Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2014

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 08:49, 30 July 2014 [1].


Ukiyo-e[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukiyo-e was the J-Pop boom of the 19th century. Of course, it was many other things before the West got around to "discovering" it, as you'll see when you read through this artistic genre's 200+ years of history. Thanks in advance to the image reviewer, as there are about sixty images to go through—and I'm wide open to suggestions for replacement or addition. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't need quote-initial or -terminal ellipses
  • FN42, 50, 70, 76, etc: page formatting - check usage of "p." vs "pp."
  • Tuttle Publishing or just Tuttle?
    • Actually, it appears it was Charles E. Tuttle Company until 1996. Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Johnbod
  • Generally excellent, and very welcome. I wish say Indian art had as many strong articles as Japanese. I've commented on it at various times over the years, and during Curly's epic expansion. A few cavils:
  • "the nativist Yamato-e tradition, which focused on Japanese themes painted in soft colours and contours" - the bit I've italicized raised the eyebrows. I don't think it's a very useful way to distinguish Yamato-e from Chinese styles, and often just not true. The colours of very old works have often faded, but that is a different matter. Soft colours and blurred contours are arguably just as characteristic of the Chinese styles, when they use colour at all.
    • Hmmm..."soft colours and contours" wasn't really meant as a contrast with the Chinese styles—rather simply as characteristics of the Yamato-e style—but I guess it comes across that way the way I wrote it. And I guess I failed completely in conveying the diversity of Chinese-inspired styles. Let me think of a rewording. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you think "Chinese-inspired ones of a variety of styles" is sufficient? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's ok, but I really can't see "soft colours and contours" as a useful characterizion of Yamato-e. It often shows selective colouring and views obscured by the mist or revealed by cut-away, but "soft" doesn't work for me. There are often strong colour highlights that Chinese artists would think inharmonious. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I botched summarizing the source: "gorgeous coloring and softness of contour". Would "rich" or "lavish colours" and "soft contours" work? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Makes more sense, though personally I'm still dubious about "soft contours". Just quote it? Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reading around (such as here), it looks like both styles went through more evolution than can really be neatly summed up here. How about: "the nativist Yamato-e tradition, focusing on Japanese themes, best known by the works of the Tosa school; and Chinese-inspired kara-e in a variety of styles, such as the monochromatic ink wash painting of Sesshū Tōyō and his disciples"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until the 16th century, the lives of the common people had not been subject to the painters, and even when they were included,..." and the picture caption "is one of the earliest Japanese paintings to feature the lives of the common people.". In the first the phrasing is odd - was it meant to be "the lives of the common people had not been a subject for painters" which is better, though "a main subject" would be better, as works like the 12th-century Shigisan-engi are famous precisely for showing "the lives of the common people", but serving a Buddhist narrative story. Compared to other major traditions, Japanese painting was rather strong on "the lives of the common people" well before this date, but not as a subject in itself. This distinction should be made.
  • "their improved lot allowed for leisure that many sought in the pleasure districts—in particular Yoshiwara" - needs locating in Edo, which will clarify it is a place not a person.
  • "Moronobu was the first of the book illustrators to achieve such prominence that, by 1672, he could sign his name to his work" - bit oddly phrased. Presumably he did so because it brought marketing advantage, but nothing was stopping any artist from doing so, I'd imagine.
    • I'll have to grab the book from the library, but I think it had something to do with Moronobu's superiors granting him the right to sign his work. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, that would make sense in European terms under the guild system too. Maybe fill it out a bit to avoid the question. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope, I was wrong—it reads: "In 1672, with the publication of The Samurai Hundred-poem Collection (Buke hyakunin isshu), he became the first Edo illustrator to achieve such prominence as to be able to sign his own work." I've reworded. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early ukiyo-e masters" mini-gallery is a mix of paintings & prints. Clarify which is which.
  • I rephrased re Sharaku's identity [2].
    • One thing about this: "artist who worked under the name" could be applied to pretty much every one of the artists, as using an art name was standard, and it was common for artists to change their art names—Hokusai used about a hundred different art names. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later. I can see my main issue is going to be one I think I've raised before - the paucity of information on the social and economic context for the buyers especially. How expensive were they? "prices affordable to prosperous townspeople" are mentioned, but that's pretty vague. How were they collected and displayed? Were they hung up on walls, or kept in albums, or both? Did enthusiasts have huge collections? Was there a critical literature while the tradition existed? Did other artists or critics look down on them? Was there a 2nd-hand trade? Were there collector's marks? Did you make a lot of money as an artist? Were the more erotic subjects regarded as suitable for public/mixed-gender display? Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a bit on this last one, and am hunting down some more. As for the "critical literature", that's a definite no—there was almost no literature at all, and what there was came late—the most significant being the Ukiyo-e Ruikō collection of artist histories, which first appeared in 1790 and was never printed under the modern era, copied by hand and modified extensively copy to copy. It has never be translated into English, but it gets mentioned here and there. I'll find a good source on it and add something. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've dealt with the "critical literature", pricing, and acceptability of shunga issues. I'm still hunting down collecting habits and incomes; I've found a source that emphasizes the changing economic conditions throughout the era had an effect on the ways ukiyo-e were produced, but it's not very specific, so I'm going to keep hunting for more on that. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I see what you mean. On a quick prowl through JSTOR there is a ton on early Western collectors, but little on Japanese ones. Can you see "Hokusai's Illustrations for the "100 Poems"", Roger Keyes and Hokusai, Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies, Vol. 10, The Art Institute of Chicago Centennial Lectures (1983), pp. 310-329, Published by: The Art Institute of Chicago, Article DOI: 10.2307/4104343, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4104343. First few pages cover the economic crisis of the 1830s which I've read about elsewhere, and probably deserves mention. Also: "The Prints of Isoda Koryūsai: Floating World Culture and Its Consumers in Eighteenth-Century Japan" by Allen Hockley, Review by: Christine M. E. Guth, Artibus Asiae, Vol. 64, No. 1 (2004), pp. 125-127, Published by: Artibus Asiae Publishers, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250160 - suggests that would be a good book on this. supposedly there is "a revolution in ukiyo-e studies" going on (or was in 2004), bringing this stuff more to the fore. Also: "The Commercial and Cultural Climate of Japanese Printmaking" by Amy Reigle Newland, Review by: Lawrence E. Marceau, Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer, 2006), pp. 494-498, Published by: The Society for Japanese Studies, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25064670 - conference papers. This suggests the key books then were Chibbett 1997 The history of Japanese printing and book illustration (Kodansha) and Hillier 1987 "The Art of the Japanese book" (Sotheby's). I can supply PDF's if needed. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually added Hockley's book just today. I don't currently have JSTOR access---I'd love to get any of those PDFs. There definitely seems to be a lot more activity in ukiyo-e scholarship in the last decade, but I haven't come across anything summing it up and contextualizing it. Most of it seems too domain-specific for the general ukiyo-e article (like, say, a book analyzing Harunobu's mitate-e that I was browsing through at the library the other day---and lots of stuff on shunga, shunga, shunga). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do believe I've showed you WP:RX before, right? And yes, a TFA on shunga would be... interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and I've actually made quite a bit if use of it. The problem sometimes is not knowing there's something you need if you can't browse through the content. Hopefully I'll be one of those who's granted a JSTOR account so I can browse more freely. A shunga article would be something I could handle (a shelffull of sources at the library), but I do must of my editing where that would be awkward...
I've found an interesting book, but a couple of key pages are inaccessible. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read about pricing, the more I feel like I want to rip out what I've already added. I'm reading Ukiyo-e by Jun'ichi Ôkubo (2008) at the moment, and he has a short section that looks at prices. It appears that "typical" prices varied quite widely, and it doesn't appear the supposedly "typical" 20 mon of the early 19th centruy was really all that typical. The records are so scanty, it seems, that analyzing them seems to be as much speculation as anything. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I think I've dealt with most of your concerns in one way or another. I guess the biggest gap is in how they were collected, and how much artists made. For incomes, I've come across a few tidbits about Hokusai (always broke), Hiroshige (always struggled, but made more than he would've as a firefighter), and Kunichika (apparently made 100 sen for a particular triptych in the 1870s), but I'm turning up blanks for anything general enough to work into the article ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just ran across a book—Ukiyo-e Shuppan-ron by Ôkubo Jun'ichi—that deals with the production and comerical aspects of ukiyo-e, and it was published in 2013. It looks like it spends a lot of time examing in detail what little hard evidence there is, and still looks like it doesn't have hard answers to a lot of these questions, but I've found a couple of things in it that could be used to refine what's in the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for acting promptly. I won't be able to work through these, and check the rest of the article, until the w/e I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More from Johnbod

  • "such printing was reserved for Buddhist seals and images..." seals? maybe. But also texts and prayers, no?
    • I'm not sure. The wording doesn't seem to exclude them, but it doesn't mention them either. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The landscape genre has come to define ukiyo-e for Western audiences,..." a bit overstated imo. The most famous single series are landscapes, but portraits are well enough known too, I'd have thought.
    • Maybe "define" is too strong, but it is true that many can name no more than Hokusai and Hiroshige. I read an Amazon review recently of someone who gave a one-star review to a book on ukiyo-e history because he was disappointed that the landscapes were relegated to the back of the book (!). Even amongst the foreigners I run into in Japan, it's common for them to define "ukiyo-e" as "Japanese landscape prints"---this is despite the porminent Sharakus that constantly confront them on billboards---many of them aren't aware the Shakarus are also ukiyo-e. I have to admit, once upon a time I was one of those people ... do you think "The landscape genre has come to dominate Western perspecitves of ukiyo-e" is still too strong? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be fair to say. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested in the development of the (very un-Chinese I think) "large-headed" close-up approach to portaiture, its similarities to Western portraits in terms of pure scale, but its difference in terms of the strong gender contrast: highly expressive, contorted male faces, but female faces with any expression having to be read into an essentially blank composure, and women often seen from behind. Anything in the sources?
    • It sure sounds like something that would have been written about, but Google's not being my friend today ... I'll keep looking. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style section should mention the continuation of yamato-e traditions of composition and viewpoints - non-centralized compositions, oblique, high, views of the scene, elements cut-off by the frame, things seen in secondary spaces at the back of the composition, that sort of thing. That was a large part of what excited the West.
    • Do you have anything on this? Really it's the only point delaying a support, but I think it should be in. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry I've been so quiet. I actually have been busy hunting some of these things down, and I have added [3], but I've been having trouble finding a source on the first bit. I can find sources that say they're features of Yamato-e, and I can find sources saying that ukiyo-e inherited a lot from Yamato-e, but I can't find a source that says explicitly that those specific aspects were inherited from Yamato-e. It would technically be WP:SYNTHESIS if the sources didn't back it up. You wouldn't happen to know such a source, would you? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm afraid not. Paine, Robert Treat, in: Paine, R. T. & Soper A, "The Art and Architecture of Japan", Pelican History of Art, 3rd ed 1981, Penguin (now Yale History of Art), ISBN 0140561080 mentions the interest in everyday life as connecting Yamato-e and Ukiyo-e, but not these stylistic points. Ok, let's draw a line.
  • "the woodcarvers, who prepared the woodblocks for printing.... " You might mention/link to Formschneider, the Western equivalent.
  • Caption: "A colour print of a group of well-dressed Japanese women making prints|A mid-19th-century print by Kunisada depicting the woodblock printing process. An ..." "alt" lost?

