after the FUNCINPEC congress, Ranariddh, while vacationing in Paris, attended a meeting with Sihanouk, Rainsy, Chakrapong and Sirivudh on 27 April." Since we know that the congress happened in March, saying a month after that, and also the date, seems redundant.
If I remove the month, the sentence structure would appear disjointed. I would prefer the date, as specific information is more useful Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sihanouk issued a declaration praising Hun Sen and the CPP and stating that FUNCINPEC had no intention of leaving the coalition government and dissociated themselves from anti-CPP protests" Two issues. There are multiple "ands" and also it is not very clear who "themselves" refers to. The sentence, basically, is confusing.
I"ll remove the protests issue, since it is not found in this area of the text. Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his discomfort in his relations " I'm not sure you have discomfort in relations.
Sounds vague, I agree. I changed the word, "tenacious" Mr Tan (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of absconding construction funds" I don't think absconding is the proper verb here.
Source: "In addition, he said that FUNCINPEC's Ek Sereywath, the weapons procurer for RCAF, had failed to deliver the procurement order he was entrusted with, and that Ing Kiet had failed to purchase construction material with the $1 million allocated to him..."[28], from the source, I thought this was the right word to surmise Hun Sen's accusations against Ing Kieth. Mr Tan (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict escalation.
  • "On 11 October 1996, Ranariddh visited Ieng Sary in his fiefdom at Pailin, which prompted Hun Sen to make similar visits on 23 October and 11 December 1996." I would delete the second 1996.
He made 2 visits on 2 seperate days. Added a "two" Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conveyed a threat" maybe, "threatened"
OKMr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • and stated his intent to lead the NUF in competing against the CPP in the general elections scheduled to be held in 1998" I would delete "in competing" as implied
  • the second paragraph seems very inconsistent on whether there is a "the" before the initials of a political party.
Ok. I like to seek your advice here. My impression was that news articles, videos often use to refer "....the CPP.", but very seldom "...the FUNCINPEC" except for rare cases. It just came to me intuitively that the word "the" is used just before CPP, based on what I have read so far, and using "the FUNCINPEC" just kind of sounds wrong. What do you suggest?
Sample sentences from the prose: (1) "Ranariddh became the First Prime Minister of Cambodia while Hun Sen, who was from the CPP, became the Second Prime Minister." (2) The CPP carried out attacks and killings against low-level FUNCINPEC officials using police forces under their command, .... (3) When Sihanouk formed FUNCINPEC in 1981, Ranariddh initially declined his father's invitation to join the party as he disagreed with its association with the Khmer Rouge. – If I remove "the" from one and two, it would seems kind of wrong to me, like wise adding "Sihanouk formed the FUNCINPEC". Please feel free to advise, if you wish, remove "the" accordingly from parts of the prose as deemed appropriate.... Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In response, Ranariddh wrote a letter in late February 1997 to Ariston Berhad's president Chen Lip Keong, to declare the agreements signed with Sok An as null and void." this seems unnecessarily wordy. Maybe "In response, Ranariddh declared the agreements signed with Sok An null and void in a February 1997 letter to ..."
OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should not have "In response" following "in response".
OK - accidentally duplicated while I was expanding the prose Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranariddh's letters, and in April 1997 he separately sent a letter to Mahathir to reassure him" I would change, after the comma to "and in April 1997 he wrote to Mahathir assuring him ..."
OK Mr Tan (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "should the CPP win in the subsequent general election" maybe, "should the CPP win he next general election"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " they jointly communiqué pledging mutual support" This reads very oddly.
Sorry, I missed out on impt words Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are using communique as a verb and I don't think you can in that manner. Possibly "they issued a joint communique pledging mutual support"
  • "Sihanoukville" why linked?
Removed Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the arms ..." this sentence strikes me as unnecessary detail.
Reworded that phrase. Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between bodyguard troops separately working for Ranariddh and Hun Sen" maybe "between Ranariddh's and Hun Sen's bodyguards."
OK. I thought of writing in this manner initially as I thought it would make the point clearer Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of the implications of the word "aligned" nor why it is suddenly being heavily-used.
The soldiers in the Cambodian Armed Forces (during the 1990s) maybe classified into 2 groups, one group professes loyalty to politicians from the Cambodian People's Party, another to politicians to FUNCINPEC. It's very unique to this case, while politics and military are technically two seperate issues, but in this case, political loyalties have seeped through their way into the Armed forces, and research sources in this period of Cambodian history uses similar lingo. Alternatively, I can opt to use the terms "pro CPP troops" and "pro FUNCINPEC troops"? Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mention who they are up front, and be reasonably consistent so that the reader always knows who is being talked about.
Doesn't the phrases "RCAF troops factionally aligned to FUNCINPEC...", "The rocket launchers were seized by Cambodian Air Force officers aligned to the CPP, ..." clear enough? The whole picture is this - There is this Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF), which is officially a single entity but there are 2 seperate factions, one to the CPP and another to FUNCINPEC. The factions are not official, but many historians have noted that it existed during the 1990s. Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " suffered major casualties after further fighting" more likely, during it.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exile
  • "simultaneously accusing him" Simultaneously is probably not needed.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Ranariddh snubbed at Hun Sen's suggestion, and threatened to boycott the elections if he was required to face any of such charges" possibly "Ranariddh threatened to boycott the election if he was required to face charges."
OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You previously called O'Smach as O Smach
Removed Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whose charges were subsequently nullified after he received a pardon from Sihanouk" perhaps "but was pardoned by Sihanouk."
A Pardon does not necessarily exonerate a person, it may just merely reduce a sentence. Hence I thought this should be clarified. Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranariddh was convicted by the military court" I would add in absentia and say "a military court" as you have not previously mentioned one.
OK - but I added the word after the "sentencing" as this word is used in cases like "sentenced to death in absentia..." Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranariddh returned to Cambodia at the end of March 1998 to lead FUNCINPEC's election campaign.[105] The campaign focused on pro-monarchical sentiments[106] and anti-Vietnamese rhetoric.[107] " the double use of "campaign" can be avoided by combining the two sentences.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hindrances," not a common word, esp in this context. Propose "obstacles"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • "as well as its supporters facing blockades to rallies" maybe "and its supporters often had trouble getting to rallies"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of seats in parliament won by the other major parties should be stated, as it is more meaningful than raw vote.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), which was renamed from the KNP and led by Sam Rainsy," to avoid too obviously stating what is probably fairly obvious (that Rainsy led the party named for him), suggest that after the comma it be "which had been renamed from Rainsy's KNP"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "carried out voter intimidation" maybe "intimidated voters"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He summoned Hun Sen, Ranariddh and Rainsy, for discussions aimd at a political solution." the comma after Rainsy should probably go.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the 24 September meetings take place, or were they canceled? It's unclear if the rocket was fired whilst going to or coming from.
The meeting did take place in the end, but because of the incident it was very hostile. Anyway I don't think it was very important to state whether the meeting occured in the end - though I have added a little more details about the firing incident. Source: [29]
  • They left the country for what, two weeks? I think that if the police threat was enough to make them go, you have to say what made them feel able to return.
Expanded, hope this looks clearer now Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which saw Ranariddh negotiating with Hun Sen and Chea Sim for the structure of a new government." maybe "on for "from"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
President
  • "According to Indian academic Harish Mehta, the creation of the Senate was to provide an alternative platform to pass legislation in the event that Ranariddh exerts his influence as the President of the National Assembly to veto laws" the present tense is incorrect "exerts", should be "exerted". I'd also change the final two words to "block legislation".
OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the FUNCINPEC army" Are these the bodyguards of previous sections? If so, be consistent.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also participated in efforts to seek better relations with Vietnam" I would strike the word "seek". It's implied.
Changed to "foster". But you need a linking word, otherwise the sentence structure would be jarring Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "onwards as fresh incidents of border clashes erupted" maybe "amid renewed border clashes" would cut to the point.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranariddh steered FUNCINPEC towards political rapprochement with the CPP, and actively discouraged FUNCINPEC ministers and MPs from criticising them. During the party's congress in March 2001, Ranariddh declared the CPP an "eternal partner"" Ranariddh is making the CPP singular, but you have it as a plural noun (implied from "criticising them" in the previous sentence. I'd rephrase the final clause to avoid the clash, maybe by deleting "with the CPP" earlier in the sentence and changing the final clause to "from criticising the CPP". This also gives the reader credit for some intelligence, because the reader surely knows or can infer with whom the reconciliation is supposed to be.
You made a good point on this, I've amended slightly. Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranariddh's leadership as early as 1999, when rumours of Ranariddh accepting bribes from the CPP" to avoid the repetition, suggest after the comma, "when rumours he had accepted bribes from the CPP"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following month, Khan Savoeun, a senior FUNCINPEC leader accused You Hockry, a fellow party leader, of engaging in corruption and nepotism in his capacity as the co-Minister of the Interior, which factors had contributed to the party's poor election performance" this can be boiled down to "The following month, senior party leader Khan Savoeun accused You Hockry, the co-Minister of the Interior, or corruption and nepotism, acts Savoeun said had helped alienate voters"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final two sentences of the second paragraph can be merged to avoid repetitions.
You mean "Both new parties attracted sizeable numbers of FUNCINPEC defectors, who were apparently unhappy with Ranariddh's leadership. The defections caused Ranariddh to fear that FUNCINPEC would fare poorly in the 2003 general elections."? I don't see repetitions here Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had engineered its election victory by manipulating vote counts and intimidating the electorate" maybe "had won through fraud and voter intimidation"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hun Sen rejected their demands, and several FUNCINPEC's activists were subsequently assassinated." I think you need to show a connection here, sourced inline, otherwise it's basically after a discussion of the 1963 World Series "The Yankees lost the World Series, and President Kennedy was subsequently assassinated."
I"ll remove the assasinations then. From what I read, political assasinations against FUNCINPEC and SRP politicians appear to come from the CPP, but they can't be conclusively linked to Hun Sen. Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Expulsion
  • "On 2 March 2006, the national assembly" why the sudden lower case?
Changed Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after FUNCINPEC party reports have suggested" delete "have"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which led to Ranariddh was ouster from his position as FUNCINPEC's President.[133] In turn, he was given the titular position of "historic president"." should start "which led to Ranariddh's ouster ..." president should be lower case; in turn should be in return.
Changed Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Nhek Bun Chhay justified Ranariddh's ouster to deteriorating relations between the latter with Hun Se" suggest "attributed" for "justified" and instead of "deteriorating relations between the latter with Hun Sen" to "his deteriorating relations with Hun Sen. You use "his" later in the sentence to refer to R. so it doesn't increase ambiguity.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Recent etc.
  • Ranariddh was expelled from the National Assembly as its MP. Possibly "the National Assembly expelled Ranariddh as an MP"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will look through all concerns and arrears during Christmas. Mr Tan (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the rest.
  • "Ranariddh's half-brother Chakrapong was also expelled from the party, and joined the NRP as the party's deputy president" is this relevant? Since Chakrapong has not been mentioned to this point, why bother now? Or is he the Norodom Chakrapong previously mentioned? I'm not certain of naming practices.
Yes, press Ctrl + F - I had mentioned Chakrapong in several instances. Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before the court's sentencing" probably just "before sentencing" or "before the sentencing" would be ample.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " communicated to NRP party members" with, not to, unless it was one-way.
it's one-way, from the source. "Though stuck in self-imposed exile overseas, party President Prince Norodom Ranariddh addressed, by long-distance telephone call, the approximately 2,000 on hand Thursday." Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the pardon how the possible secret deal was consummated? If there are RS that think that, it might be wise to put the two events in the same paragraph. Do the RS that talk about the "secret deal" connect the two?
I can't figure out what you meant by "RS". But if I got you correctly, I would prefer to keep the first sentence of the new paragraph "In September 2008, Ranariddh received a royal pardon from Sihamoni for his embezzlement conviction..." as it is, because it sort-of illustrate a new chapter of his post-turbulence life in exile (2007-8). Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in accusing the Election Commission for election irregularities" possibly "in faulting the Electoral Commission of irregularities". (to avoid the clash of "accusing/accusations" The complaint was regarding the commission itself, right?
OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CRPP and People's sections are not long enough to justify separation, at least at this time. Suggest they be combined under an appropriate title of your choice.
I don't get you for the "People's section". But for the "Return to FUNCINPEC", I don't see any reason why it should be merged, as I do not see it being specified under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies or anywhere else, unless you can point out to me that it's recommended otherwise. As I see it, they are two very seperate, but significant events of Ranariddh's life and two seperate sections are justifiable from this view. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranariddh launched a party congress" perhaps "held" for "launched"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also managed to convince the congress" At least in American English, "managed to convince" is usually meant to disparage a decision and even hint that it was done in some nefarious way.
I"ll remove "managed" - allow me to ask an off-the-cuff question....are you making the recommendations based on BrE or AmE standards? Hope to get an understanding here, as my impression is that people using two different varieties of English may have conflicting expectations on prose, I don't know.... Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranariddh was a recipient" as he's still alive, suggest "has been" for "was"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the La Francophonie in March 2000." I would cut the "the" as the next word serves that purpose.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sihamoni is linked at I think the third or fourth use.
  • I wonder if the secession discussion should be inserted chronologically among his political activities? I mean, it's all part of the same thing, plainly royalty are part of politics in a very active way in Cambodia.
It will require a radical restructuring of the entire article. As I see it, the main sections are dedicated to Ranariddh's life and career. Ranariddh's succession candidacy was a side issue that came up on and off throughout his life. It's a side attraction, but still a notable enough issue to merit mention here as it has been discussed in academic texts and by pronouncements from the royal palace. As for the secession attempt by Chakrapong, while both Ranariddh and Chakrapong are brothers, I must say that the secession attempt is a political affair, not so much a matter of royalty. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In December 2008, Sihamoni appointed Ranariddh as the President of the Supreme Privy Council of Cambodia. Ranariddh's royal appointment carries an honorary position that provides an equivalent rank to that of prime minister,[159] and during an interview in December 2010 Ranariddh revealed that his royal appointment entitles him to a monthly salary of three million rials." Suggest that the first full stop be made a comma, then "carrying an honorary rank equal to that of prime minister, and, according to Ranariddh in a December 2010 interview, a salary of three million rials a month."
OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " had indicate no preference" indicated, not indicate. This assumes they had no preference who should be king, not that they wanted no one to be king.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in your capitalization of King
I had edited earlier based in accordance to your concern: "Is there a reason Prime Ministers is capped?" For one, the word "King" maybe part of an official title, and for two, it maybe part of a noun within the sentence structure. I had changed them using Elizabeth II as reference, whereby "Queen" vs "queen" are alternately used. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal
  • "have made such references from their discourse with him" maybe "have so stated after meeting with him"
OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly mention that Monineath is the queen mother.
I already mentioned "who was Sihamoni's mother,"...would the sentence look a little too long if I add that in as well? Anyway, in Sep 2004 she was not yet the Queen Mother. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The newspaper name needs italics
OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sihanouk possesses" past tense, surely.
OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Family
  • "in an explosion" what kind of explosion? Bomb? Water boiler?
OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raja Bori, as a film title, should be italicised each time it is mentioned (as it was in the previous section)
That's it for now. I'll take another look once my colleagues have batted. I think Brianboulton was next. The article is good, but there's just a lot of prose issues and such that are going to need straightening out, and there's no point in my doing another pass through until they've looked at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I"ll look through the article another time over the next few days, taking into account all the suggestions and concerns that you have laid out above. Mr Tan (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through all suggestions laid out above and fixed where appropriate and necessary. If you feel that there still are jarring concerns that renders this article unfit for FA, please do not hesitate to express your concerns here, and I"ll be happy to try my best to discuss and work them out. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Phase 3[edit]
I've made a second pass through and made a number of edits. I am prepared to support if they, for the most part, stand (I'm prepared to discuss any and all, but in general I think I've helped improve the article) and if the following additional comments are addressed.
Extended content
Further comments
1993 elections
  • What was in Bangkok that R. would travel there? Should be mentioned to explain.
I thought the follow up phrase "where he took charge of the party's diplomatic and political activities in Asia" explains sufficiently? Anyway, the book quote states: "moved to Bangkok in July 1983. They rented a spacious, plant-filled villa at Soi Prapini], off Sathorn Road. Living in the relative safety of Bangkok, they were just an hour away from Phnom Penh by air, and could keep an eye on goings-on in the Heng Samrin regime." I think that, from the phrase, as Bangkok is much closer to Phnom Penh than Paris, it was much more strategic and convenient to move to Bangkok to manage party from there as compared to Paris. But I don't think any further elaboration would be necessary. Mr Tan (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UNTAC election rule not to name the king. The reason for this should be stated.
Added a phrase to the back of the sentence. Hopefully this closes the circle... Mr Tan (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Head of state is inconsistently capitalised. Also prime minister.
You did ask previously about this question "Is there a reason Prime Ministers is capped? I agree that First Prime Minister and Second same, should be.", and my reply was "I've reduced the "Prime Ministers" to small caps, throughout the text where I thought they were applicable, using Elizabeth II (the Queen vs queen) and Obama's (President vs president) as examples. However, the "First Prime Minister" is an official title, and I feel that they should be retained in big caps. Please feel free to reduce them to small caps if you feel that there are other parts that are also supposed to be reduced." You did not follow up on my reply and I assumed that what I amended was correct. Mr Tan (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So should all be used in big caps, or leave them all as it is? You appear to be giving conflicting signals on this part.... Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Co-
  • "insider trading" Do you actually mean insider trading or some other form of corruption?
I think it's a wrong choice of words on my part. Based on Wikipedia's article, that's too far off the cuff. If you read the source with the starting paragraph "But sources say, the Cambodian Development Council - the "one-stop-shopping" entity for foreign..." it is much more apparent that some sort of bribes or kickbacks are negotiated behind the scenes, though not directly published. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ariston conceded the operations of the luxury cruiser, named Heritage, to Unicentral Corporation." I don't know what this means. Did the ship stay there? Did it go somewhere else? If it had no further connection to Cambodia, other than the occasional call, I'd say "Ariston chartered the cruiser, ..."
Never mind, I"ll remove the final sentence altogether. My impression is that Ariston sort of "subcontracted" the main deal to Unicentral, though this has nothing directly to do with Ranariddh. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "provided a lucrative backdoor source of revenue" such as?
"Cash" revenue. Brian had previously discussed this point specifically in his comments here @ FAC below. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Escalation
  • You might want to mention how the whole Iang Sary thing turned out, since you give the readers several sentences of setup, but you don't actually get to the point, which was, I understand, that Sary and his faction reintegrated into the political structure.
The thing is, the Khmer Rouge between 1996-8 were also factionally divided, and two of the most prominent leaders to ally themselves with the Cambodian government were Khieu Samphan and Ieng Sary. While Khieu Samphan was pretty steadfast with his political sympathies with Ranariddh/FUNCINPEC at least until 1998, Ieng Sary vacilitated in his sympathies between the CPP and FUNCINPEC, and as you can see he entertained both rival PMs when they visited Pailin. At the point of December 1996, the sources appear to imply (but did not explicitly state) that Ieng Sary maintained friendly ties with both rival PMs. When Ranariddh was ousted in July 1997, Ieng Sary briefly denounced the violent clashes by the CPP against FUNCINPEC, but later changed his stance and opted to support Hun Sen. Khieu Samphan's troops at Anlong Veng, on the other hand, continued to support FUNCINPEC troops.
On your suggestion, I have thought of incorporating some information on Ieng Sary's alliance with FUNCINPEC, but I'm not sure if it is a wise decision to do so. Firstly, there is no information on Ieng Sary's relations with Hun Sen or Ranariddh until July 1997, and that was the reason why I ended the paragraph with the helicopter shooting threat. Secondly, if you think it's necessary to elaborate further, then it would probably go into the subsection "Exile, return and 1998 elections". But I do not think that Ieng Sary continued to remain as primary party between Hun Sen and Ranariddh's relations after 1997 clashes, hence I thought it was not very worthwhile to mention it further. I think the main focus in Ranariddh's ouster after July 1997 would be his diplomatic efforts to secure political support with foreign leaders, and the internal events directly affecting Ranariddh.
As for as Ieng Sary's relationship with FUNCINPEC/Ranariddh relations thereafter, I am of the opinion that any additional information elaborating switching of sympathies between Hun Sen and Ranariddh on the part of Ieng Sary, would be better off in the DNUM article or other ancillary articles. As I see it, I find it difficult in envisioning as to how I would not make the prose and context more convoluted and ambiguous if we may want to push for more information on this part... Mr Tan (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On afterthought, perhaps my insistence with specific dates makes the context harder to understand. I have rephrased the first paragraph, hopefully it looks more palatable and smoother now anyway.... Mr Tan (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exit from FUNCINPEC and later
  • You might want to explain why in 2006 they voted to make constitutional amendments easier etc, as an introductory sentence or two to this section.
Worked on that. Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and tendered his resignation as the president of NRP" is FUNCINPEC intended? you have not mentioned his being president of NRP.
Done Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • General question which should perhaps be mentioned when you mention the succession: why did Sihanouk abdicate? His article is vague on the subject.
There were at least two instances when he wanted to abdicate, the first being in 1997 and the second in 2004 (which actually materialise), but over different reasons. I have worked on the 2004 already, will be working on the 1997 one soon. Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notify me when I'm done. I'm going to be having limited internet so will not be on as much as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed, hopefully satisfactorily. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support I thought I had supported already, but it may have been lost in an edit conflict or some such. I also congratulate Mr Tam on fine work, and look forward to more of the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Sources review: I intend to add comments when Wehwalt finishes his pass, meantime I have looked at the sources and referencing:

Extended content
  • ref 48: The link goes not to the source article but to a procedures page. On clicking the appropriate button, I reached a page which informed me: "This article may only be viewed from the multimedia stations at NLB Libraries." This restriction needs to be noted within the citation.
Dear Brian, I just did a check, should I use "registration" or "subscription"? Because as per Template:Cite_news#Subscription_or_registration_required, I don't think this scenario falls into either, as you can see from the comments, the Singapore library only allows readers to be physically present at the library to view the microfilms. For the purpose of indication, neither "registration" or "subscription", as the restrictions maybe removed upon paying a fee or something like that... Mr Tan (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where no appropriate template exists, you have to make up your own note. I would simply add "(Restricted access)" to the source - the nature of the restriction is given on the source page, so a brief note should be sufficient. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Mr Tan (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the citations show authors' names in capitals. This is contrary to MOS formats and the capitalisations should be removed even though, in some of the cases, the names are capitalised in the source. See refs 117, 121, 122, 132 and many more.
Oh, I took the shortcut and "copy and pasted" the authors names from The Cambodia Daily w/o bothering to change them. Will fix them over the next few days...apologies lol Mr Tan (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed Mr Tan (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the bibliography it is not necessary to include countries in publisher locations; thus, "New York" will do, rather than "New York, United States of America".
Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, "Great Britain (United Kingdom)" doesn't make sense. Routledge's headquarters are in London.
Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mehta entry in the bibliography appears to duplicate the book's title.
Harish Mehta (the same author) wrote two books, "Strongman ---" and "Warrior Prince---", but they are published in different years, in 2013 and 2001. As for the citations, I believe that "Mehta (2001), p. 69" vs "Mehta (2013), p. 69" should be sufficient distinctive, given the years? Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I made my query clear. I was referring to this line in the bibliography: "Mehta, Harish C. & Julie B. (2013). Strongman: The Extraordinary Life of Hun Sen: The Extraordinary Life of Hun Sen. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International Asia Pte Ltd", which duplicates the words "The Extraordinary Life of Hun Sen". Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Mr Tan (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "National University of Singapore" is part of the publisher description. it is not the publisher's location.
Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the above issues, I believe that all sources used in the article are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed Mr Tan (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