That's it - thanks for the work since the first part of the review. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments dealt with. a fine piece of work. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! If you ever do happen to come across something, please drop me a note. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you might add Les Nabis as another group of Post Impressionists influenced by Ukiyo-e; although you do mention Bonnard and Vuillard...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it to mention they were members of the group. Thanks! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Toshusai_Sharaku-_Otani_Oniji,_1794.jpg: source link does not appear to be working
    • Fixed. The museum has removed the ".htm" from all their URLs. I imagine this will have broken a lot of links. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Moronobu_b-w_shunga.jpg needs US PD tag. Same with File:KIYONOBU-Yamanaka-Ichikawa-1714.jpg, File:ToyokuniActor.jpg, File:Yamamoto_1904.jpg, File:Kawase_Zôjôji.jpg, File:'Lyric_No._23'_by_Onchi_Koshiro,_Honolulu_Museum_of_Art.JPG, File:Suzuki_Harunobu_-_Woman_Visiting_the_Shrine_in_the_Night_-_Google_Art_Project_crop.jpg, File:Ernest_Fenollosa.jpg
  • File:Kaigetsudo_Bijin-attendant-1710.jpg: more specific source?
  • File:Nishikawa_Sukenobu,_1739,_Ehon_Asakayama,16_gris.jpg: description is correct but the rest of the information template is incorrect. Same with File:Couple_in_a_Snowstorm,_Suzuki_Harunobu,_c._1768_-_Hood_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC09257.JPG (here licensing tag is incorrect also)
  • File:Kunisada_futamigaura.jpg: what is the original source?
  • File:Ukiyo-e_dsc04680.jpg: does the uploader hold copyright to the carving too, or just the photo? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Fair few dup links but most are in the galleries and the others may be justified by the length of the article; you may want to review with the checker but I won't hold up promotion for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2014 (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 10:04, 30 July 2014 [4].

Subway Sadie[edit]

Nominator(s): Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a lost film from 1926 about a subway guard and a fur salesgirl. I've exhausted all usable sources to create a comprehensive article and the prose has been buffed up since the GA nomination passed. It's not the longest article, but I think it meets the criteria regardless. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review (complete)
  • File:Subway Sadie poster.jpg - I'd say there's a 99% chance that this is PD (most studios didn't start regularly putting copyright notices on their posters until the 1930s). Do you have access to a higher resolution scan for us to check?
  • Here's a slightly higher one. All text seems legible, doesn't look like there's a copyright notice. I'm not a copyright wizard; would this make it PD?
  • The copyright text is usually very small, so I would say not yet. We'd have to hunt down if there were any renewals 28 years after publication. My internet is fritzing out on me, so I can't check it right now. We hope is usually pretty good with this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492 and Taylor Trescott--didn't find a larger one. Sadie was renewed; I agree that the poster probably has no copyright marks on it, but how about a compromise--changing this for a nice, big lobby card with no copyright marks? If you guys give me a few minutes, I think I can also get some more photos of the folks in the film and a photo of a theater marquee showing the film through Lantern. We hope (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lobby card looks free. We should be using that then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me a minute to get it to Commons.:) We hope (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. I'm uploading a higher resolution of the MacKaill image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK--File:Subway Sadie lobby card 1926.jpg here it is. Did either of you see these photos in Motion Picture News for 1926? We hope (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I've been limiting myself to images used in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • Here is an alternate one. I reuploaded it using this source because the blue tint was unsightly and it was a larger resolution.
  • Better, but this has a copyright tag (title page). Was this renewed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK-Stars of the Photoplay was not renewed. I checked books and periodicals for 1951 and 1952. The only renewals for Photoplay were in 1951-for a couple of stories in back issues. We hope (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Subway Sadie promo still.png - Why, exactly, is this PD? Was there no copyright notice on the back? How can you confirm that when the back wasn't included in the ebay ad? Yes, most promotional stills were not copyrighted, but Wikipedia has required actual proof (i.e. the backs) for several years now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swapped out for a new still which I can confirm is PD.
  • File:Subway Sadie film still Picture-Play.png needs categories, and the date should be fixed (speaking of that, make sure all of the dates are the correct ones for your other files). For display on Wikipedia, a jpg format is best (the software sharpens the thumbnails, making them clearer), but I can do that myself if you are pressed for time. But a bigger problem: there is a clear copyright notice on the bottom of the table of contents (here). Do you have proof this wasn't renewed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for doing this Crisco. I'm a bit hurried for time, but I think I addressed these properly. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prose comments
Al Rockett - Per WP:REDLINK, biographies should generally not be redlinked
Couldn't find a redlink for Rockett. There was one for Hugh Bennett and I took it out. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard Randall portraying Brown - who's Brown?
IDK. The sources with a plot don't give the names of any of the other characters. Want me to nuke it? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
running for 70 minutes. - at how many FPS? If I remember correctly, silent films could be shown at several speeds. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With 35mm film, 1 minute is usually projected with 90 feet being one minute. Changed to "around 70 minutes". Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and images. Good work on another lost film article! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN8: title formatting, page number?
  • FN2, 20: article title? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for the help. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For such a short article, the prose had several grammar mistakes and redundant phrases. I'd like to run through and copyedit the article tomorrow, and perhaps leave some nitpicks for you to fix on your own. ceranthor 15:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. It is appreciated. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Ceranthor:

Lead
  • The silent film began production shortly after May 1926. - Why "after May"? Does that just mean June?
You are right. I originally did not have the source that specified it started May 3. Changed.
Plot
  • I noticed you forgot to mention a fact mentioned here, that after Sadie decides to marry him, "Herb reveals that his father is president of the subway company".
Done.
Image captions
  • A scene from the film, featuring Mulhall and Mackaill. Their successful pairing in Subway Sadie led to them appearing in many further films. - I think several other films would be better than "many further", unless there are other films not listed in the article.
Done.
Release and reception
  • The Morning Telegraph' review - Unfamiliar with this punctuation... could you explain?
It's just a mistake. Fixed
  • The Morning Telegraph' review said that Subway Sadie would "delight the majority of straphangers" and that "it is what the boys call excellent box-office". - this sentence needs a citation?
  • The New York American review was similarly positive, describing it as "a light but charming comedy". - Citation?
Those two are both cited to ref #20
  • In June 1927, a Southeast Missourian journalist wrote that the film had since become "very successful".[23] - Any explanation of what this vague statement means?
It's supposed to imply the film was considered a success after its release. I could take it out it you want.
Since the source is so vague, it seems fine as is. Don't worry about it.

In general, it's fairly well-written, but there's a lot of passive voice. ceranthor 21:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and copyedits. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taylor. I've made a list of most of the sentences with passive voice here. For such a short article, I feel like we can collaborate to get rid of some of the passive voice in this article. Feel free to run your ideas by me, and I'll run through the article and try to help, too. ceranthor 21:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: I took a stab at eliminating some of the passive voice. How'd I do? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied! :) ceranthor 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Prose now looks good, and references seem to check out. ceranthor 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help! Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a silent film shot in black-and-white - this line sorta just sits there and doesn't segue onto the previous...but I can't think of an alternative place to put it. sentence is a bit short and abrupt.

The rest of it reads fine - it appears comprehensive...will read again and muse on this line..otherwise on track for passing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I merged that line with the Edeson one. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, well done. I was staring at it for a bit and unsure, but that works fine...ergo, support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:28, 21 July 2014 (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 10:31, 30 July 2014 [5].


Hurricane Iris[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a powerful hurricane in October 2001 that was one of the worst on record in Belize. However, it was pretty small, so the damage was pretty localized. I believe this article is the best compilation of sources on the storm on the internet, and it passes all FA criteria. Hope you enjoy reading! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dank, I forgot to show my appreciation earlier! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image and Source Review all images are validly in public domain sourced from United States government agencies. A source check of five citations indicates no close paraphrasing concerns and states the information cited. Secret account 01:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well done hurricane article Secret account 01:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support excellent article. My only suggestion is that, in the see also section, the description for the Belize hurricane is a tad repetitive of the article title (and maybe is not necessary). Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 02:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made minor edits to the references. There was inconsistency with middle initials of the NHC authors. Other than that, I had no issue with the article.--12george1 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment: the caption for the track map mentions colored points, but does not indicate what each color means. (Yes, I know that it uses the SSHWS color scheme, but most readers don't know that, and MediaViewer hides the {{Saffir-Simpson small}} template transcluded in the File page. Please change the caption so that it indicates what each color means somehow. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's OK, I brought this up on the project talk page, as this would affect every article in the project. I hope that the discussion will be resolved shortly, however :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the results of the linked discussion, I've gone ahead and implemented the change on {{storm path}}. That addresses all of my concerns, so switching to support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The topic of the order of units used has been brought up elsewhere, and since this is a candidate that is impacted, I thought I should draw some comment from those watching this FAC. The WP:MOSNUM#Units of measurement guideline says that for scientific articles, the main units chosen will be SI (with conversions in parenthesis) - km or km/h should come before m or mph. The MOS says that for non-scientific articles related to the US, you can use customary units first, but this seems to be about Belize. So my question to the nominator/voters: is this a scientific article or a non-scientific article related to the US? -- Netoholic @ 00:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an interesting question. Normally I'd say it might better be pursued outside the FAC process but OTOH we might be able to knock it on the head quite quickly here. The nominator is using the same standard as in the related Hurricane Hattie, which was promoted to FA not too long ago. I notice he also applied local unit preferences to Cyclone Joy, employing metric first, which is the standard in Australia. That still leaves the question of whether a storm article should be considered 'scientific' or not, and whether an article on a storm that primarily affected Belize (a former British colony) should give primacy to metric or imperial measurements. I gathered that although otherwise metric, the British standard for speeds and distances is still imperial, in which case the standard applied here would make sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the thoughts Ian Rose. I don't believe a storm article should be scientific. Years ago, we decided not to use knots, meters per second, or nautical miles, which are the preferred units for scientific articles. We try and make them for the layperson to be able to read it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is a non-scientific article, then SI should still be used unless the article is about the U.S. or UK. So then, why does this article use mph primary? -- Netoholic @ 19:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Belize uses Miles per hour. It's a former UK territory. However, by standard, every Atlantic hurricane article uses mph, which is how we've been doing it for 11 years. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • So are you saying that WP:MOSNUM#Units of measurement is incorrect or incomplete? Right now, only US and UK non-scientific articles are listed as exceptions to the general rule that SI measurements are primary. There is no mention of former territories being exceptions, and I think that is hardly true because many former territories are fully metric. Lastly, "this is how we've always done it" has no bearing on this review of this particular article. If no one has caught on to this particular inconsistency with regards to the MOS before, it is not a free pass to continue to be inconsistent. -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then the MoS is what should be changed, not hundreds of articles. Dustin (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • How many thousands of non-hurricane articles would have to be changed if the MOS is changed? -- Netoholic @ 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Netoholic: I am not suggesting changing the non-hurricane articles. This change should make an allowance for hurricane articles in these circumstances. That was implied. Dustin (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm not sure anyone has presented good reasoning as to why hurricane articles are non-scientific (when they clearly use very rigidly scientific sources) and what circumstance merits them being an exception within the MOS. Metrication#Exceptions doesn't mention anything about weather data being an exception in any country, and the only exception Belize is mentioned for is it uses US gallons. -- Netoholic @ 23:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If a policy or guideline gets in editors' ways when maintaining Wikipedia, ignore all rules. Do you honestly think it is worth the trouble of changing hundreds or thousands of articles just because of one unimportant rule? Dustin (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We're talking about whether this Featured Article Candidate is complying with important MOS standards. -- Netoholic @ 23:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                          • And you are advocating that we change hundreds to thousands of articles to use km first just "because the MoS says they should". I doubt you'll get much if any support for that from members of the relevant WikiProject. Dustin (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I would say to that: only the articles seeking FA status or that come up for FA review would need to specifically be updated. I am sure the rest will follow in time as word of the applicability of WP:MOSNUM#Units of measurement spreads around the project. It is only you that is suggesting that "hundreds to thousands of articles" need to be updated immediately. -- Netoholic @ 00:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the argument that it's better to leave things as they are because 'we've always done it that way' or because 'changing it would affect too many other articles' doesn't give us an excuse to keep doing the wrong thing. Where we don't have consensus on exactly what the right thing is, however, precedent gives us something to follow. Whether storm articles should be treated as principally scientific or not isn't something to be decided in this FAC, and given that uncertainty I don't think the case is made that this article goes against MOS, since the primary unit employed seems appropriate in relation to a former British colony and, as I understand it from previous discussions in such articles, in relation to Atlantic storms. I'm therefore going to close this review to promote the article, thank everyone for their participation, and suggest that any further discussion take place at the storms project and/or MOS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2014 (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 GrahamColm 09:44, 27 July 2014 [6].


HMS Indefatigable (R10)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft carrier Indefatigable was one of the last pair of six armoured carriers built by the Royal Navy during World War II. These two ships had their design modified by the Royal Navy to carry more aircraft at the expense of reduced armour. She was not completed until 1944 and her aircraft attacked the German battleship Tirpitz several times before she was transferred to the Pacific to support the American invasion of Okinawa and attack targets in the Japanese Home Islands in 1945. After the war she helped to repatriate troops and ex-PoWs home before she was placed in reserve. The ship was recommissioned in 1950 to serve as a training carrier for the Home Fleet until she was again reduced to reserve in the mid-1950s and sold for scrap. The article passed a thorough MilHist A-class review last month and should be in pretty good shape. I believe that everything is in BritEng and trust that reviewers will spot any remaining examples of AmEng as well as any infelicitous prose so that I can fix them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several of the references' pages overlap or could be combined. See for instance refs 19 & 21, 37 & 41, 47 & 48 & 49 among others. Perhaps it would also be best to merge footnotes such as 44 to something like Hobbs 2011, pp. 261-67 as the page range is still relatively small. There is also some inconsistency in the years in the footnotes: you have the style Sturtivant (1984), yet you also have the style Hobbs 2013. More consistency here is needed generally. But on the positive side the article seems to be well written and comprehensive at first glance, but unfortunately I don't have time for a full length review. JZCL 17:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for noting the problem with inconsistent usage of the parentheses. I can't combine the cites as you'd like as they're either in separate paragraphs or have information from a different source separating them. If you get more time, feel free to come back and look it over more thoroughly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean - as an example I have combined refs 47 and 48 because they literally overlapped. It's perfectly acceptable to have the same reference in separate paragraphs, so I don't quite understand what you're saying. JZCL 13:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I've undone it because the first paragraph didn't contain any material from McCart after p. 157. I see no virtue in excessively consolidating cites. That's certainly not how it's done in academia.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:HMS_Indefatigable_(R10).jpg: source link returned error
    • Fixed.
  • File:Indefatigable-_Turnbull_lib_1_4-020662-F.jpg: what was creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments looks like another fine effort.
Lede
  • "joining the American forces" I would strike "the" as surplus
Body
  • It is a bit ambiguous as to which class was part of the 1938 Programme. It may be worth mentioning that the 1938 Programme was part of the rearmament programme to meet the international situation under the Chamberlain government.
  • I would reverse the order of the two clauses in this sentence, "To remain ..."
  • "By the end of the war" I would add "in September 1945" (or whatever date you prefer)
  • "based on the radars fitted aboard the Illustrious-class carrier Victorious late in the war." this is ambiguous. Do you mean the radars were based on those you mention, or do you mean the fact that Victorious was fitted with these means that this ship was also likely fitted with the same radars?
  • "were either 1.5 inches (38 mm) or 2 inches (51 mm)." another ambiguity. Do you mean it was one or the other, or that it ranged between the two of them, depending on where on the vessel?
  • "King George VI inspected the ship, and the ground crews embarked for 820, 887, 894 and 1770 Squadrons" ambiguous. Does it mean the King inspected the ground crews, or that the ground crews embarked, or some combination?
  • "The Seafires claimed to have shot down four of the Zeros but probably shot down four," I don't quite see the discrepancy.
  • "She departed three days later for Manus en route to Sydney. The ship arrived there" Manus or Sydney?
  • "22 August to prepare for sea. The ship arrived at Devonport to begin the necessary modifications on 30 July" I think this is out of chronological order, so a "had arrived" may be more appropriate as a verb.
  • "The Admiralty announced on 26 January 1954 that Indefatigable and her sister" the last four words could probably be summarised as "both ships"
  • "This had no short-term impact on her activities" you are describing the actions of both ships, it's a bit odd to mention only the one for this one sentences. If the sister ship also kept going in the short term, suggest "This had no immediate effect on their activities"Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that I've addressed all of these. See if they clarify the issues that you raised. Many thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The specifics of the Implacable-class ships' radar suite are not fully known. I would add a specific citation for this fact if you think its important; considering the specifics in the article you probably could delete it.
  • The specifics are probably in the archives somewhere, but they're not available in any published source that I have available. I have detailed data only for a few of the systems that they mounted and I don't want readers to think that the others that I name there are confirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pennant number is cited as 10 vs. R10 in the article name. I would think the latter would be preferred since that's how some other British carriers are named - either way, it should be consistent, right now R10 isn't cited. Kirk (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source that I have gives postwar pennant numbers so I can't cite it. I do cite its wartime pennant number which was simply "10". I'd prefer to delete the pennant number entirely from the article name and use launch year as most ship articles, but I gather that there was some sort of movement to use pennant numbers, no matter how confusing, instead of launch years for British ships that had them some years back and I'd need to establish a new consensus to do so, which isn't imminent. Thanks for your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha, but it reads like one of the citations says it, I meant to cite that fact specifically. I guess your opinion is ok, maybe someone else has a suggestion. The use of pennant number in the article title is unusual and was personally confusing - it took me a while to figure out what 'R' was. I agree replacing pennant with year is more of a project question than a FA one. Kirk (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Recusing myself from coordinator duties here to comment, as I have a FAC open myself right now. I reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist ACR and have gone over the changes since I last looked at the article. Tweaked a couple of things this time round and have the following queries:

  • "Based on the radars fitted aboard the Illustrious-class carrier Victorious late in the war, the ships probably carried Type 279 and Type 281B early-warning radars." -- Sturm, is this your own observation based on lack of cited specifics about this class and knowledge of specifics of other classes, or has one or more of your sources explicitly stated that they don't know but suspect this was the case?
    • Nobody actually discusses the full radar suite of this ship; only a few systems are specifically mentioned in various sources. The comparison with Victorious is my own since she's about the only one of the six armoured carriers for whom I can find a full listing as for the time when Indefatigable was completed. Hence the "probably". This may be borderline OR, but I don't want readers to think that the listed systems were the only ones she had.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not easy, is it? I guess even saying the radar systems are not fully known (or "available") could be considered borderline OR, since in WP terms, how can you be certain all the data isn't available unless an RS says it isn't...? ;-) Well, I can wear that, but I wonder if we might be able to drop the "probably" and recast the Victorious comparison... Something like "Victorious, one of the Illustrious-class ships upon which Indefatigable's design was based, also carried carried Type 279 and Type 281B early-warning radars"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That will do, although the information is probably available in the National Archives, but not published anywhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sources disagree about the thickness of this armour. Historians David K. Brown, H. T. Lenton, and Norman Friedman believe that it was probably only 1.5 inches thick, but many other sources give 2 inches." You cite three sources for the first contention and three for the second, so I'm not sure if the second constitutes "many other sources" or simply "other sources"...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dropped the many, although I could probably find more sources that say they had 2 inches rather than 1.5, but I don't really think that it's worth the effort to do so. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • FTR, as well as looking at prose, detail, structure and image licensing at MilHist ACR, I gave the citations/sources a scan for formatting/reliability and I don't think there's been significant change there so happy to offer support for FA -- that said, a thorough source review by Brian or Nikki may reveal things I missed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Brown cites are sometimes disambiguated by date and sometimes by name - suggest using date consistently
  • Fn47: which Hobbs?
  • Brown 2006 needs endash in title
  • Be consistent in how editions are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment File:Indefatigable- Turnbull lib 1 4-020662-F.jpg is the only high-resolution photograph of the ship in the article, but it's also one of the last ones in it. Perhaps it and the current lead image should be swapped? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If at all possible, I try and use an aerial photo in the infobox as it's generally the best way to present the "look" of the ship to a general reader. The rest of the photos I try to order chronologically. I generally don't pay much attention to image size, but focus more on interesting views that show the ship at various dates. Thanks for allowing me to explain my reasoning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good answer, thanks! Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora

The article refers to the vessel as "she" 48 times. A search for "her" (with a leading space) brings up 36 hits.