General comments: Tracing the serpentine, convoluted life and career of Ranariddh within the unfamiliar world of Cambodian politics is a difficult undertaking, and Mr Tan has done well in attempting it in less than 7,000 words. I have carried out some fairly extensive copyedits to polish the prose, and am left with a number of queries:

Extended content
  • Can you clarify the difference between the Supreme National Council of Cambodia (SNC), and United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC)?
The SNC is something like the official face of an interim government Cambodia, while (technically) it "delegates" the responsibility of day-to-day governance of Cambodia to UNTAC. This is how I understand it. You may wish to refer to Widyono's source at [30], "The Supreme National Council (SNC) was established to serve as the "unique legitimate body and source of authority" in Cambodia throughout the transition period. ... The Paris Peace Agreements therefore stipulated that the SNC delegate all powers to UNTAC to implement the agreements."
Another source, as described by Sebastian Strangio (Hun Sen's Cambodia), describes the relationship between the SNC and UNTAC as this: "The Paris Agreements created the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), which would take temporary control over the Cambodian state. Sovereignty would be temporarily vested in a 13-member Supreme National Council (SNC) consisting of del- egates from each of the four factions, with Prince Sihanouk serving as the body's sup- posedly “neutral” president." - Page 43
As there are at least two seperate, but very closely related bodies were created to govern Cambodia during this period of time, I know it can sound pretty confusing. But again, as this article is about Ranariddh's life, I thought of trying to explain the function of SNC / UNTAC in one sentence at most, and any additional elaboration should be the responsibility of the component articles, in my opinion. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting a detailed explanation, merely a brief note inserted perhaps thus: "When the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) – a parallel administrative body with the STC – was formed in February 1992..." etc. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Canadian geographer Philippe Le Billon, Ranariddh and Hun Sen were tacitly supportive of continued Khmer Rouge logging activities as it provided a lucrative source of revenue[22] to finance their own political activities". It is not clear from this how revenue raised by the Khmer Rouge's logging activities reached Ranariddh and Hun Sen.
I can't provide the exact quote at the moment from the source for this, as I have returned the book to the library and I can only do so after around 11 January the earliest. But my impression is that the logging activities does provide profits. However, these profits did not go to the soverign coffers, but rather through backdoor (corrupt means) which was used to fund Ranariddh's political activities (for FUNCINPEC) and that of Hun Sen (CPP).
Nevertheless, I did an online search on this, and there were other similar sources that gave very similar explanations. I can recommend you to read this source: [31], pp. 212-3, with the quote: " Likewise, given the power struggle within the Cambodian government between FUNCINPEC and the CPP, other foreign companies (particularly Malaysian Samling Corporation Sdn Bhd) were also able to benefit from logging concessions awarded by the Cambodian prime ministers (without consultation with the National Assembly),20 as both factions were competing to strengthen their power bases through income generated from the timber industry." I hope this sufficiently clarifies, though I can go back to look for the exact quote from the original source if you feel that it's necessary... Mr Tan (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could say: "it provided a lucrative backdoor source of revenue", which would I think be sufficient clarification. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A few days later, apparently to tone down dissatisfaction from party members, Ranariddh publicly accused the Vietnamese army of encroaching into the territories of four Cambodian provinces bordering Vietnam. As Widyono and the Khmer Rouge saw it, Ranariddh intended to test Hun Sen's response to his accusations, of which the latter chose to remain quiet." I found it impossible to work out what was going on here, and was particularly confused by "As Widyono and the Khmer Rouge saw it"
When I was reading the page from Widyono's source at [32], Widyono (the book author) did state that "ironically, cladestine Khmer Rouge radio, the most vehement anti-yuon (Vietnamese) element, maintained that Ranariddh was clowning around." This was the position taken by the KR. But at the same time, Widyono did go on to input his own analysis by stating, "Actually, Ranariddh anti-Vietnam rhetoric was mainly meant for domestic consumption...." - I think to make things less confusing I shall remove the KR here. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • "In addition to Khmer Rouge-controlled areas, substantial logging also occurred in the remote northeastern province of Rattanakiri, predominantly populated by indigenous ethnic minorities collectively known as the Khmer Loeu." – how is this information relevant to Ranariddh?
Agreed. I"ll remove this. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He declared that he was prepared to quarrel with Ranariddh over his public criticisms of Ing Kieth, while also chiding Ranariddh for not following through on his March threat to leave the coalition government, and calling him a "real dog". I found this comment muddled and unhelpful, and suggest it is dropped
I think it's the issue of Hun Sen's move to establish diplomatic relations with S. Korea. I have replaced it with a continuation of Sihanouk's 27 April declaration to make the prose cause-and-effect link more apparent. As for the Ing Kieth part of the text, I think it's fine, as for the "March threat", I'm referring to Ranariddh's outburst on 22 March 1996. Hopefully it flows better now. Mr Tan (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't actually changed the wording of the sentence to which I took exception. Whatever its intention, in my view it is an awkward and meaningless interjection and the article would be a lot better without it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Ing Kieth part of the sentence is the jarring part of the prose which compromises readability. I have removed that, and restructured the paragraph. However, I feel that the "real dog" criticism should stay, as it shows Hun Sen's verbal salvo in response to Ranariddh's March outburst, which marked a crucial turning point in their relations. Mr Tan (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have significantly redrafted the final paragraph of the "Conflict escalation" section, as I couldn't make sense of it as it stood. I hope that what I have written is in accordance with what happened.
Looks Ok so far. Mr Tan (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Expulsion from FUNCINPEC", there is no mention of Ranariddh's "expulsion", only of his deposition as party president and appointment to the titular position of "Historic President". That does not sound like expulsion.
I"ll change it to "Exit" then. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still have "Following Ranariddh's expulsion..."
OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 2008, Ranariddh received a royal pardon from Sihamoni for his embezzlement conviction..." As you haven't mentioned Sihamoni's accession since the lead, and don't deal with this matter until later in the article, I suggest you ad a note along the lines: "...from Sihamoni (who had succeeded to the throne in October 2004)..."
OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image of Sinahouk's 2013 funeral is not in the right location chronologically.
I can place this in the paragraph starting with "In September 2008, Ranariddh received a royal pardon...", but it will cause the text to break and become jaggered because there is the second image of Ranariddh in 2014. This is why I prefer to put images at the start of each section, for stylistics and symmetry. But if you feel it's really inappropriate, I'm fine with removing that 2013 image altogether as well. Mr Tan (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three million riels sounds a lot, but I think it equates to about US$750. Some dollar equivalence, and the basis of conversion, would be useful.
I just checked the exchange rate online, it stands at US$737. I had initially held back against adding the exchange rate, as you know that currencies maybe prone to fluctuation - the exchange rate today may not be the same as the next 2 years, and vice versa. But since you have pointed out, I have put it up. Mr Tan (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to cite a source for the conversion. Also, you can say "USD750", or "US$750" (I prefer the latter) but not USD$750. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added http://www.nbc.org.kh/english/economic_research/exchange_rate.php for reference Mr Tan (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four of Ranariddh's half-siblings by his mother and Chap Huot were killed during the years..." – during which years?
Added the KR. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the above matters are resolved I will be minded to support the article's promotion. I note that as a result of my efforts at peer review and in more recent copyediting, I am the article's second heaviest contributor by no. of edits – although my total of 59 is dwarfed by Mr Tan's 682 and I have added no significant content, so I don't feel disqualified from giving a declaration. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all comments stated above (save for perhaps half a point), hopefully satisfactorily. Still, nothing is set in stone, and my door is always open in looking into any further concerns which may otherwise continue to hinder this article's FA worthiness. (To Brianboulton/Wehwalt, thank you for your efforts and inputs. :)) Happy New Year to all! (Y) Mr Tan (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and all good wishes to you, too – but it is premature to collapse the section while we are still in dialogue over issues, so I have reopened it for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And of course to all, and to you. I am watching and getting ready for a second run through as soon as Brian and Mr Tan are in agreement.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All replies addressed and looked into so far. Mr Tan (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an excellent work, now I think ready for the star. Thank you for your patience, Mr Tan, and congratulations on a fine work indeed. We look forward to more.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think Mr Tan has moved sufficiently close to meeting my concerns for me to declare support for the article's promotion. For those used to western political systems the article is not always easy to follow, but it is better than most in explaining recent Cambodian history, and provides an informative who's who to characters whose names only infrequently crop up in western media. Congratulations to Mr Tan for his perseverence in bringing the article to its present standard. Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wugapodes[edit]

Disclosure: I was the GA reviewer for this article in September Support: I am impressed by the work done since I saw this at GAN. As someone unfamiliar with Cambodian politics, I found this article very accessible and the writing compelling. I don't know enough about the topic to speak to its comprehensiveness, but I can say I was not left wanting. My only two concerns are rather minor.

  • First is, as I brought up in the GA review, MOS:PERCENT recommends writing out the word "percent" which isn't done.
  • The second is the references section. It mixes shortened footnotes with full citations which I find unsightly, but I'm not sure of a better way to do it.

I have gone ahead and fixed the first, and would be willing to discuss the second as I realize I mostly gave a problem not a solution. Regardless, others seem to not have a problem with it, and it's rather minor, so I still support. Thanks for the great work, and good luck with the nomination! Wugapodes (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree with the footnotes issue – the long/short footnotes problem; as far as possible, I would ideally love to standardise them all. While shortened footnotes are possible with books (See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Web_pages), as the full name of each book source can be relegated to the "Bibliography" section, I do not see how this is possible when news or web sources are used. I personally prefer book sources, but this is not always possible as some information may only be found in news/online sources.... Mr Tan (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

Notes

  • Looks to me that we haven't had an image review here.
  • Also it seems to have been a long time between drinks for you at FAC, Mr Tan, so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

Both the above can be requested at the top of WT:FAC unless one or two of the existing reviewers would like to do the honours. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted the request as you have suggested. (PS: Brianboulton did a source review as shown above, is that still insufficient?) Mr Tan (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the source review above takes care of formatting and reliability, the spotcheck for accuracy etc is another thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
I've removed the full stops where I thought appropriate, using Marilyn Monroe as a reference. If you feel that I may have edited wrongly, please feel free to add or remove where appropriate. Mr Tan (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Coat_of_arms_of_Cambodia.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have scrolled through Cambodia's copyright laws at [33]. To my understanding, artistic works of private individuals are definitely protected by copyright as stated in Article 24 - "The private reproduction of a published work...", there is no clause specifying as if works published by the Cambodian government is copyrighted or not. But as I see it, almost every article of countries on Wikipedia uses the flags and coat of arms in the articles, sometimes with very ambiguous reasons, such as the one listed at File:Coat_of_arms_of_The_Gambia.svg. I must point out that for Cambodia, its own laws are often filled with full of loopholes and ambiguous wordings. Citing the example of defining the giving of gifts as an interesting example, you may want to read more about it at [34] and [35]. I see similar parallels here concerning the ambiguous copyright status of government works, unlike Indonesia (Template:PD-IDGov)and Malaysia (Template:PD-Malaysia) which are spelt out much more clearly.
Citing another example, the File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada_(1957-1994).svg#Licensing used in Elizabeth II - an FA, also similarly justifies "Creative Commons" on the basis that a volunteer editor drafted the symbol himself, but with the disclaimer sentence "This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.". For Cambodia's Coat of Arms, the same notice was also being put up as well.
That's one reason as to why I thought of leaving the template "Royal Family of Cambodia" as it is. I mean, if this possibly constitutes a copyright infringement, I won't mind removing the entire template or the logo within the template itself, on the grounds that "Royal Family of Cambodia" uses this Coat of arms with ambiguous. However, there would be a good chance that it would be reverted by other editors (with chauvinistic tendencies) within a couple of months, as they may also possibly reason out that almost every other article also display their respective countries' Coat of Arms so far without issue. (PS: I am not the original uploader of the logo, nor the creator of the "Royal Family of Cambodia" template.) What do you suggest that I do next on this? Mr Tan (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When was the design first created? It's possible it might be in the public domain due to age regardless of the status of government works. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were several variant designs of the Coat of Arms created from the 19th century, but this modern version featured here is created in 1951, and 55 years have passed from this date. (Read at: [36]) Mr Tan (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've done some digging into the copyright situation in Cambodia, and I think the design itself would be covered by PD-CambodiaGov. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds agreeable. I think, we should be specifically refering to Article 10a/b of the Copyright law, "The following works shall not be fallen under any protection by this law: a- Constitution, Law, Royal Decree, Sub-Decree, and other Regulations. b. Proclamation (Prakas), decision, certificate, other instructed circulars issued by state organizations. ", as per Article 6 of the Cambodian constitution which states [37] "The national flag, anthem and coat-of-arms shall be defined in Annexes I-II and III ". In other words, the Coat of arms maybe considered as an article defined under Cambodia's constitution and hence eligible for PD-CambodiaGov...I also note that in official letters and circulars, the Royal Coat of Arms is used almost all the time, accompanying example at [38].....
Anyway, thanks for your advice! A good learning experience for all of us over here indeed :) Mr Tan (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check by Cas Liber[edit]

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) 22:33, 23 January 2016 [39].