Step by step.

1. The vessel was named HMS Indefatigable and part of the Royal Navy. Should it be obvious that you're referring to the British Royal Navy?
Common usage in English is that the (British) Royal Navy is the only one that isn't preceded by an adjective. All others have some variation of His Norwegian/Swedish (etc.) Majesty's Ship. That's actually made it into NATO regulations even though their own prefix for their ship doesn't specify nationality.
2. Lede; paragrpah 2. RE: "Indefatigable ... ferried troops .. before she was reduced to reserve". Why not try "before being reduced to reserve"? What do you think? I mean, military historians probably won't care at all about the "she / her" repetition, but are such people your core audience? I think the average reader may prefer a bit of variety in terms of prose.
I try to use her name, the ship, and she/her in rotation to mix things up a bit. I'm leaning more towards she/her nowadays after some criticism I received on an earlier article. At this point I don't really think that I can satisfy everyone about the "proper" proportions and just try avoid monotony by my definitions. In the example that you queried above, I wouldn't phrase it like you suggested because you're weakening the statement by rewording it in passive voice. I think it's a good rule to avoid nominalizations and the resulting passive voice as much as possible and stick to direct verbs as much as possible.
3. Design and Description. RE: "The Implacable class were ordered ...". Is "class" singular or plural?
That's a difference between Brit and AmEnglish. The Brits would say that it should be "were" because it's a collective noun and the Americans would say that the Brits were high and that it's singular. Being an article about a British ship, they win.
4. RE: "The design originated ... and was intended to be 2 knots .. and to carry". Your second use of "to" is redundant.
OK.
5. RE: "The turbines were designed to produce a total of 148,000 shp (110,000 kW), enough to give them a maximum speed of 32.5 knots". Shouldn't this be "enough to provide a maximum speed" or "enough to give Indefatigable a maximum speed"?
Good catch on the uncertain antecedent.
6. RE: "Both hangars had a height of only 14 feet". Why "only". If 14 feet was unusually low, why not say so (and provide comparisons). Would "Each hangar" sound better than "Both hangars"?
Each is probably better because I'd been using both quite a bit in the previous sentences. The hangar height issue explained by the fact that they couldn't stow American fighters the lack of height.
7. RE: "The specifics of the Implacable-class ships' radar suite are not readily available". This doesn't appear to be sourced.
The multiple sources given at the end of the para cover the entire para.
8. Construction and Career. RE: "The ship was commissioned on 8 December 1943". In the lede, you say she was commissioned in 1944.
Good catch.
9. Indian Ocean and Pacific operations. RE: "The ship underwent a brief refit at her builder's yard between 28 September and 8 November". Could you not change "at her builder's yard" to "at Clydebank"? If nothing else, you get to lose another instance of "her".
There were more than one shipbuilder in Clydebank.
10. RE: "The BPF arrived in Sydney on 10 February; the crews received some leave and the ships got some maintenance before they sailed for the BPF's advance base at Manus Island". Your (repeated) use of the word "some" is vague.
Deleted the use first use of "some".
11. RE: "The first airstrike was tasked to attack .. but was forced to divert to their secondary target". The words "was" and "their" don't tally. One is singular, the other is plural.
Tripped up by that pesky difference in referring to collective nouns.
12. Post-war service. RE: "Indefatigable was sold for scrap in September 1956". What was her scrap value?
Not given in any source available to me. Thanks for looking this over so thoroughly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's an interesting article. It's very detailed, too. Why don't you provide links to your sources on Google Books?

Singora (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Singora

All my issues / questions have now been addressed. Good luck!

Singora (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2014 (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 (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2014 (diff).

Horatio Bottomley[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horatio Bottomley was one of those public figures whose private activities beggar belief. Behind the mask of the bluff, honest man of the people, the crusading journalist, the fiercely independent parliamentarian was a preternatural swindler who blithely appropriated to himself hundreds of thousands of pounds of other people's money, over many decades, repeatedly demolishing the forces of law that tried to bring him to book. He gained such a hold on public opinion during the First World War that many expected him to join the government, and the writer D.H. Lawrence thought he would become prime minister. He lost everything in the end, went to prison and died in poverty, but for a while was one of the most popular and admired men in Britain. Thanks are due to the faithful peer reviewers, and to Bencherlite for providing free legal expertise. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers, and my few quibbles were dealt with there. This article meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment. I think BB's morbid addiction to scandals calls for counselling, but nonetheless this is a brilliant piece of work, comprehensive, well sourced, fair and mightily entertaining. – Tim riley talk 21:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Also one of the peer reviewers, generally agree, counseling unnecessary where alcohol will serve, ditto, ditto.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A third peer reviewer, and a third happy punter from that process, where my small points were adequately covered. A very entertaining read, and happy to regard this as FA-worthy. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a fascinating article, I'm glad I read it. But I do have some minor concerns with language that I don't think translates well. For instance, "trenchant populist views" appears to mean "insightful", which I think makes more sense on both sides of the pond. Is it OK if I go in and make minor GR edits like these? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a bit chary of that. "Trenchant populist views" doesn't mean "insightful", but is a sober, Wikipedian way of saying that he was a tub-thumping would-be demagogue. Tim riley talk 18:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Trenchant" can mean "incisive" rather than "insightful". In this context it stands for "vigorously expressed", which I think is the more generally understood meaning. Thanks, Tim, for your demotic translation. To Maury: thanks for your interest. However, I'd be pleased if you raised your suggestions here rather than just going ahead, to avoid possible later argument.Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The Little Phoebe of the peer reviewers, I too am fully satisfied with this article's quality. This is a thorough, concise, and extremely well written piece of work and one I happily support to FA status. Cassiantotalk 20:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of the above for these kind comments, supports, offers of counselling and alcohol. All gratefully accepted. Would someone please explaine the Phoebe reference? Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmph! See here for Phoebe. Something may have to be done. Tim riley talk 15:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was something to do with Friends (or The Yeomen of the Guard) Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. What a beautifully crafted piece. Found nothing with which to quibble. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most grateful for your kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nikki, if you could undertake the source review as well when ready, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some short cites with dates have parentheses, others don't - be consistent
  • FN82: spelling doesn't match other refs to that work
  • Moner or Monger?
  • FN143: which Searle? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All these fixes made. Thanks, Nikki, for the two reviews Brianboulton (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2014 (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 (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2014 (diff).

Lewis and Clark Exposition dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a fairly obscure gold commemorative, the only "two-headed" US coin, and about the preparation for which not much is known, due to lack of surviving records. Still, it's an interesting tale, featuring Farran Zerbe, numismatic promoter, who's mostly remembered positively these days but who was controversial in his timeWehwalt (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox are unsourced
  • There are a number of HarvErrors that need correcting
  • FN7 title needs endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments:

  • The article is still listed at GAN. I thought that concurrent GAN and FAC was disallowed?
  • I think, just "President Thomas Jefferson" rather than "American President..."
  • Do we know William Clark's military rank?
  • "a fair to be held in Portland, located along the party's route." Not clear if it's the fair or Portland that's on the route; a little rewording would clarify.
  • There are issues arising from image overcrowding. For example, the Zerbe portrait, supposedly placed in the "Inception" section, appears in my display under the "Design" heading, with the top of the photo extending across the wording. I don't know how this can be fixed other than by reducing the number of images, though possibly some repositioning could sort it out? However, there's not a lot of text to play with.
  • "Numismatic references that discuss the matter..." – we usually identify our sources; any reason for this form?
  • Production: this sentence had me muddled: "The Mint struck 35,000 plus assay pieces in March and June in anticipation of further orders, doing so as the Philadelphia Mint shut down in the summer in that era before air conditioning, but as none were forthcoming, the additional 25,000 were melted". I can follow what happened, but bthe detil about the lack of air-conditioning (or "air cooling" as it was known then) is a bit distractinng and, I think, unnecessary. Recommend delete all between "doing so" and "air conditioning".
  • We are told, later, that 40,003 were melted. The extra 15,000 melts are not identified until the next section, but here I'd say something like: "of which a total of 40,003 were melted".
  • "The 1905 long traded for less..." Wording could do with clarification, e.g. "The 1905 coin traded for many years for less..."

The image overcrowding is likely to be the only significant issue – the others are easily dealt with. Welcome back, Messrs Zerbe and Meeker (he crops up everywhere). Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meeker appears by author's privilege, I am afraid! I tried for an image of him there but my expert didn't have anything useful. Just as well. I've made the recommended changes and withdrawn the GAN (I thought it had passed). Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The images are better deployed; that of Sacajawea seems only marginally relevant and could be dropped without detriment. Otherwise, all well. Brianboulton (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the support. I will think over the image, but that is where the money went, what there was of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose it. Lewis and Clark, Lewis and Clark. The reader will expect to see Lewis first.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it is what the profits (if any) from the coin went towards, I'd like to keep it. The rest, I've followed your recommendations, except as noted above. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • explorers's or explorers'?
  • Any way to avoid that white space in #Production?
None that I see. Feel free to play with it if you are inclined.
Note deleted, and I've rephrased around the explorers's. The article simply doesn't have a lot of vertical space, and Zerbe needs to be where we talk about him, more or less. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and images. Another great coin article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Details of the preparation of the commemorative dollar are lost: the Mint destroyed many records in the 1960s. This reads awkwardly; is there any reason for the colon? I'd drop that and just use a conjunction to link the two parts together.
  • Why the empty Notes section?
  • Does Flynn have an ISBN or OCLC number rather than an ASIN?
  • Add |lastauthoramp=1 to the bibliography templates for your multi-author works to get them to match the format used in your citations.
  • Otherwise up to your usual standard of excellence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2014 (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 20:45, 25 July 2014 [7].

Red Skelton[edit]

Nominator(s): We hope (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the well-known American comic Red Skelton. Skelton's 70 year career in entertainment included vaudeville, films, radio and a weekly television show that aired for 20 years. He was also a well-known artist specializing in portraits of clowns. While he had done artwork as a hobby for many years, his professional life as an artist began with the first public showing of his work in 1964. Skelton is said to have earned more money through his artwork than from his long-lived television program.