Yugoslav monitor Sava[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my series of Austro-Hungarian/Yugoslav river monitors. As the Austro-Hungarian Temes-class monitor Bodrog, she fired the first shots of World War I. She then went on to serve in three more navies under the name Sava, being scuttled and raised twice. She still exists, although she has been reduced from her former glory and is now an ammunition barge! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dan! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Map labels aren't very legible - suggest scaling up
  • File:Dunarea_romaneasca.png: what is the source of the data presented here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No issues with expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lede is rather a bit too detailed, IMO and could stand to be more of a summary.
  • Add a link to the knots conversion template by adding "|lk=in" both in the infobox and the main body.
  • Her armour consisted of belt, bulkheads and gun turrets 40 mm (1.6 in) thick and deck armour 25 mm (0.98 in) thick, and her conning tower was 75 mm (3.0 in) thick. A few too many "and"s here.
  • Link mine, launched, lighter, tug, patrol boat, minelayer, division (naval).
  • Any information on her pre-WWI activities?
  • How's your German? Die österreichisch-ungarische Donauflotille im weltkriege, 1914-18; dem werke "Österreich-Ungarns seekrieg, 1914-18" by Olaf Richard Wulff; Hans Hugo Sokol; Gábor von Döbrentei ought to be useful.
  • Commencing on 30 October 1915, they escorted a series of munitions convoys down the Danube to Lom where they were transferred to the Bulgarian railway system for shipment to the Ottoman Empire. The antecedent for the second "they" is unclear as the monitors certainly weren't transferred to the RR system.
  • Under the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Bodrog was transferred to the KSCS along with a range of other vessels, including three other river monitors,[18] but was officially handed over to the KSCS Navy and renamed Sava in 1920. Why a "but" here?
  • Armed only with personal weapons and some machine guns stripped from the scuttled vessels, started towards the Bay of Kotor in the southern Adriatic in two groups. Who started?
  • Sava was raised and repaired by the navy of the Axis puppet state the Independent State of Croatia, and served under that name alongside her fellow monitor Morava, which was raised, repaired and renamed Bosna. Missing a comma.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review, Sturm. I have addressed all your comments (these are my edits), and trimmed the lead a bit. My German is basic (I lived there for two years twenty years ago...), and I have checked uni and other accessible libraries and none have a copy of Wulff et al, so I'm stuck with what I have in that respect. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am currently adding some details to the article from Pawlik, Christ and Winkler (thanks Sturm), will ping when I'm done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have completed expanding the article using the above reference, which has resulted in the addition of quite a bit of material to the WWI section in particular. These are my edits. I believe it is appropriate to ping all the reviewers (Dank, Nikkimaria, Sturmvogel 66 and 23 editor) to check that they are still happy with their support or review post-expansion. Thanks to everyone for their patience. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not necesssary ... if Sturm likes the changes, he'll support, and that support will cover prose as well. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks Dan. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I made a couple of tweaks, including one where I took out a conversion because you only need to convert a measurement on first use; see if they suit. I like how you were able to expand the WWI coverage, but I think that the lack of coverage of this ship's peacetime history need to remedied before it fulfills FAC's completeness criteria. I won't oppose it, because I think that it otherwise meets the criteria, but I think that you're hosed here for lack of available information to fill in the gaps.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've been copy editing this article on and off for the last two years and feel that it meets the criteria by all means. These are my edits. 23 editor (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed the article at the ACR and my few concerns were addressed there (though I'm a little disappointed to see the map had to go). I don't see any issues with the material added since my review. Great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki this looks like it is close to promotion. Would you mind doing a source review? No prob if you're too busy. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as namesake, are unsourced
  • Some of the other details in the infobox, such as displacement, don't match the article text
  • Should use colwidth rather than fixed number of columns in {{refbegin}}
  • Be consistent in whether you link publisher locations - New York is linked in Fitzsimmons but not Deak, etc. Also be consistent in whether you use "London, England" or just "London"
  • What type of source is International Naval Research Organization (1965)? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Nikki. The namesake thing is just WP:BLUE (all river monitors were named after the eponymous rivers, both under the Austro-Hungarians and Yugoslavs). I've fixed the conversions so that they match, fixed the cols and location links. The source was poorly presented, it is a journal called Warship International, and I've added the issn and improved the ref tag to match. All done I think. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: this has been a nominee for two and a half months and looks good to go. Could I have dispensation to nominate a fresh one while the wheels turn? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, go ahead PM. If Nikki is happy with the responses we'll close this shortly anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only outstanding point is the last - if that's a journal, the title should be italicized rather than in quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2016 [40].

Albert Ketèlbey[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 15:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ketèlbey is an interesting figure: the leading light in British pre-war light music, he was a millionaire by the end of the 1920s through the success of works such as In a Monastery Garden (1915) and In a Persian Market (1920), but died a forgotten figure with his work overlooked by the BBC. This article has been overhauled recently and been through a well-attended PR process prior to this shot at FA. – SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 15:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Certainly meets the criteria, an enjoyable read and effective article improved even further since the PR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Doc - your excellent comments in the PR certainly strengthened what we had. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Rather than {{cite DVD notes}}, I would recommend using {{cite AV media notes}}, and when you already have a notation of "liner notes" you need not include "Notes to...CD" unless this is the formal title
  • FN 21 should use a dash rather than a hyphen
  • Naxos Records or just Naxos?
  • Under what circumstances are you including retrieval date?
  • Why are FNs 1 and 80 so different in formatting?
  • Fn82, 83: best to link the OCLC number, and do we actually know the name of this CD?
  • Who is Peter Deverill?
  • Don't italicize WorldCat
  • Should include an indication that the Bourderionnet source is in French. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat: will you have first go at these points, and delegate to me ad lib? Tim riley talk 19:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! – SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Nikkimaria - all now hopefully sorted correctly, but please let me know if I've missed anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Excellent - Many thanks, Chris, for your earlier help at PR on these always troublesome tags! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM

I confess to being something of a philistine when it comes to opera, but I am happy to take a look.

  • I know it's a slightly boring point, but I feel obliged to point out that any image published in any form prior to 1923 is, for our purposes, in the public domain (see {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}); the fact you're using a non-free image, therefore, really catches my eye.
  • We've struggled to find images of AWK that we can prove were published pre-1923. There are several that were obviously taken before that watershed, but not that we know were published by then. - SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which Tom McCanna, his biographer, considers "shows a precocious mastery of composition"." The tenses don't quite work for me- how about something like "which, for Tom McCanna, his biographer, "shows a precocious mastery of composition"."?
  • Is "licentiate" not a bit obscure? you
  • Both the sources shown use the term (Sant capitalises his too): I'm not au fait enough with the technical terminology of musical colleges to know what else would replace it, if anything. TR, what's your view on this? - SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would make better sense to say "before being awarded his licence" (or "licentiateship" as a pompous alternative). A licentiate is the person holding the certificate of competence, rather as a "graduate" is the holder of a degree, so "being awarded his licentiate" is nonsense really. Personally I'd use the word "certificate", a general term which everyone understands and which means the same thing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charlotte (Lottie) Siegenberg" Would "Charlotte "Lottie" Siegenberg" not be more typical?
  • "is described by Sant as "a typical tragical-love ballad of this time, and its almost Victorian sentimentality comes through in its words.[20][21]" Where does your quote end?
  • "There are two versions for the inspiration behind the piece" This doesn't quite work for me; surely you mean something like "There are two competing stories detailing the inspiration behind the piece"?
  • "while McCanna opines that from the first bar, listeners "... might sooner expect such a device in the impassioned world of a [Gustav] Mahler symphony than in a genteel English salon piece"." This is surely just my ignorance, but it's worth noting that I'm really not clear what is being claimed here.
  • "The following year he wrote the gavotte, Wedgewood Blue and In a Persian Market; the latter became one of his more popular works" How about "The following year he wrote Wedgewood Blue—a gavotte—and In a Persian Market; the latter became one of his more popular works"
  • "the anonymous reviewer "Ariel" described" Pseudonymous, surely?
  • "that the case: "is" Why the colon?
  • "£3,493 in 1940 equates to approximately £170,000 in 2015, while £2,906 equates to approximately £89,000 in 2015" I assume that's £2,906 in 1950?
  • Was he survived by his second wife, or had she died in the '50s?
  • What's a "Caprice"?
  • Bloody good question - and I have no idea of the answer! Tim riley, is there something useful we can link to here? I'll leave this and the next four to you (I'll pick up the last one). - SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "caprice" or "capriccio" is a short, lively piece of music. I have added an appropriare link. Brianboulton (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ketèlbey's piano writing was notable for its brilliance, and the composer's own performance of the solo part of the Concertstück brought out that quality." Is this neutral?
    • It's a true summary of what the source says. We could have the actual words in quotation marks if wanted, but I prefer to keep direct quotes to a minimum as far as possible. I'm wholly biddable in this case. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The piano works include the early classical pieces such as the 1888 Sonata" do you need the the before "early"?
    • Without the article I think "early classical" would seem to refer to the style (e.g. J C Bach as opposed to Beethoven's first works) and the article makes it clear that the earliness refers to Ketèlbey's oeuvre rather than the genre. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " as well as sentimental ballads like "Believe me true" (1897), for their seniors" Why the comma? If you're using a parenthetical clause, you'd need another after "ballads"?
    • My worst – or at any rate most frequent – sin as a prose writer is opening subordinate clauses with a comma and forgetting to close them again. Thank you for spotting this outbreak. I'll ponder whether we want two commas or none here. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this is something that has come up before (it strikes me as something that people might be a bit sore about...), but shouldn't songs be in title case?
    • As far as I can work out from the MoS, title case is prescribed for popular songs, but not for classical. I have no personal preference and would be happy with either title or sentence case, though from my (highly unscientific) observation I'd say that sentence case is more usual than title case in our sources. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered "Ketèlbey's especial fame ... consisted in his phenomenal success as a composer of light music" Again, tense shift. claimed that, maybe?
    • I tend to steer clear of "claimed" in such contexts as it carries strong overtones that the writer is pushing a dodgy point of view. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very readable and engaging. A valuable article. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Josh, Many thanks indeed for your insightful comments: all extremely useful indeed, and I hope I've done them some justice. There's a few for my co-nom to deal with as they're beyond my (limited) scope of knowledge. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support; a very nice article. I could probably quibble about commas a little further, but I think this probably comes down to stylistic differences rather than right/wrong. I'd be inclined to suggest switching song titles to title case, but I'm not going to hold up my support on that. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May thanks Josh for your support, and more importantly, for your thoughts and comments: all hugely appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns were addressed at the peer review, and I'm confident J Milburn's will be as well. Excellent article, though I admit it is someone I'd never heard of. Possibly will come in handy at pub trivia.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your earlier input and your support here. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • brilliant studentship - "brilliant" strikes me as potentially editorializing, as it is in Wikipedia's voice
  • I'm not sure about this: it was, after all, brilliant: he won nearly all the prizes on offer and two scholarships. Tim, do you have a view on this? - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'd defend "brilliant" here. The word crops up often enough in the sources, and the facts speak for themselves rather. Anyone who beats Gustav Holst into second place must be pretty brilliant, meseems. We could put "brilliant" in quotes and cite it if wanted, but I think that'd be a touch of overkill. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harold worth an article? St John's Church, Wimbledon?
  • I'm not sure on Harold: it's difficult to separate him from his brother a lot of the time, but I'll have a hunt round and see what there is. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've vaguely had the same thought about brother Harold. I think we could scrape enough material together, but I'm not quite convinced from my encounters with him during Albertine researches that he is definitely notable. Borderline, I'd say. Happy to have a joint go if you fancy it, SchroCat, and see if we think the result meets notability guidelines. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the local St Silas' Church in Lozells. - local strikes me as unnecessary, as you have the name of his church as well
  • In 1904 he also began to work for a second music publisher, Chappell & Co, a third in 1907 (the Columbia Graphophone Company) and a fourth in 1910, when he worked for Elkin & Co. - aren't such sentences supposed to have parallel structures?
  • In 1912 the composer and cellist Auguste van Biene offered a prize for a new work to complement his popular piece The Broken Melody. Ketèlbey was the winner of the competition with a new work, The Phantom Melody, which became his first major success. - new work ... new work — Chris Woodrich (talk)
  • After three weeks the case ended with the judge finding against Columbia and Ketèlbey. - so what remunerations was he forced to make?
  • I've removed his name: the case was against Columbia and AWK was their chief witness, rather than a named party, so I've altered is slightly to make that clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • His music was popular on the continent and his obituarist in The Times later reported that one Viennese critic considered that "Ketèlbey's music ... came second only to that of ... Johann Strauss and Franz Lehár", while continental audiences often called him "The English Strauss". - strikes me as too many conjunctions
  • ...and strictly speaking, if he's ranked behind Strauss and Lehar, he is in third place in the triumvirate! I'd replace "second only to that of" with "behind only that of". Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked - thanks again brian (and for the Caprice link too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't songs written in title case? You do it below ("My Lady Héroïne")
  • Bells across the Meadows - In italics or quotes? Link on first mention (in the lede too) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Chris: all dealt with, I hope, except the first, and I'd like Tim's view on that one. Much appreciated as always! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a line or two. My thanks to Chris, too. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Chris - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: For some reason, Ketelbey has always irritated me – I think it's that pretentious accent (maybe I will adopt a circumflex and become Bôulton) – but I did my stuff at peer review and have chipped in with a few more tweaks, above. Not sure he deserves such a quality article (perhaps by "the English Strauss" they meant Levi), but there we are. Good work, chaps. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Brian. I know he's not to everyone's taste - a little twee, perhaps, a little too populist, maybe, but some of his work is actually quite good! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