The article has been through peer review, and I'd like to thank those who got it to this point once more- Crisco 1492 , Cassianto, Tim riley, SchroCat, and Mlpearc for their time and effort with this article. We hope (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose. I've nitpicked this to bits on two or three occasions already, and it looks better than ever. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I was another happy punter at PR: nicely put together, well-referenced and easy to read. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Incredibly high quality, quite well sourced throughout in a meticulous fashion, great example of comedy for our readers and editors, alike. — Cirt (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After some light copy edits and a review at peer review, I am more than happy to support this articles promotion to FA status. Cassiantotalk 18:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say thanks to all who have commented thus far for their support and kind words. We hope (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Think I've caught them all. We hope (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Terry-Thomas_and_Red_Skelton,_1967.jpg: use publication date instead of upload date in template. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is now corrected at Commons using May 5, 1967 from the CBS release for the date. We hope (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will be reviewing this one tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "Skelton learned his comedic and pantomime skills beginning at age 10" -this reads a little awkwardly- You might change do "Skelton began developing his comedic and pantomime skills from the age of 10".

done-

  • " A pantomime sketch of how different people ate doughnuts written by Skelton and his wife launched a career for him in vaudeville" -did this sketch have a formal title?

added title-

  • "He moved to The Raleigh Cigarettes Program in 1941 where many of his comedy characters were created and had a regularly scheduled radio program until 1957." -do you mean he became host of it?

fixed-

  • No mention whatsoever of his film work?? You might add a sentence "Skelton made his film debut in 1938 alongside Ginger Rogers and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. in Alfred Santell's Having Wonderful Time, and he went on to appear in numerous comedy films throughout the 1940s and early 1950s such as the Dr. Kildare medical dramas, Flight Command (1940), Ship Ahoy (1942), Whistling in Dixie (1942), I Dood It (1943), Bathing Beauty (1944), Ziegfeld Follies (1946), The Yellow Cab Man (1950), Texas Carnival (1951) and The Clown (1953).
I've sorted this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • Quite a big jump to "By age 14, Skelton had left school and was already a veteran performer". Do have a little more info on his development as a performer between 10-14? What was he asked to do during his four years on the medicine show?

Added more on this We hope (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doughnut dunkers
  • No link to Loew's State Theatre?

We have no article on the theatre.

That's a very notable missing article then! I started Loew's State Theatre (New York City), can you link it?♦ Dr. Blofeld

Just did now. We hope (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only link Dougnuts in the first instance, remove the second link.

Think there's only one link now.

Film work
  • Wasn't Having Wonderful Time July 1938 release rather than 1937? You might want to reword to filming in 1937 and released in July 1938.

fixed-

  • Like with the lead this is really not very well covered. You skip a lot of notable films and then "By 1947, . You need to add a good paragraph I think covering the most notable films in between of the 40s, especially Dr. Kildare, and mention a few of his recurring co stars/directors. Didn't he co star with Eleanor Powell in a few films? Also mention his favourite director S. Sylvan Simon. And then later you need to cover his 50s films. I'd be happy to help work on this section if its OK with you We hope?
I've taken care of this now. I'm now happy with the coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Divorce
  • "Edna was also the manager of the couple's funds because Skelton spent money too easily. " -reword to "Edna remained the manager of the couple's funds because Skelton spent money too easily. "

fixed-

Cast of characters
  • Do boxer and cowboy really need linking?

fixed-

Television
  • Do live and costume really need linking too?

fixed-

Art
  • Delink showing?

fixed-

Fraternity
  • "He was the recipient of the Gold Medal of the General Grand Chapter, Royal Arch Masons, for Distinguished Service in the Arts and Sciences." -shouldn't it be "a" recipient, rather than "the"?

fixed-

  • "He also received an honorary degree from the college." -when was this?

clarified that he received the award & degree at the same ceremony in 1961.

Awards
  • "Skelton received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Screen Actors Guild in 1987, and in 1988, he was inducted into the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences' Television Hall of Fame.[246][247][248] He was one of the International Clown Hall of Fame's first inductees in 1989 and was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame in 1994." Definitely worth mentioning the Cecille De Mille and a few of these at the end of the lead.
Legacy
  • Haven't Vincennes University, HBO and Pantheon Theatre already been linked?

found second Vincennes University and de-linked. Found only the one Pantheon Theatre.

Bibliography
Removed table. We hope (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes and references

Why is Las Vegas linked in notes but not the article? Linked in article. Surprised to see no bibliography. I'd put the few books you use underneath. I'd expected for somebody like Skelton to see a lot more book sources used. Did you look extensively in google books while writing it?

Overall this is an excellent piece. I do think though that the film work needs to be improved before this is ready to pass and something done with the filmography, ideally a new article with a table and splitting it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. B.-let me start with the easier fixes you suggested. Re: book sources, what you see in bibliography are from Google Books; many of the hits I found for books don't deal directly with his life, but are books on television and radio programs. Skelton had asked friend and author Gene Fowler to write his biography; when Fowler died in 1960, this project seemed to have been permanently shelved. There's still information being discovered about Skelton from the collection at Vincennes University. He had kept just about everything he owned since the age of ten and said in a 1984 interview that he would let someone else go through it.
I've used a lot of newspaper stories as references for the article, but they have literally been beaten out of Google News Archive over a period of time. After Google stopped adding to the online newspapers, something was changed in the way one was able to search them; previously you either found what you were looking for or ran out of patience before you ran out of hits. :) Limits were placed on the number of hits and the keyword search became a lot more difficult regarding how to find what you wanted. More hits are now being allowed, but the keyword search is still difficult-much trial and error to find what you want- and the formerly working timeframe search now gets you a message that there are no news stories in that timeframe. Two of the three books with extensive information on Skelton (Adir and Hyatt) had the wrong birthdate for his son, Richard. I was able to see the error because a news story about the child's death said he had died ten days before his tenth birthday; the correct date of Richard's birth was confirmed by a transcript from the California Death Index.
I'd be happy to have you add (or subtract) anything you see fit! :) Thanks, We hope (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work on it tomorrow!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Don't bother with adding the notable awards at the end of the lead, I just noticed them in the infobox. I'm happy now with the film coverage. Great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dr. B.! Did locate more material on what Skelton did when working in the medicine show I'll be adding, as well as another award. Skelton and Katharine Hepburn received lifetime achievement American Comedy Awards in 1989. ;) We hope (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Generally the Bibliography section would be for books by Skelton, with a separate Sources section after References for cited sources - could we split the two?

done-

  • Pendergast publisher needs spacing

done-

  • FN4: publisher?

Removed the TCM ref as the news story covers the event.

  • Check consistency in italicization - compare for example FNs 8 and 16. Publications should generally be italicized.

done-

  • FN26, 181: page?

These are no longer at Google News Archive. Newspaper Archive won't let you view the page for Modesto Bee without subscribing. A search of the News and Courier (now Post and Courier) website shows the newspaper's archives there do not go back to 1964. These disappeared from Google News Archive very recently. The Hedda Hopper news story was added to the article in May 2014 and recently were removed from the newspaper archives at Google. Have tried to locate other sources for the page numbers to these but no luck. Titles at ProQuest archiver. Modesto Bee archives here begin with 1994; the Edna Skelton Pound obituary is from 1982. News and Courier not shown but the paper's later title, Post and Courier are. No 1964 archives (the Hedda Hopper column) copies are shown as available here. We hope (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN34: need title caps for publication

done-

  • Fn40: why is this full bibliographic citation here when other cites to that source are shortened?

fixed-

  • Fn51: which paper is this?

fixed- Stopping here for now and will return to this list. We hope (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how you format PPV notes

I think this is fixed now.

  • Be consistent in how you format FamilySearch refs

fixed-

  • FN205: this is formatted as a book, but it's a periodical

fixed-

  • Fn284: need full citation

fixed-

  • FN293: formatting here is very strange - are there chapter or section titles that can be used instead of page numbers? Can the URL be truncated further? And why is there a full cite here when this is in your Bibliography list?

The only copy of the book available at Google Books for viewing is an e-book, which has no page numbers. Other versions of the book (print) can't be previewed or even searched. I left the link in citations because of the issue re: e-books not having page numbers. Please suggest how to handle this issue. The link is the only one available for the book-Google offers no other link to it. I think tinyurl and similar cites are blocked from WP, so that looks to be no option to shorten it. We hope (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC) OK-there's another, newer book by the same author which has this information in it that isn't an e-book. I've switched the citation to that book. We hope (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out to me what needs correcting re: short cites & spacing. Thanks, We hope (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example: FN124 - "Hyatt, p. 15" but FN255 - "Hyatt, p.157"; generally you seem to use a space between "p." and the page number but not always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Thought I caught them all but found a few more which I just fixed. Think they're all fixed now. We hope (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2014 (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 19:16, 25 July 2014 [8].

The FP[edit]

Nominator(s): Corvoe (speak to me) 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The FP, a very inexpensive, largely unknown film that is a personal favourite of mine. The film focuses on gangs that fight using a Dance Dance Revolution knock-off, so that should set the tone for you. I've been working on this article consistently since February, and I believe it has reached FA level. The article is well-sourced, featuring many direct interviews with the filmmakers and the featurettes/commentary from the film itself. The information included is all-encompassing, noting many opinions of both the filmmakers and their critics, as well as a large amount of facts about the film. Hopefully you think it's worthy of FA status as well! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Erik (addressed)[edit]

Resolved comments from Erik and Onel5969

Hello, here are my comments for this article. It is mostly focused on the writing since the article seems well-rounded content-wise.