A good piece of work that I'm ready to support, but a couple of niggles:

  • "In the following year he wrote Wedgewood Blue—..." - is that right? It is of course a common howler for Wedgwood and their famous blue.
    • v. cross with self for missing that after recent work on RVW with his Wedgwood ancestry. Thank you, Johnbod. Tim riley talk 19:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1921 Ketèlbey moved from his home in St John's Wood, where he had been living for the previous seven years, to Frognal, a fashionable area of Hampstead,..." somehow "fashionable" doesn't seem right for Frognal, even in 1921. Solidly respectable, with an arty fringe, more like.
  • "He spent the remainder of the year staying in hotels in Southern Britain..." so, like England then? Or even southern England? No caps needed I think. No article for the South Coast, where he probably actually was.

Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Johnbod, both for your comments and tweaks. I've addressed these as you've suggested. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per above - points dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, Johnbod for your support, and more importantly, for your thoughts and comments: all hugely appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three quick thoughts - (1) was it really the "Convert Orchestra", or should that be "Concert"? (2) Do we really need wikilinks to the individual musical notes in "D E C C A"? I doubt anyone is going to divert to read about C (musical note), for example, so would piping "musical notes" to link to Chromatic scale work better? (3) The final image for me runs down into the notes/references/sources - would a {{clear}} at the end of the text be inappropriate? I don't have the time for a detailed read/review but I did very much enjoy reading this article about a composer I knew little if anything about beforehand. Benchèrlite (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three dealt with, as per your suggestions, M Benchèrlite. Very much appreciated! -SchröCat (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2016 [41].

Panggilan Darah[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Owing to RL concerns (babies, school, work, the usual) I haven't been able to write nearly as much as I've wanted to this past year. I'm hoping to fix that this holiday with another colonial Indonesian film article. This time I bring you Panggilan Darah, a 1941 production starring Dhalia and Soerip. It casts the two as orphans who are struggling to get by, working as maids and later at a clove cigarette factory. The article is well-written, and the images are free. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. "J. B. Kristanto" or "J.B. Kristanto" is fine, as long as spacing with initials is consistent. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article as-is is excellent; I'm really trying hard to find any nitpicks. Mostly, I'm interested in a few hits I see on Google Scholar (I see one of your pieces is there, so I suspect there's little I can add!).

  • Have you taken a look at Charlotte Setijadi-Dunn and Thomas Barker's "Imagining “Indonesia”: Ethnic Chinese Film Producers in Pre-Independence Cinema"? There's at least a passing mention of this film. It's from a special issue on Indonesian cinema which may be a treasure-trove of information for you. I don't personally have access to an online version, but I think (the listings aren't fully reliable...) I can access the hardcopy, if necessary. (But I'll not be at the library for a couple of weeks.)
    • I've got the Indonesian-language edition of that journal (actually got it from Barker himself, at a Wikimedia Indonesia/University of Indonesia event). I'll take a look. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How's your French? Another special issue on Indonesian cinema, and another mention, here.
    • Rusty, but passable. I'll have a look. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, from my reading Ramadhan and Biran are writing that Dhalia made her debut in Panggilan Darah, but never gained the popularity of Titien Sumarni (yes, I know that's a redlink, but my mid-1950s film magazines feature one or more stories on her a month) and never became a major star. Important for her article, but maybe only worth a footnote here. Thoughts? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soerono, writing in Pertjatoeran Doenia dan Film" This is a bit alien to me. Who is this? What kind of publication is this?
    • Done. Added a footnote with more detail, as I doubt he'd be worth an article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Biran surmised that" Is "surmised" really what you mean here?
  • Perhaps you could add some appropriate redlinks? Some of the film companies/films you mention but do not link might be worth linking to?

I suspect that none of these comments require large changes, but they may help round out the article nicely. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support; no further comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely done. Just a few comments:
  • "as well as at the Nitisemito cigarette factory in Kudus and a batik factory in Pekalongan owned by Tan Jauw Lin" unclear if one or two factories owned by Tan. Can the word "factory" be varied?
  • "Further roles" maybe "Additional roles"
  • "and praised Soerip's spontaneity in her role.[10] Biran wrote that lower-class audiences praised the film's music" perhaps too much of a praise chorus.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Short but sweet. Just a few nitpicks:

  • "the colonial capital of Batavia (now Jakarta)" Maybe you could rephrase this a bit to avoid any confusion for those who don't know what Batavia was. Maybe just a comma instead of "of". Plus I would link Batavia as well.
    • Last I checked we didn't have an article on Batavia itself - Apparently, that's changed. Linked now. Not sure eliminating "of" helps, as we'd end up with two commas and two parentheses in short succession. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dhalia and Soerip (themselves) " Maybe "(played by themselves)" would be more clear
  • "Ishak (Mochtar Widjaja). Although initially elated, they find that Iskak's" Is it hak or kak?
  • "Unable to recoup its expenses, by 1941" that reads a bit odd as all we know is that it is a 1941 film. Did filming, releasing, and folding all happen in a matter of months? And then Suska directs another movie that same year?
    • Nixed the 1941s. Pertjatoeran Doenia dan Film doesn't go into much detail as to when this merger/sale of assets occurred, and the year of release of Ratna Moetoe Manikam is not clear. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • should the statement "J. B. Kristanto's Katalog Film Indonesia (Indonesian Film Catalogue) records several as having survived at Sinematek Indonesia's archives" not have a source and could that catalogue be added to the cited works list?
  • I'm not convinced that last bit about Japanese propaganda films is relevant, even when knowing the Japanese occupied the Indies.
    • It's meant to be illustrative of the fact that there are several different types of films which are known to be extant, as opposed to Heider's claims otherwise. It is also meant to hint that some films survive in the Netherlands, be it at NGIS or another institution (this is sadly not in any sources I have available to me). Pareh, for instance, was stored in the Netherlands for ages and is now circulating as a pirated DVD in Jakarta. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works cited: 2 of the 3 instances of Biran, Misbach Yusa are linked. One probably suffices.
  • That "untitled" looks a bit odd. I think that if you use the title "Cinemas" for reference to the ad in Algemeen Indisch Dagblad de Preangerbode, maybe this one could be "Sun talkies"?

As I said, nitpicks. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review! All done or commented upon. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A fine piece. Good luck! Edwininlondon (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from me, following my informal PR. Only one further comment from me: I'm not 100% sure, but should 'Indonesian for "Call of Blood"' be "Indonesian for Call of Blood" as it's the title? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, per previous FAs. Must have slipped my mind. Thanks for the review! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing yet. I left a note at WT:FAC a while ago, but nada. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll gladly do the honours. More soonest. Tim riley talk 18:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Later: The British Library's copy of the Misbach Biren title has to be be retrieved from storage and will be available on Wednesday. I'll report back here on Wed afternoon GMT if at all possible. Tim riley talk 18:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – With the kind assistance of a member of staff at the British Library I checked three citations against the Indonesian text of Biran 2009, but hadn't the cheek to ask for any more of his time, and have taken the other refs to the book as read, given that the sample of three was absolutely fine. I have checked references 1, 2, 3, 10a &b, 11, 12, 19 and 21, all of which are impeccable. Happy to give a thumbs-up for the source review. Also, more generally, happy to Support promotion to FA: the article meets all the criteria in my opinion. Tim riley talk 12:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you right kindly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Tim's review is more in the nature of a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing (which is always welcome, though not required for every FAC) rather than a source review for formatting and reliability, so I had a quick scan myself and the only formatting query I had was that it looks like some of the citations end in full stops and some don't but if that's simply a function of different templates for books vs. websites then so be it. Perhaps double-check for consistency, Chris, but happy to promote now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops! So sorry, and thank you Ian for coming to the rescue. Tim riley talk 13:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, Tim. It's a really minor thing (and fixed). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 13:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2016 [42].