  • There are too many uses of ellipses, and I don't think MOS:ELLIPSIS supports this use. I think for this kind of article, an ellipsis should be used in the midst of quoting something, like to skip some extraneous wording.
  • Hi User:Erik and User:Corvoe! The two MOS guidelines which (in my humble opinion) apply here are MOS:QUOTE and MOS:ELLIPSIS. And they really don't leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. First, MOS:QUOTE clearly states, "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced ... Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text." If you are quoting someone, and are omitting text from that quote, either at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, an ellipse should be used. Second, MOS:ELLIPSIS, under the Style heading, states that the recommended implementation is "Three unspaced periods (...)." It then goes on to state under the Function and implementation heading, that you need to "Put a space on each side of an ellipsis ...” except for the 3 examples listed under that heading (in relation to an ending quotation mark, brackets within the quotation, and any terminal punctuation). The edits made to The FP article reflected those guidelines. Any changes to that would not reflect the MOS guidelines. (btw, really like Erik's notes) Onel5969 (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onel5969, my impression is that ellipses are used within quoted text, not before and after it. I have not seen this before-and-after use elsewhere. Looking at MOS:LQ (further down), the examples do not use ellipses since nothing is being omitted from the beginning to end of the quoted text. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Erik: I understand your feeling, Erik. That was how, in my normal writing, I used them. However, if we're using the MOS guidelines, it is pretty clear, if you omit stuff from the quoted text, an ellipse MUST be used. It does not limit those omissions to only the middle of the quotation. For example, if the quote is "I only regret, that I have but one life to lose for my country." But you only use a portion of it, like: In an impassioned speech Hale regretted that he had "... but one life to lose for my [his] country." I know that some people would put: In an impassioned speech Hale regretted that he had "but one life to lose for my [his] country." In proper grammar, either is acceptable (depending on either the Chicago or MLA style). But in the MOS does not say that.Onel5969 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been searching around and don't see anything that says to use ellipses at the start. This says, "Do not place an ellipsis at the beginning of a quotation to indicate the omission of material." This says, "It is rarely necessary to use ellipsis points at the beginning of a quotation, even if the quotation begins mid-sentence." This says, "Typically, ellipses are used only within a quotation, not at the beginning or at the end of a quotation. A rare exception would be an instance where the sentence could otherwise be misinterpreted." This matches my experience reading Featured Articles on Wikipedia such as intelligent design. I really don't think that's a standard approach to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I hear you, Erik, the two major styles of grammar in the US (I know there is a difference for British English), are MLA and Chicago. The references would be The Chicago Manual of Style and the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. But that has to with general writing. My point has to do with what is stated in the MOS, which is supposed to be the guide on wp. I think this might be a useful discussion on that talk page, because I agree with you about how it looks (in other words, I also think the MOS is incorrect, using their current wording), but I attempt to follow the MOS guidelines.Onel5969 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onel5969: @Erik: I'm gonna throw WP:OTHERSTUFF out the window for a minute, and pull in the two film FAs that first came to mind: Dredd and Fight Club. These two both negate the ellipses at the beginning and end of quotes. I'm not saying that means we should follow that, but it does raise the interesting point that perhaps this area of the MOS has been ignored, rather than updated. Personally, I would say we leave it without all of the ellipses and opening a comment on the MOS talk page. What do you guys think? Corvoe (speak to me) 13:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additional cast members" sentence in "Cast" section shouldn't use semicolons after each name. They should be replaced by commas.
  • In the lead section:
  • Frazier Park is only linked in the second use. Why not link it earlier? Also, maybe mention in the "Plot" section that it is in California?
  • Have you considered restructuring the introduction of 248? Most people would find "a 248 gang member" jarring. What about something like "a member of the gang called 248"? And from thereon, people can understand that there are gangs titled with numbers.
  • The term "came up" is used a couple of times and may be slangish. Maybe replace these with more formal variations?
  • How about getting rid of the "Design and effects" heading and elevating "Costume design" and "Visual effects"?
  • In "Release", the second sentence is a pretty long serial sentence that's hard to read. Maybe convert that sentence into a list of bullet points identifying each festival and the screening date?
  • Didn't use bullet points, opted to remove the screening date and just mention the festival, with special mention to the Rolling Roadshow, as it was in Frazier Park. Corvoe (speak to me) / Comment on The FP's FA nom! 11:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Box office", "picked up" is slangish and can be replaced by "acquired".
  • The John Carpenter picture states "Many critics" but I only see Kohn mentioning Escape from New York and Tobias mentioning Carpenter. It might be too weasely to state that.
  • Changed to "some" for now, I may have removed other references to it when I first wrote the section. It was mostly the eye patch. Corvoe (speak to me) / Comment on The FP's FA nom! 11:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, regarding image captions, per MOS:CAPTION, sentence-fragment-only captions don't need periods
  • In "Home media", the first sentence can have a more active voice, "Image Entertainment released The FP..."

I see a variety of minor improvements that I can go ahead and make when I have time. Let me know if you have any questions. Nice work so far on a pretty indie film! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Erik! Corvoe (speak to me) / Comment on The FP's FA nom! 11:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited the "Cast" and "Production" sections and will continue to copy-edit the rest of the article body. On the content side of things, I think the counter-response passages under "Critical response" is problematic. I have not really seen precedent for this kind of thing, especially for a minor film (as opposed to a classic one). I can't imagine a case where filmmakers are not defensive of their work, and I'm not sure if their response is due weight. The guidelines do state that "prominence of placement" is a factor, and to be frank, I think film critics, not the filmmakers, need to have the "last word" as independent evaluators of the work.

On a separate note, I've been searching for other possible sources to use in the article. One way I've done this is to search site:<domain> fp trost. With this, I've found this and this. In addition, it looks like Frazier Park's weekly newspaper is Mountain Enterprise, and searching for site:mountainenterprise.com trost shows these results to be vetted. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: I'm a bit iffy on adding the "Tugg" thing, since it isn't very notable at all. I'll extract some stuff from the NY Times article when I get back home, and I took some info from Mountain Enterprise already. The one mentioning an $80,000 budget is interesting, not sure how reliable it is though. Good info on filming too, thank you for these! Corvoe (speak to me) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Corvoe: I'm re-reading the article, and here are a few questions:
  • In the plot summary, it says "dies of a 187". I think this needs a brief explanation so readers don't have to click through to understand. Something like "dies abruptly as a result of losing the game".
  • In the "Cast" section, what does "he first did it" mean for Valmassy? Shaved his head to look like Mr. T? Danced in a scene?
  • In "Costume design", for which character does "boots worn in the film" apply? All of them? Just one character?
I'd like to give the "Release" section a good look, then after that and your replies to my above questions, I'll likely support this for the FA nomination. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've corrected everything you mentioned, even did a little more trimming to the plot. What's striking you about the "Release" section? Corvoe (speak to me) 19:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my concerns! Just that I find the "Release" section the toughest section to present. It's a challenge to have to present one review after another without doing any real editorial weaving like a journalist would. I'm also thinking that MOS:LQ needs to apply to a lot of the quoted fragments here, but I didn't want to go on a series of changes in that regard. Do you think MOS:LQ indicates that the ending quotation mark should be inside the quoted fragments? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They should definitely all have the punctuation outside of the quotes. I misread MOS:LQ when I first wrote this section. Two of the quotes actually should have the punctuation inside the quotation marks, but otherwise, you're right. Good catch! Corvoe (speak to me) 19:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Even though this is a quirky little film, the article is well sourced, as well as being well-written, without any paraphrasing issues. The images are all free or have fair use rationales. The article is comprehensive, going into detail without straying into trivia; its tone is neutral, and the edit history shows the article's stability. The lead is a very well written summary of the article which follows, and the structure is appropriate, following the guidelines of the film project, as per WP:MOSFILM. Every item which needs to be cited, is. The editor has gone to great lengths to provide the article with appropriate pictures, and the article's length is also appropriate. User:Corvoe has done an excellent job. Onel5969 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as meeting the FA criteria. The topic at the time of nomination was comprehensive and well-researched. I copy-edited some of the article body to clarify some sentences and asked the nominator to review some confusing passages, which are now addressed. The article is stable, and a concern of neutrality was addressed as stated above. Beyond that, the article satisfies the style guidelines (the general ones as well as MOS:FILM), and the free media used in this article is especially welcome for an article on a copyrighted work. Length is also appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 1ST7 (addressed)[edit]

Resolved comments from 1ST7

Comments. This article looks very well-researched, well-written, and comprehensive, and I think you've done an exceptionally good job with explaining a subject that would ordinarily be confusing to readers (like me) who haven't seen the film. As far as I can tell, the text is neutral and everything is consistently cited. There's just a small handful of things that I would like to see addressed before supporting this nomination:

  • The first paragraph of the plot section contains two sentences that are a little redundant: The leader of the 245 gang, L Dubba E, battles and defeats the leader of the 248 gang, BTRO. L Dubba E defeats BTRO, who abruptly dies as a result. I recommend altering it to The leader of the 245 gang, L Dubba E, battles and defeats the leader of the 248 gang, BTRO, who abruptly dies as a result.
Good catch on that. I altered that sentence recently to add some clarity on what a "187" was, and forgot to adjust the previous sentence. Should read better now. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • triggering a long gunfight between the 248 and 245 ensues. The word "ensues" should probably be removed (it's in the fifth paragraph of the plot section).
Ditto to the last one, edited for clarity and failed to adjust the rest. You're a real life saver! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about something in the costume design section. The first paragraph says that 245's costumes are based on the Confederate Army, while the second paragraph says that they are based on the Union.
Typo, thank you. The 248 are Union, 245 is Confederate. That was an oversight on my part. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend altering the He noted the references phrase in the first paragraph of critical response, just because the word "note" is listed under the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. The word is used again in the fourth paragraph (noting the influence of John Carpenter).
Changed both to "address(ing/ed)". Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck, --1ST7 (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of the helpful comments! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Now that the above concerns have all been addressed, I believe this article meets the FA criteria and support its promotion. --1ST7 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 97198 (addressed)[edit]

Resolved comments from 97198

After making some (very minor) changes to the article myself, I just have a few comments.