Seiken Densetsu 3[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 03:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 1995, American/European role-playing video game fans were eagerly awaiting the release of what they called Secret of Mana 2—the sequel to 1993's Secret of Mana, widely considered then and now as one of the best 16-bit RPGs ever made. Their wait was in vain, though, as 20 years later, Seiken Densetsu 3 remains the only non-mobile game in the Mana series to never be released outside of Japan. Over the years, the vanished game took on a mythical quality, spurred on by a 2000 fan translation patch that allowed gamers to play it in English on emulators. Was it cancelled in favor of the ill-fated Secret of Evermore? Due to a rivalry between the Japanese and American branches of Square? Or, as it turns out, was it much more prosaic—the era of the Super Nintendo was drawing to a close, and sales projections weren't high enough to invest in an expensive translation/programming bug fix just to release the game into the then-niche Western JRPG field. Regardless, it became a right of passage- even xkcd has noted that if you haven't tracked it down, you can't call yourself a real JRPG fan. If only those poor gamers in 1995 could have had this article, now polished up for the 20th anniversary, to know what they were missing. The whole Mana series is a Good Topic, and this article, promoted to GA in Spring 2014, will be the 4th FA in the series, assuming it's as good as the other FAs in the series. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 03:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • No caption for the infobox image?
  • The lead states that it was released for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System whilst the infobox states Super Famicom. Is this a VG preference I'm not aware of?
  • "Although the game was only published in Japan, Western players have been able to play Seiken Densetsu 3 thanks to an unofficial English fan translation" - the body mentions nothing about western players, only that it was published on the internet? This could be reworded, but feel free to ignore this
  • "whichever character is currently selected, the other two companions are controlled by the computer" - how about by artificial intelligence?
  • "The remaining three characters act as non-playable characters (NPCs) when encountered" - Non-player character could be linked
  • "One type of weapon is available for each character" - are these weapons unique for each character?
  • "According to Fehdrau, the game did not tie up any people who would have been involved in a translation of Seiken Densetsu 3;" - I'm not quite sure what this means
  • "A second preview in Next Generation in February 1996, now calling the game Secret of Mana 2 as well" - sounds a bit too present tense if it's referring to a 1996 review. Alternately, I would personally remove "as well" because I think it sounds a tad informal
  • "Overall, the game is regarded by many as a SNES classic" - 'by many' is a bit vague. I know a lot of FAC reviewers don't like this language (I've had similar experiences in previous FACs), so I feel this could be rephrased to by many critics or something similar?
  • "The 1UP.com review agreed" - would 1UP.com reviewer sound more appropriate?

Those were all of the minor prose issues I found during my read-through. I also checked the references and found no paraphrasing issues, otherwise anything I would have spotted would be listed here. All in all this is a great article that displays all traits of the FA criteria. JAGUAR  17:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: replied below
  • I typically don't put captions for infobox cover art
  • No, the preference is according to WPVG guidelines to always use SNES unless there's a good reason because it gets confusing (like when I then talk about it being one of the best SNES RPGs). Changed to Super Nintendo everywhere.
  • Reworded to "English-speaking"
  • Done
  • Done
  • Yes, reworded to make more obvious
  • Reworded to clarify
  • removed both
  • Changed to semicolon to link the sentence more with the cited statements; I don't want to change it to "critics" since the sentence after that is about the GameFAQs reader polls ranking it highly for years.
  • Changed there and in a couple other spots where I quote a "review" instead of a reviewer. --PresN 03:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them. I've had another look through the article and everything seems good to me. As before, I couldn't find any issues with the references so I'm willing to support this article. Just one thing, the infobox is appearing much wider (I think due to the inclusion of 'Super Nintendo Entertainment System'), not sure if this is only happening to me because of my wide monitor resolution but I wouldn't worry about it anyway. Nice work with this one! JAGUAR  15:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yeah, looks like the infobox widens itself if the parameter is long (but only if its wikilinked...); corrected. --PresN 15:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

I will be coming back for more comments, but some things must be said at once.

  • The Wayback Machine archiving of 1UP links no longer work due to robots.txt. You must use WebCite for these pages. I would also recommend looking through for any other links like that.
  • GameFAQs, being primarily a user-based website, is classified as an unreliable website. Also, Seiken Densetsu 3 being one of the most searched-for terms on the site seems small recognition compared to other things mentioned there.
  • "...such as "Debussian impressionist styles, his own heavy electronic and synth ideas, and even ideas of popular musicians"." - This quote refers to one reviewer, but the sentence infers that it is the opinion of multiple critics. You should either specify that it is one reviewer's description, or remove the quote and put an additional reference at the end of the sentence.
  • The image for Hiromichi Tanaka should have a full stop at the end of the sentence. It might also be prudent to add a minor not as to when the picture was taken. The second part is not that important.
  • The image for Hiroki Kikuta: not only should you add a full stop within its box, but the image itself has a glaring "Low quality picture" warning message in it, which may impact its usability. Can this be addressed?
  • This is purely option, I think, but despite it being stated that the game was not released overseas, I think it would be good to specify that the game's quotes are from a fan translation. As I said, purely optional.
  • The "Seiken Densetsu 3 Original Sound Version" has two release dates attached. While this is explained in the text, I think some note of the second date being for a re-release should be present.

What is there is all I could see that stood out. Aside from that, it looks good. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • Removed
  • Noted the specific critic; looks like the line was originally just "described as", then JimmyBlackwing added "by critics" in the Secret of Mana FAC, and no one else commented on it.
  • It is not a full sentence, so it does not get a full stop; added "in 2007"
  • Modified to not be a full sentence, and have the year taken. I higher-res version does not exist; it's a tight crop of [43], and the original was only 640x427. I found a copyrighted one from 2011 on flickr that might be better; I'll ask for a re-license but I usually get a ~30% success rate with that.
  • It worked, put in the new photo; it's only slightly higher-res but it's still a net positive. --PresN 22:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(fan translation)" added to platform in quote citations
  • Done --PresN 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything else outstanding preventing this from moving ahead. I Support its promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnowFire[edit]

Mostly looks good, but a few nitpicks.

  • Where exactly are these character name translations coming from? Not the Corlett translation, which IIRC used Hawk, Lise, Carlie, Navarre, Rolante, Beast Kingdom, etc. Are these systematic Romanizations of the Japanese names, or are you using a different source? Either way it should probably be referenced somehow.
    • Related, but the article uses both "God Beasts" and "Mana Beasts". Might be best to standardize on one ("God Beasts" I assume?) unless there is actually a distinction.
  • "Unlike the previous game, where each spell was improved through use, the effectiveness of spells depends on the magical ability of the character and the element of the spell in relation to the enemy." --> This seems to imply that Secret of Mana didn't have enemy elemental resistances & strengths, which isn't the case. Additionally, while stats ("magical ability of the character") didn't have *much* impact on SoM spell power, they did have some, and anyway this kind of magic-damage-algorithm-comparison is probably too technical for the article even if it was true. I'd just delete the sentence.
  • "When in battle mode, the character adds one point to his or her "power gauge" by making an attack which hits a monster. When the gauge is full, special moves can be unleashed, which vary according to the character." --> Seems like excessive detail, too. "Attacking monsters fills a gauge that allows the player to use character-specific special attacks" or the like?
  • "A week cycles much more quickly than an actual one—a day passes in a number of minutes—but it still affects gameplay in certain ways." --> Is there reason to think that a quickly cycling day cycle wouldn't affect gameplay? These are two separate thoughts. "A week cycles much more quickly than an actual one, with a day passing in a number of minutes. The day affects gameplay blah blah blah..."
  • "Kevin (ケヴィン Kevin?) is the inarticulate prince of Ferolia" -> "Inarticulate" isn't the right word, and I'm not sure the current link to speech impediment is right either? Kevin speaks *broken* English in the Corlett translation (although none of the other Beast Kingdom members do). It's much more "English/Japanese as a 2nd language" / "Caveman talk". I have no idea what the original Japanese script did with him, of course, but "inarticulate" would just mean he's not very convincing or charismatic in his speech, not "he uses a very basic and grammatically incorrect style of speech."
  • " or the Deathjester and Heath, who has joined forces with him," -> "or Deathjester and a mind-controlled Heath" perhaps?
  • "the connections between each title are more abstract than story-based, linked only on the karmic level" --> This is a nonsensical use of "karma", and checking the source, seems a pretty strange summary. Just leave it as "connections between each title are more abstract than them being direct sequels" or the like.
  • "so as to gain ultimate power, politically and magically" -> Cut the last three words? And it's mostly magical ultimate power.
  • There's an awful lot of detail on Secret of Mana+, which IIRC is mostly SoM remixes and less SD3 tunes (I reserve the right to be totally wrong here). Even if it was a 50/50 split... seems like it'd be worthwhile to trade a sentence on SoM+ for more sentences on the SD3 OST itself, at least if there are any other sources covering the OST to be had. SnowFire (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Responded below:
  • They're romanizations of the Japanese names; changed everywhere to use the Corlett version, since that's the most common English one.
    • God Beasts
  • Removed the comparison; while the issue would be fixed by saying "only" by the character's magic stat and the element used, the comparison to SoM is too detailed. I do want to keep the idea that the element of the magic matters; the 8 elements (with their stones, elementals, beasts, etc.) are a big part of the background of the game and they don't get a lot of detail here.
  • Agreed, done.
  • Ended up just cutting the second half of that- no need to state that the day of the week affects gameplay, if the very next sentence discusses exactly how it affects gameplay anyway.
  • Can't think of a good replacement word, and as the concept doesn't deserve a big explanation since it doesn't affect gameplay or the plot at all, dropped it
  • Hmm, it's a little spoilery- you don't know he's being mind controlled the first time you run into them, right?- and I left out the other twists, like the Darkshine Knight being Duran's father, but changed anyway
  • Done.
  • Cut.
  • Dropped a sentence, but there's not much else to be had for the regular OST.
Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. By the way, just to be clear, I'd have been fine with keeping the straight-up Japanese names too if you'd rather it be that way, just I thought they should be sourced if they did. Regardless, Support. SnowFire (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rhain1999[edit]

Just a few minor things from me:

  • Is "(new Square Enix)" in the lead meant to say "(now Square Enix)"?
  • "English-speaking players have been able to play Seiken Densetsu 3 thanks to..." I feel like "thanks" is not the most neutral word in this context (perhaps "due to"?). This is just a personal thing though, so no harm if it's kept.
  • The first paragraph of "Characters" is unsourced.
  • This is just a personal preference, but in "Reception", I'd split the first paragraph into three: the general sentences about the reviews, the graphics, and the music.
  • When I write articles, I usually repeat the name of the publication along with the name of the reviewer ("RPGamer's Parsons", "Riley of Cubed3", etc.), but I understand that a lot of articles don't use this (and I can see why).

That's all I could see, and most of them are personal preference anyway. Great job with this! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoops, that got introduced a couple days ago. Fixed.
  • Done.
  • As noted in the current thread about in at WT:VG, citations are optional for the plot section, since it's implicitly sourced to the game; I still put in a bunch of quote citations anyways, since I think it's helpful/interesting, but there's no quote-based way to source that part of "Characters". I do have one cite that I can copy to there to cite that the plot follows the main character chosen, though.
  • I'd rather not, since it would leave it with three paragraphs of 3, 4, and 2 sentences, which are in my opinion a little short.
  • I've done it both ways; it's not a big deal to switch it, especially since such a high fraction of the reviews for this one don't have names to start with. Done.
@Rhain1999: Replied inline. --PresN 17:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those changes! I understand that citations are optional for the plot section, but if you have a reference (particularly for a "Characters" section, which I think is more important to cite than the "Story" section itself), then it might as well be used, so thanks for that. As far as I can see, there isn't really anything holding this article back, so I'm very happy to support this candidacy. It's a shame there aren't more comments on here (as I'm experiencing myself), but I wish you luck with the rest of this FAC! I'm sure it's very close to promotion, anyway. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 23:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

For the sources, I looked at this version, and I checked sources 1, 3–5, 8–9, 32–33, 39–40, 42–49, 51–53, and 55. I only found a few minor problems:

  • Source 1 is used to support "as opposed to the three of Secret of Mana", but I couldn't find this in the source.
  • Source 3 is used to support the second Gameplay paragraph, yet most of the information from the paragraph isn't present in the source.
  • Source 4 is used to support the use of the Mana Stones in the game, as well as the optional second class change at level 38, but the information is absent from the source.
  • Source 5 is used to support the statement regarding "Will-o'-the-Wisp the light elemental and Shade the dark elemental", but these are not mentioned in the source.
  • Source 33 is archived, but has an error; replace it with this URL.
  • Source 46 no longer works; use this instead (minor change to the URL).
  • Source 48 is used to support the inclusion of "Where Angels Fear to Tread" in Seiken Densetsu 3, but this is not mentioned in the source.