  • Jason Trost got the idea for The FP when he was 16 years old and regularly played Dance Dance Revolution – to me, "got the idea" reads pretty poorly and could be reworded.
It was previously "came up with". Just copied the lead's wording of "conceived" unless I can think of an alternative. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and what the Trost brothers thought of with on set – is there an extra word here? It doesn't make sense to me.
Copy-editing issue. It originally read "came up with", I must have forgotten to remove the "with". Fixed. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarah Trost designed his character to look as transsexual as possible – this text in the image caption doesn't seem to match up with the text, which simply says "somewhat transsexual, though it is more prominent in her father's character".
Good catch, fixed. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this hasn't been addressed...? 97198 (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@97198: I could've sworn I did it. Huh. It's fixed now, for what it's worth. I double checked. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like it would be relevant to include the budget somewhere within the production section.
I initially included the budget in the box office section, but I see your point. Moved it. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I can see no other issues with the article. 97198 (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@97198: Thank you so much! Corvoe (speak to me) 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of the above changes have been made. Overall, it's a clearly written, thorough and well-referenced article, and IMO one that fulfils the FA criteria. Well done. 97198 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Baffle gab1978 (talk)[edit]

Just a note to tell reviewers that this article is currently undergoing a requested GOCE copy-edit by yours truly. Therefore it shouldn't be reviewed for FA status until the copy-edit is finished because the text will be subject to changes. Perhaps the reviewer(s) would consider putting the review on hold until then. The request is here. I'll inform the requester Corvoe on his/her talk page and I'll leave a note in my final edit summary when I'm finished. I'll also drop a note here if I remember. Hopefully this will be done by Tuesday night (UTC). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: Gotta admit, I wasn't the c/e to start any time soon, so I felt fairly safe in nominating it :P I'm okay with putting it on hold. I suppose I could just ping everyone back here for another look through. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it might be a good idea to inform the reviewers (or just post a note here); comments above will likely be rendered obsolete by the c/e. Once it's listed on the GOCE requests page, a requested c/e can happen at any time, especially during drives and blitzes, but we usually do them within two months. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978: Yeah, I probably should've removed it before nominating this, haha. Oh well. Thank you for the copy-editing! It's looking good. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now finished the copy-edit earlier than I expected; feel free to continue the FA Review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: I've removed the "done" template, since WP:FAC advises against those kinds of templates (they mess with the archives). I just don't want you think I'm vandalizing your posts. Also, thank you so much! The article reads a lot better now, you've done a fantastic job! I'll be pinging everyone back to ask for their reassessment now.
@Erik:, @Onel5969:, @1ST7:, @97198:, Baffle gab1978 has finished the c/e of this article. Some of you may have issues with new phrasings or things being unclear. If you wouldn't mind taking another pass at the article and reaffirming your votes, or posting new comments for improvement, it would be very much obliged. Thank you to everyone! Corvoe (speak to me) 04:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. I will take a look tomorrow. Just got home from being out of town, so I'll be resting today. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the copy-editing changes here and have no issues with it. My support still stands. And I will have to keep the {{mdash}} use in mind! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the changes. Onel5969 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As am I -- the changes look great. 97198 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also reaffirm my support for the article's promotion. --1ST7 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding image and paraphrase review[edit]

Note Have I missed the source review (for formatting and reliability in particular)? Graham Colm (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GrahamColm: Negative. No one has done a source review or an image review, at least not on this page. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I had a note to myself about this one and thought I'd left a message here or at WT:FAC but in fact I hadn't. Yes, still needs source and image reviews and really should have a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing as I believe this is the nominator's first FAC (is that correct?). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GrahamColm: @Corvoe: I did the source review regarding citations. I do not feel qualified as of yet to do the source review regarding images. The citation source review revealed no close paraphrasing issues. Onel5969 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: No worries! And yes, this is in fact my first FAC. @Onel5969: I completely forgot about that, my mistake! Thank you, by the way. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Onel5969, didn't realise you'd looked over sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, thank you. @Nikkimaria: could we trouble you for a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_FP.jpg: source link is dead and FUR should be more expansive
  • File:Sean_Whalen_in_the_FP.png: FUR should be more expansive. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thank you! I've updated The_FP.jpg with a more expansive FUR; I accidentally included the Wikipedia URL at the end of it, but overall, it doesn't need a direct source as all of them would be the same licensing. I also added a considerably more expansive FUR to the image of Sean Whalen. Please tell me if there's anything else you think I should do. Corvoe (speak to me) 03:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Corvoe, thanks; the poster looks fine now. I'd still like the "purpose" portion of the Whalen FUR to do more to justify it: it works really well in the Costume section, but "to illustrate the subject" doesn't explain that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I'm actually not sure how to change that. That's the default wording of the template, if I'm not mistaken. I can copy over the template's raw formatting and expand that, I suppose. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Figured it out, it was a parameter I just didn't have active. I think the purpose of use reads better now. Corvoe (be heard) 16:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

@Nikkimaria: Fixed the publication location (since Drafthouse Films is based in Austin, I'm making a safe assumption). I watched the short film again, and it opens with "The Machine presents" so I'm assuming that's the publisher. As for the CHUD source, the site itself isn't the most reliable and on its own fails WP:QUESTIONABLE, as it blatantly says that it relies on rumour and personal opinion. However, the interviewer, Iain Stasukevich (who works for American Cinematographer as he mentions) is. I mean, worst case scenario, we can remove that section, but I think Stasukevich's reliability trumps the site's lack of it. I could also be grossly misreading WP:RS and if that's the case, I'll try to find another source that includes the information. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think that explanation makes sense - if the author is an expert we can treat it as an acceptable self-published source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear! Thank you for both reviews, you've been a huge help! Sock (previously Corvoe) (be heard) 17:09, 25 July 2014 (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 (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2014 (diff).

Falkland Islands[edit]

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 Talk 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC) & Wee Curry Monster[reply]

This article is about the Falkland Islands, an archipelago in the South Atlantic, proximate to the eastern coast of South America. The article is written in British English. The article is highly controversial, but editors from all sides of the spectrum have worked together in order to create what is one of the best country articles in Wikipedia (We hope the reviewers agree). The article has had a recent peer review and, since its conclusion, no major changes have taken place for quite some time (the only recent issue were dead links to UK government information, but those were promptly fixed). If the reviewers find any problems with the article, whether major or minor, we hope that they give us a chance to fix those mistakes prior to them casting a decision on whether to pass or decline this FAC. Thank you for your time. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through all of your improvement suggestions, I notice the trend is in favor of adding more about the significant economic development (and demographic changes) of the Falklands during the 20th century. I will do my best to attain the goals, but I will probably need a few days to read and include thoughtful information in the history section. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ranger Steve[edit]

Sorry, I've been a bit caught up in off-wiki life and only just had time to have another look over the article. Guys, thank you; I think you've done a brilliant job on this article and made it into a very interesting piece. Reading it now it comes across as far more informative about all aspects of the islands' story. The history section in particular is superb; I'm afraid I really did think it looked like a list of territorial changes originally, but now it's an excellent piece of writing with a clear view of the islands' past. I think this FAC has been well worth it (I hope you think so too). Very happy to Support. Ranger Steve Talk 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, we appreciate that you took the time to analyze and provide thoughtful suggestions on improving the article. I agree that it certainly is now a great work. This could not have been done without your help. Thank you.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ranger Steve (talk)
I’ve just been reading up on the Battle of the Falklands and came across this FAC. I’m going to be offline for a few days, but will give a review when I get back. In the meantime though, I have some observations that could help improve the article:
  • History: This reads more like a summary of the territorial disputes that have dogged the Falklands for centuries. Obviously that’s important, but I think the section is too heavily weighted to that element now. For instance, there’s room to expand the pre-European history (currently one sentence). There’s no mention of the Ross Expedition, or the reason for the Falkland’s importance as a port, its coaling station or the famous ships recovered from the harbour.
  • “resulted in a British victory over imperial Germany” and “resulted in the Royal Navy's victory over the Kriegsmarine.” Needs rewording; these battles did not result in victory over the entirety of Imperial Germany or the Kreigsmarine.
  • Come to think of it, why is the River Plate mentioned as being ‘near’ the archipelago? The battle took place over 1,000 miles away from the islands. This needs clarifying and the exact contribution of the islands to the battle explained (ie. the repairs to Exeter).
  • Geography: Quite short, is there room for expansion. Also, why are the lat and long approximate?
  • Climate: Even shorter. Three sentences doesn’t seem much for an FA – could it not have its own section, some more averages and extremes, and maybe even a climate graph that I see on other articles?
  • Tourism: Currently only dealt with in one word (repeated), but not clarified in any way; could this not be expanded (ie. to clarify the island’s role in cruise liner tours)?

Regards, Ranger Steve Talk 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, thank you very much for the comments.
My only major disagreement is with the history suggestion. The reason the territorial dispute is so prominent in the history of the islands is because that is, truly, the most remarkable aspect of its history. This and other sections are deliberately short per WP:SUMMARY. The islands have no significant "pre-European history". The Ross Sea party featured article only mentions the Falklands once. Ships recovered from the harbor falls more on the realm of nautical archaeology, but not a summary history of the state. Nonetheless, the fifth paragraph could certainly be improved in order to show the islands' significance as a port.
I can certainly address most of the other suggestions, but I'd like to point out once more that sections and information are summarized per WP:SUMMARY. In other words, I will not include climate charts or expand sections just to make the article bigger. I believe in the policy's intent that short, summarized reference articles are more likely to be read than long ones; readers looking for specific or specialized content can then follow the wikilinks into articles that are focused on their topic of interest (such as Climate of the Falkland Islands).
There appears to be two trends in the country article FACs, one that follows a long model (such as Germany) and another that follows WP:SUMMARY (such as Peru). Arguably, both states have long histories that can fill up a myriad pages of information, but I find the article on Peru to be far more readable than Germany.
I hope my positions makes sense. I mean absolutely no disrespect and look forward to your review and further suggestions.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently reading up on Falklands tourism, so I may take some time to respond (perhaps a day). Nonetheless, I may add information about recovered ships in the tourism part. "Wreck diving" also seems to have a role in this story. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to add to the article in order to make it longer. However, I am looking for balance, and I think it's a bit lacking in this article. I appreciate you've gone for a shorter 'summary' style article, but the problem I see is that the sovereignty dispute content looks more like it's come from a long model. I realise that in most sources, the sovereignty is the main focus of attention, but I don't think that should mean this article places excessive weight on it, whilst leaving other sections under-represented. I'm afraid I can't support the article with its current weighting.