Everything else looked good. Bonus points for archiving, too. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 06:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed the rationale template for the cover image
  • Added a Secret of Mana source for that fragment
  • Got most of it with the other sources, and pulled out a couple minor details I couldn't get explicitly sourced.
  • Added another source that covers those specific details
  • Missed that, I removed all the other element names before the FAC. Now dropped.
  • archiveurl replaced
  • Done
  • Ah, that was in the other source. Properly cited it, and reworded to more closely match the source.
@Rhain1999: Addressed all of your points! --PresN 18:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing everything! After taking another look at the article, I'm happy to support on images and sources. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 23:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Axem Titanium[edit]

  • God-Beast or God Beast? They're both used. Is there a difference?
  • You mention "Duran and Angela" at the beginning of Characters but then talk about Angela first, unlike with the other two pairs.
  • Are these names taken from the fan translation? If so, might be worth mentioning somewhere.
  • "Altenish" is this an official term? If not, "citadel in/at Altena" is probably less OR.
  • Nevarre/Navarre?
  • Is it important to specify that Isabella is "Bigieu"? It seems the name only appears once later in the story section, so it's worth considering glossing over this detail for clarity.
  • "He shows the king his abilities by forcing Kevin to awaken his werewolf abilities by killing his best friend. When Kevin confronts the Beast King on this act and his plans to invade the human Holy City Wendel, he is thrown out of the kingdom and swears revenge" - tons of he/his pronouns that I can't decipher their antecedents
  • " The main character—now including Carlie—on the way to Wendel stay overnight in Astoria where they are woken by a bright light" - subject verb agreement: "The main character [...] stay overnight"?
  • "an Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) game"
  • You don't need to call out reviewer's affiliation after introducing them, you can just use the last name

Axem Titanium (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium: Replied below.
  • Darn it, I thought I fixed that before
  • Swapped
  • Done
  • Added a note
  • Okay, I really remember fixing those, and I clearly missed a lot
  • Now just Isabella
  • pronouns reduced
  • stays
  • a
  • I hadn't been, but I literally just added them 4 days ago due to the last reviewer; I think they should stay because half of the reviews don't have a stated reviewer, so it was half publication names and half last names. --PresN 00:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- have I missed image and source reviews above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: it wasn't there before, but there is now an image and a source review just above and passed. --PresN 00:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2016 [44].

Mayabazar[edit]

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC), Ssven2, Kailash29792[reply]

This article is about Mayabazar, a 1957 Indian bilingual film known for its performances, music and especially its cinematography by Marcus Bartley. At this juncture, i want to thank my co-nominators Ssven2 and Kailash29792. A special note of thanks to Dr. Blofeld and my copy-editors Miniapolis and Corinne. This is my first FAC attempt and also the first Telugu film related article to be nominated for a FA. Looking forward for constructive comments. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher[edit]

  • Can you add two-three names from the principal cast in the infobox?
Done
  • Mayabazar is a 1957 Indian biligual....would be more specific.
Done
  • Remove either "few" or "small" from the third sentence in the lead. Since both words nearly mean the same.
Done
  • You can add "epic" before Mahabharata in the fourth sentence.
Done
Done Added the budget, but we could not find any reliable information about the box office information.
  • "..participated in the development of Mayabazar." It should be participated in the development of the film.
Done
  • "In February 2010 acting coach and director..". Needs a comma after 2010.
Done
  • "...the reason for which is not known." Replace "not known" with "unknown".
Done

I'll post more comments once i'm finished reading it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Author-link Subhash K. Jha at ref 63.
Done
  • Akkineni Nagarjuna's comment about remaking the film should be under inverted comma's.
It is a translation from the original quote written in Telugu. So, i can't do this.
  • Wikilink The Hindu at ref 5, and delink it at ref 7 and elsewhere.
Done
  • Wikilink The Times of India at ref 28 and delink it elsewhere. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done

Support. I don't have any issues with the article now. All the best :) Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Yash! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "Rama Rao was initially reluctant to play the lead role, but his portrayal of Krishna received acclaim and turned out to be the first of many such performances" - might sound better as Rama Rao was initially reluctant to play the lead role, however his portrayal of Krishna received acclaim and resulted to be the first of many such performances
Done
  • "The soundtrack features 12 songs" - twelve (I know smaller numbers are usually written out in prose, but for me 'twelve' seems the limit)
Done
  • "Telugu lyrics were written by Pingali Nagendrarao (Telugu)" - why is Telugu in brackets?
Done Removed.
  • "The film is considered a landmark in Telugu and Tamil cinema" - The film is considered a landmark in both Telugu and Tamil cinema
Done
  • "with praise for its lead cast, and for its technical aspects" - I would cut "for" here
Done Removed.
  • "The updated version was released on 30 January 2010 in 45 theatres in Andhra Pradesh" - link Andhra Pradesh for accessibility
Done Linked.
  • "It was a commercial success with mostly positive reviews, one only expressing a preference for the original" - need a conjunction; It was a commercial success with mostly positive reviews, with one only expressing a preference for the original
Done Added.
I respectfully disagree with User:Jaguar on this. (a) It's not good writing style to have two "with" prepositional phrases one right after the other, and (b) the phrase following "reviews" is an appositive noun phrase followed by a participial phrase. "One only" could be changed to "only one" or "only one of them". Corinne (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this upon looking at it again. Pavan, would you like to change this? JAGUAR  13:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Changed. Thanks Corinne!
  • "Gummadi Venkateswara Rao and Mikkilineni Radhakrishna Murthy were cast as Balarama and Karna, respectively, in the Telugu version and Sita had a supporting role as Sasirekha's maid" - this may read smoother as In the Tegulu version, Gummadi Venkateswara Rao and Mikkilineni Radhakrishna Murthy were cast as Balarama and Karna, respectively, whilst Sita had a supporting role as Sasirekha's maid
Done
  • "Bartley then created an illusion of moonlight, which according to Ambu Rao was a first for an Indian film" - needs a comma between "Rao" and "was"
Done Added.
I respectfully disagree with User:Jaguar that a comma is needed after "Rao". "According to" is a two-word preposition. It either requires two commas or no commas: "which, according to Ambu Rao, was..." or "which according to Ambu Rao was...". Prepositions do not always require commas. Commas represent where a native speaker would pause. Here, a native speaker is unlikely to pause. Corinne (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this upon looking at it again. Pavan, would you like to change this? JAGUAR  13:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Changed. Thanks Corinne!
  • "A commercial success, Mayabazar had a theatrical run of 100 days in 24 theatres and went on to become a silver-jubilee film" - silver jubilee should be linked here
Done Linked.
  • "According to a 29 January 2010 government order, the remastered version was exempt from entertainment tax, but theatre owners charged full price" - however
Done
  • "However, the foundation opposed digital colourisation, saying that they "believe in the original repair as the way the master or the creator had seen it" - stating
Done
  • "Words and phrases, such as "antha alamalame kada"..." - I think this might sound slightly better as Various words and phrases
Done Added.

I remember copyediting this article and watching the film shortly after, in which I loved. The article is solid throughout and I could only find a handful of minor prose issues. Good work with this so far! JAGUAR  11:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Jaguar! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading through this again, I'm satisfied that it meets the FA criteria and I'll now give my support to this article. Good work on this! I think I'll watch Mayabazar again soon. JAGUAR  13:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Jaguar! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

"laddoo gobbling"? Why is the article spelt "Laddu" then? I think it would be best to paraphrase and something in brackets for non Indian readers on what Laddoo actually is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because The Hindu's "Blast from the past" article mentions it in the same way. We linked it to "Laddu" back then. Now, i have added a note for the same. Would that suffice?

The music section seems undercooked, usually the opposite is the case! I'd expect to see the track listing and a bit more even in the main article I think.However in seeing the length of the track list it would bloat it to agree best not to list. I think you need to mention more songs and some form of reception on the most popular ones though.

I've added critical reception from "Blast from the past" and Dhananjayan's book. I've also added a few facts regarding the soundtrack's development from the main article. Would these suffice?

Critical reception is also undercooked, also usually the opposite! I think it could use some stronger reviews and a more solid structure.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, we have very limited reliable sources in the case of Mayabazar. I could find three reviews, one from CNN-IBN's 100 great films list, two from books published in 2013 and 2015. And now i hope that the section meets your expectations.

"colored" -I thought we used Indian/British English for Indian films?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rephrased. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support on comprehension, but I'm not fully convinced that the prose is quite FA quality in places. I'll await to see what others say about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Dr. Blofeld. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to give it another read this weekend (tomorrow) and help if I can. I think we can get it there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I'll try to give it another read/copyedit tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"While the trio manage to trick Sarma and Sastry, Shakuni's lackeys, Ghatotkacha (in Sasirekha's form) makes Duryodhana's wife rethink the marriage arrangement and teases Lakshmana Kumara. Ghatotkacha plans the wedding in his hermitage in such a way that Krishna, using his divine powers, is present as a guest for the real marriage ceremony of Sasirekha and at the same time present at the marriage taking place in the Mayabazar." -a very long sentence!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made it into four, in this way : "They manage to trick Sarma and Sastry, Shakuni's lackeys. Ghatotkacha (in Sasirekha's form) makes Duryodhana's wife rethink the marriage arrangement and teases Lakshmana Kumara. He also plans the wedding of the real Sasirekha and Abhimanyu in his hermitage which is attended by Krishna. Using his divine powers, Krishna also attends as a guest for the marriage taking place in the Mayabazar". Would it suffice? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes but you could lose one "also".
Done Removed in the sentence "He also plans the wedding of the real Sasirekha and Abhimanyu..." Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "versions, with a slightly different cast for each. In place of Akkineni Nageswara Rao as Abhimanyu in the Telugu version, Gemini Ganesan appeared in the Tamil version. Savitri was the female lead in both versions; her character was named Sasirekha in the Telugu version and Vatsala in the Tamil version.[" -can you find a way to reword "version" here, it repeats a lot.
How about this Doctor : "versions, with a slightly different cast for each. Gemini Ganesan appeared as Abhimanyu in the Tamil version, which was portrayed by Akkineni Nageswara Rao in Telugu. Savitri was retained as the female lead in Tamil also; where her character was named Vatsala instead of Sasirekha". I've rephrased it in the article also, feel free to make changes if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" Its outdoor filming lasted for 10 to 15 seconds." -that all? Where was the rest shot then?

The source says "The evergreen song "Lahiri, lahiri lo" was shot at Ennore near Madras (now Chennai) at noon. The outdoor shooting lasted only for 10 to 15 seconds", and we wrote "The song "Lahiri Lahiri" was shot in Ennore, a suburb of Chennai. Its outdoor filming lasted for 10 to 15 seconds". Now, what else can i do? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was the rest shot in the studio then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May be. Sadly, i don't have the liberty to go ahead like that though. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nageswara Rao was injured on the film's set, and action sequences featuring himself and Ranga Rao were shot only after his recovery, causing a three-month delay in the release of the film." -do we know what injury it actually was?
Nageswara Rao said, "Actually, the movie release was postponed by over three months. On the sets of the film , I met with an accident and was hospitalised. Action scenes between me and S.V. Ranga Rao in Maya Bazar were yet to be filmed and were shot only after I was discharged". More than that, nothing was available. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I think it's close now, but I really think this FAC would benefit from a lot of people looking at it to really make sure it's clear cut, but unfortunately the turn out is poor as usual with Indian films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. Blofeld. I'm optimistic that surely someone will post their views very soon. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vivvt[edit]

  • Missing Oxford commas at some places: "Ramana Reddy, and Relangi Venkata Ramaiah in supporting roles", "V. M. Ezhumalai, and K. A. Thangavelu playing those", "Pingali Nagendrarao assisted with the story, script, and lyrics.", "a crew of 400, including light men, carpenters, and painters,", ""Choopulu Kalisina Shubhavela", and "Neekosame""
Done Added. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four of the songs were composed by S. Rajeswara Rao prior to his departure from the project, the reason for which is unknown." Undue in the lead. You may want to club it with the earlier sentence mentioning Ghantasala.
Clubbing these two statements may make the prose a bit vague and unclear there, i believe. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was a commercial success with mostly positive reviews, with one critic only expressing a preference for the original." Who is this one critic? I think its undue in the lead.
I respectfully disagree with this. IMHO, We should summarise the section appropriately, and also mentioning that critic's name in the lead will be more undue. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention editors in the infobox.
Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mayabazar was edited by C. P. Jambulingam and G. Kalyanasundaram, and Madhavapeddi Gokhale and Kaladhar were the film's art directors." Replace comma after Kalyanasundaram with semi-colon.
Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must say the original structure was correct. If you add a semi-colon, 'and' should be removed. —Vensatry (Talk) 16:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Removed. Thanks Vensatry! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and her fifth song was finished by Ghantasala." What does that mean? Did he finish by singing the end or anything else. Just curious.
Ghantasala finalised her fifth out of 26 takes (or renditions). Both the copy-editors found "and her fifth song was finished by Ghantasala" more appropriate for this situation. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was dubbed into Kannada, and was featured at the 1957 International Film Festival of India". Reads like Kannada version feature into festivals. You may want to rephrase.
Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewed till release section. More to follow. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

A great article. Just a few suggestions/comments Jimfbleak - talk to me?

  • marked a milestone… Reddy was meticulous— essentially opinions, even if supported by the sources, looks a bit weaselly
May be. But can you please suggest a better way of mentioning the same? Because, i want the contents of the sections to be effectively summarised. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ghatotkacha hermitage—where does the hermitage come from? It's not mentioned in his own article.
Ghatotkacha lives in a hermitage in the film. That's why i have mentioned the same there. The story itself is a fictional take, and IMHO the writers took liberty in this aspect. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folktale—two words normally.
Done Rephrased. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 300 unique miniature houses—perhaps 300 miniature houses, each unique.
I want my copy-editor's opinion on it. What say Corinne? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's all right as it is. I think re-phrasing it with "each unique" following a comma puts unnecessary emphasis on the word "unique". Actually, I'm not sure the word "unique" is even necessary. "300 miniature houses" would probably be sufficient.
Ref no. 23 (now used) says "Some 300 miniature houses, no two alike, were created in about 50 x 60 ft space and electrified". So using unique is important. But as Corinne said, an additional comma would put unnecessary emphasis. Thus, i wish to leave it as it is. Is it okay, Jim? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Black & White) —is that capitalisation correct?
Which is the right one : Black & white or black & white? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ordinarily it would be lower-case. However, this is in a quote, so if the original source had it capitalized, I guess it should stay that way. Corinne (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original source capitalises it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Films and Theaters",—the linked source is in Telugu, so I'm unclear where the American spelling of "theatre" comes from, especially as India normally uses BE.
Done Rephrased. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, they were just suggestions, and I'm happy with the responses, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Two fair use images with appropriate rationale and relevance (poster and still). CC licensed photo of a sculpture is also ok, as there is freedom of panorama for 3D art in India.[45] FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review, FunkMonk! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done[edit]

  • What makes Invisible India a high-quality reliable source?
I used it because it is basically a PDF of the official songs book published by Vijaya Vauhini Studios. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN59: why cite YouTube here rather than the actual motion picture?
I found the full video on YouTube. So, i thought it would be the right thing to cite it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For both this and the one above, this is a WP:LINKVIO issue. We should cite the original sources rather than illegitimate copies. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. The content covered by Invisible India can be covered by the film's opening credits. Since you want me to cite the original motion picture, please let me know if this is the right way : Mayabazar (Telugu). (Motion picture) (India: Shalimar Telugu & Hindi Movies). I could find a DVD cover of the black and white version through which i came to know that Shalimar Telugu & Hindi Movies has marketed it. Let me know whether it is the right way to do so. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Formatted ref no. 1 and 58 in the prescribed way. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography should be in alphabetical order
Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting for books should be the same between References and Bibliography - if you're going to include locations for books in the latter, you should in the former as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Included the location in ref. no. 6. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment
* G. Dhananjayan's book The Best of Tamil Cinema, 1931 to 2010 is a WP:MIRROR publication. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then also let me know what i am supposed to do. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try finding alternate sources. —Vensatry (Talk) 09:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As i said before, i cannot remove that source unless its non reliability is proved correctly. However, i've managed to reduce its usage to four instances, by finding support from The Times of India, The Hindu and YouTube. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's not a sufficient response. The article shouldn't be promoted at this state (some portions are cited using this source). —Vensatry (Talk) 12:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please let me know which portions they are? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you're the nominator, can't you find out those? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry, i've removed those four also. Can you revisit the article once? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha[edit]

Resolved comments given by Dharmadhyaksha
* The article has many Indian origin words and then why is "Dvārakā" alone using IAST?
Done Rephrased.
  • Who is "Sangeetha Devi Dundoo"? Is she someone notable who might have her article sometime on WP? If not, remove her name, we don't need to promote her here.
Done
  • "In March 2012, film historian Mohan V. Raman told The Times of India"... so Raman was talking with a newspaper or TOI's office or what? Am not very much familiar with such usage. Maybe native speakers can guide over here.
Raman was talking with a newspaper obviously.
It sounds odd. Maybe use "...stated in an interview with The Times of India..." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Tamil song written by Thamarai and Harris Jayaraj for the film Yennai Arindhaal (2015) was named after Mayabazar" Is this WP:OR as the reference used doesn't say anything such but only says that a song "Mayabazar" is present in the film.
The song was named "Mayabazar". Perhaps the GOCE copy-editors assumed it that way.
  • "The scene in which Krishna reveals his identity to Ghatotkacha at Dwaraka was used in Gopala Gopala (2015), with Pawan Kalyan as Krishna." I can't read the Telugu source, so just out of curiosity; the scene was used as in the whole shot was ditto used with maybe just morphing NTR's face and adding Kalyan's face there? Or was it "recreated" to look like the original one?
Not exactly. Gopala Gopala is the remake of OMG—Oh My God! and i assume you've watched the original. Before the shopkeeper attends the interview, a scene happens between the shopkeeper and Krishna (in human form) in the Telugu version. In the TV, Mayabazar will be screened and Krishna gives this scene as an example of how wise communication is a better choice compared to leading a recluse life.
  • Please use consistent spellings through out the article. I changed for Shakuni and Dushasana. Check others.
I thank you for fixing them. I shall do it soon, if any.
  • "Nageswara Rao's son, actor Akkineni Nagarjuna, said in August 2013 that he hoped the film would be remade for a modern audience" How is this important enough to mention? Are they really remaking it?
Not being remade. I shall remove it.
  • "mentions Mayabazar and its actors and has two pictures from the film". Are they "stills from the film" and not picture?
Done Rephrased.
  • "Mayabazar is the name of a supplement of the Tamil edition of The Hindu." Is this inspired from the film? Nothing present in the reference as such.
I too don't know. My co-nominators have added that information. I can't read Tamil. So i couldn't confirm any.
I too am unsure if the paper was named after the film (after all, there are many other films named Mayabazar, so it could not have been named after the 1957 film). It may be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
If that is the case, i've removed it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..acquired world negative rights to 14 Telugu films produced by Vijaya Vauhini Studios (including Mayabazar) to digitally remaster them in colour." Rephrase it to "...Vijaya Vauhini Studios, including that of Mayabazar, to...." as brackets are unnecessary.
Done Rephrased.
Still present in lead. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Removed it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A team of 165 people worked for eight months; Mohan used 180,000 shades of colour to create a tone similar to human skin, and employed 16.7-million-shade colour technology." This line is sandwitched between sound-related sentences. Relocate it.
Done Moved it to the next paragraph where work on visuals was described.
  • All the critical reception is of current times. Nothing to write about what it was when the film was released?
I feel sad to say this, but absolutely no.
  • Why are the books Bollywood Nation and Transcultural Negotiations of Gender mentioned? Are they notable or are their authors notable or what?
Dr. Blofeld (one of the FAC reviewers) asked me to expand the critical reception section. After removing a sourced alleged to be a case of WP:MIRROR and failing to find eligible content from English, Telugu and Tamil, i found these books. I added the information from them. You can refer to his review above. Having said that, the publishers of these books—Penguin Books India and Springer India are notable enough.
Alright, but can i retain the film reel length?
  • "The film was featured at the 1957 International Film Festival of India and the Indonesian Film Festival." Which; Kannada, Tamil, Telugu? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mayabazar is the spelling, and mostly the Telugu version is referred to using it. I'm not sure that a dubbed version would be screened there. So i want to go with Telugu. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All comments resolved and my Support. One pending point is that the article has no criticism of the time when the film was actually released. Will leave this point on others to decide. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash[edit]

Although I am this article's co-nominator, I cannot let it pass FAC until these comments are resolved:

  • The Best of Tamil Cinema by G. Dhananjayan was removed from this article due to alleged plagiarism by the author from us. However, the Mayabazar chapter is not, and less than 50% of the book is plagiarised. Does that still mean the book can be re-added?
I don't know. Nether WP:TEAHOUSE nor WP:RSN gave a clear picture regarding this.

*Mayabazar: Music from the Motion Picture can be merged with the main article for two reasons: One, to avoid WP:CONTENTFORK, and two, it isn't really that well-developed enough to warrant a separate article. I know someone may object to the soundtrack image being used in the film article, but you can describe the image and its connection to the plot, as Bollyjeff did in Sholay and Mughal-e-Azam. If you don't wish to merge the articles, at least add the fact that "Vivaha Bhojanambu" is based on "The Laughing Policeman", using this source.

Okay, i will merge the articles. But, how can i describe the image and its connection to the plot? It was just a still of Ranga Rao and nothing else, isn't it? I cant merge the articles at this stage. Instead, i have expanded the section, particularly using the source you gave.

* Only the Telugu version's runtime has been mentioned in the article. Please add that for the Tamil version as well, but with a new source.

Done

* In some of the quotes, the actors are referred to by nicknames. I suggest you add their real names in square brackets, next to their quoted names.

Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once they are resolved, this FAC has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New concern: Apart from Dhananjayan, no other source mentions the Tamil version's release date. And The Best of Tamil Cinema is not even a partial rip-off of our work. Vensatry hasn't read it (he has only read Pride, which I accept contains considerable plagiarism), and hence may have misunderstood due to the identical content in the books. Since I have read the book which I bought, I can tell you it is safe to use it here. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kailash, but i want someone else to speak up too! I'm fine with anything that benefits the article. The concerned shall accept to this. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: It's not the problem of book alone, but with the author. It's best to avoid his books at the FAC level. —Vensatry (Talk) 17:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on references – I am not very good at FACs but I find this article quite satisfying. Mayabazar is very well-sourced and good job with archiving the references. I am not very good with prose, so my support is based on references. -- Frankie talk 19:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Just read the article and found nothing wrong with it. Infact, it meets all the criteria. Congratualtions @Pavanjandhyala:.Krish | Talk 17:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I have, at last been able to give this my attention—sorry, Pavanjandhyala, for my delay—and I find it a delightful, accurate film article. Well done, I have no hesitation in recommending it. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Smith 2007, p. 1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/January_2016&oldid=702426148"