History section:

  • I think more than half a sentence could be allocated to Pre European history; it gets its own section in the history article after all.
  • The section in the history article is filled with contradictory information. There simply is no significant pre-European history in the Falklands.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there's no recorded history. I'm not asking for much, just a better presentation of the several tens of thousands of years before Europeans arrived. If there is no evidence of significant history or archaeology, that can be better stated than a vague possibility of previous settlement which appears to be used purely to introduce the second half of that sentence (ie that the islands were uninhabited in the 16th century). Ranger Steve Talk 08:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's impossible to do a presentation of "tens of thousands of years" about a pile of rocks in the ocean. The only kind of notable archaeology in the Falklands is nautical; everything else is vague. It is what it is. The archipelago's history, as far as world history is concerned, begins in the 16th century.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 read almost like a list of claims, and the prose is a bit wanting. This could easily be fleshed out with some more details to make it more of a social history. For instance, why did France surrender its claim in 1776 (and the same with the Spanish and British departures)? There's little sense of explanation behind the actual events, which contributes to the sense that it is a just history of disputes.
  • I added a paragraph about the Spanish and British settlements, and their reasons for departing the archipelago. Is this along the lines of what you have in mind?--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "the island's status was again undisputed" actually mean? The context isn't that clear in the preceding paragraph.
  • WCM's addition definitely improves matters, but it needs a copyedit and referencing.
  • I'm not sure what has happened to WCM, but I improved the section and took out unnecessary details.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry been on holiday, I'm also travelling a lot with work. WCMemail 09:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • General prose: A lot of small sentences could be merged to improve the readability (ie. In 1990, the UK and Argentina "normalised" diplomatic relations. In 1998, Argentine president Carlos Menem, in a letter to Falklanders, "called for reconciliation 'to heal old wounds'").
  • Considering I am the primary author of the text, I cannot find those "small sentences" you point out. I will, however, address this one you point out. If there are any others, please do feel free to edit them as you see fit.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the First and Second World War paragraph, the history returns almost exclusively to sovereignty issues. What about the evolution of the settlements? When was Stanley proclaimed the capital for instance? When was the airfield built? Ranger Steve Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed. Stanley was capital since 1845. Airfield was built in 1972. The sovereignty dispute takes precedence at this point in all sources.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1840 the Falklands became a Crown colony, and a governor and Scots subsequently established an official pastoral settlement." Could you clarify the Scots bit? At first I thought i was an individual's name, but I presume it's Scottish settlers. Ranger Steve Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly the most notable event in the island's history (the war) is dealt with in one sentence. I think this requires a touch more expansion. Ranger Steve Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What else is relevant to add about it? The war only lasted about a couple of months. I find no reason to make two months worth of history into anything longer than sentence.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is in stark contrast to your comments about reflecting the literature on the topic. I can't believe that the most notable event in the island's history is not the most notable in sources on the Falklands. The casualty figures, the effect on the Argentine government and the fact the war left 20,000 landmines on the island strike me as the sort of details worthy of inclusion. Ranger Steve Talk 10:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those points you mention are the consequences of the war, but not the war itself. The landmines and reaction of the Argentine government (as it concerns the Falklands) can be included. Casualty figures are best suited for war articles. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty Dispute

  • Here things tend to re-tread the content of the history section, but with some new facts. Despite the two sentences I've given above about 're-healing', we now find out that in fact, in 1994, "Argentina promulgated a new constitution claiming the Falkland Islands". As well as clarifying what this actually means, I really would be inclined to make the history section more social, and put anything to do with claims and sovereignty in this section.
  • You don't seem to notice that the "re-healing" statement happened four years after the 1994 event. I am currently moving (and removing) things around both of these areas. The "history" section of the article is not going to focus on "social history". Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my point; there were two chronologies of the same subject in two sections, each containing different information. The original two sentences in the history section might have suggested a warming of relationships, but then the reader finds out later that there was a significant cooling in between those two dates. It's much better to have one chronology of these disputes. Regardless of where the dispute chronology goes, there will need to be some social history in the history section though. Ranger Steve Talk 10:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the balance has been lost in summarising too much. I've opened up a section for discussion on the talk page. WCMemail 10:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With reference to balance again, why does a journalist's comment matter in a summary style article? Surely the final sentence in this paragraph demonstrates the islander's opinions clearly enough by itself. This is one of the details that I think makes the sovereignty content too long relative to the rest of the article.
  • Addressed. Section is now only two paragraphs, with only essential material.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

  • Balance again. Why two paragraphs for geography but only three sentences for climate? As I said, I don't want you to expand it just to make the article longer, but we get so much information on the geography and little on the weather. This sense of imbalance is further evidenced in the fact that we get two sentences on the resident's cake, tea and chatting habits in the culture section.
  • The balance argument does not really apply here, specially a comparison between culture and climate. Regardless, I added some information and made climate its own paragraph.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "East Falkland houses Stanley (the capital and largest city)". Is Stanley a city? This sentence also implies that there are other cities on the Falklands. Some consistency is also required; Stanley is referred to as Port Stanley in other sections. Ranger Steve Talk 16:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the cited source, Stanley is the capital and largest city. There's a whole list of other locations in the islands that can be found at List of settlements in the Falkland Islands. "Port Stanley" is another common name for Stanley (there is nothing wrong or confusing about using it). Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's cited as a city that's fine, but I think you've misunderstood my other points. Surely there aren't any other cities on the Falklands, but by saying that Stanley is the largest city, it implies there are other, smaller ones. I didn't say that Port Stanley was confusing or wrong, but I expect consistency in an FA (I would not expect to find Beijing and Peking used interchangeably in a China article for instance). Ranger Steve Talk 21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much I can do about it; I can't find a source that examines cities in the Falkland Islands. Maybe the reason is that there are no true cities, but I can't guess. All I can affirm is that the cited source specifically states that Stanley is the "capital and largest city" in the Falklands. Also, the naming between "Port Stanley" and "Stanley" is not as disparate as "Beijing" and "Peking". I could understand your second point if I was using the name "Puerto Argentino" to refer to Stanley, but that's not the case.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but there really is plenty you can do about it. Let's be honest - there are no other cities on the Falklands (I'm not convinced by Stanley, but I'll let it slide as it's the capital). So don't include a sentence that implies otherwise. We aren't require to slavishly follow sources, especially when they're clearly incorrect on the matter. Regarding Port Stanley, once again this is an FAC; please pick one option and be consistent per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Geographical_items. Ranger Steve Talk 15:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't conduct original research. At no point does the article indicate that there are other cities in the Falklands. The sentence that states Stanley is "the capital and largest city" does not imply anything beyond what it states (it neither affirms nor denies the existence of other cities in the archipelago). Please read some of the literature ([9]). Some sources alternatively refer to it as the "primate city". I understand that this is an FA review, but neither of us can create information from our own personal conclusions. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does imply there are other cities, by virtue of the use of a superlative that compares one thing with another (in this case cities). To use a different example, we shouldn't say "the sun is the largest star in our solar system", because we cannot compare it with another star in the solar system - there isn't one. If you won't change it, then I feel obliged to ask for reliable sources (not the ones you've linked to) stating that there are other cities. At the moment, the grammar is wrong. Ranger Steve Talk 16:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question you ask of me would be the same as me asking you to provide a source that backs up your position. Neither case can be done because nobody has written anything about it. Maybe it's because there are no cities in the Falklands, or maybe it's because nobody cares. All I know is that the sources call Stanley "the largest city". Regardless, I changed the "largest city" to "only city". Is this good?--MarshalN20 Talk 01:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "capital and largest settlement" work better? This is pretty unarguable (there are definitely other settlements and they're definitely smaller). It's worth noting that Stanley, Falkland Islands never uses the word "city", preferring "town". Andrew Gray (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - either one of these changes is fine. Sorry to have to have gone on about this, but the sentence was just wrong, grammatically and factually, as it was before. Ranger Steve Talk 09:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow as I work my way down. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 12:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Etymology

  • Perhaps its worth a note to explain the preponderance of the term 'Falklands' as a name, given that it's an unusual pluralisation of the name and is widely used in the article. Ranger Steve Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. I added a note of it into the text. I don't consider it needs a reference since it is pretty much common knowledge.--MarshalN20 Talk 02:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Ranger Steve: WCM and I have addressed everything that we could from your recommendations. The only major point we have not managed to address is the suggestion to expand the pre-history of the archipelago, but this is only because archaeological research has yet to produce more conclusive information on the topic. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, we hope that future editors will be able to expand on this part of the article. We also hope that you find the article's current state as acceptable, and would appreciate to know your position (support or oppose) assuming there is nothing else left to address. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

Support My comments are now all addressed. Nice work to MarshalN20 and all the other editors involved in developing this article to its current standard. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Nick-D (talk)
It's good to see that this article has been developed to a high standard, but I think it needs a fair bit of additional work to reach FA level. I have the following comments:
  • "Falklands enjoy internal self-governance" - 'enjoy' is a bit odd in this context
  • "an estimated 2,932 in 2012" - the lead should note that this excluded the large number of British military personnel in the islands. Given that its based on census data 'estimated' is also not really appropriate: this is a pretty firm figure, and the source does not call it an estimate
  • Does the UN actually call the islands "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)"? The source stresses that this is a listing of names used to help with statistical processing and that they do not have any official status.
  • No it isn't, or I wouldn't have raised this. If the name is only used by UN statistical staff for processing purposes (as the source provided states) it's not of any real significance and should be omitted from the article. The question is if the UN uses it as its default designation for the islands. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed. Interestingly, it was the Tanzanian representative who suggested the nomenclature. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The settlements' mutual awareness is a subject of debate." - what's meant by this? (were the settlers not aware of the other settlement? - if so, I'd suggest using clearer language)
  • "a pastoral settlement was established by Scotsmen and a governor" - was this an official colonial settlement? (also, 'Scotsmen' is sexist unless this was really a male-only settlement)
  • Addressed. Added "official" prior to pastoral and removed "men" from "Scotsmen" (which is what the source used).--MarshalN20 Talk 19:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the first half of the 20th century, the Falklands played a prominent role during the two world wars as a military base aiding control of the South Atlantic" - no they didn't. In both world wars the islands were a base of middling importance during the first months of the war, and a total backwater thereafter. No forces of any importance were based in the islands, and Simonstown in South Africa was the main British base in the South Atlantic
  • " another naval encounter near the archipelago" - that battle was fought off Argentina and Brazil, and nowhere near the Falklands
  • " resulted in the Royal Navy's victory over the Kriegsmarine" - overstatement. A force of British ships batted a single German heavy cruiser which then scuttled herself.
  • If you want to talk about World War II, a more important development was the dispatch of a battalion of British troops to protect the islands from a potential Japanese invasion(!), and - more sensibly - discourage the Argentines from attempting an invasion while British forces were tied down against Germany and Japan
  • "However, negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina reached no meaningful conclusion" - something of an oversimplification given that the British government strongly indicated that it would be willing to eventually hand the islands over to Argentina at one point.
  • "After the war the United Kingdom expanded its military presence on the islands, building RAF Mount Pleasant and increasing the size of its garrison,[52] and the UK and Argentina "normalised" diplomatic relations in 1990." - the last part of this sentence is on a different topic from the remainder
  • What's the role of the appointed Chief Executive of the islands? (it seems unusual to have a non-democratically elected person with a prominent role in actually running a democratic state)
  • There is nothing unusual about the Chief Executive's role. Prof. Vincenzo Sainato writes: "The chief executive and six-member executie council are responsible for the daily management and delivery of government services on the Islands." In other words, the Chief Executive is the head of government. This is what is already stated, and there really is nothing else to add about it.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't think of another democratic state where the head of government is appointed rather than elected, so it seems appropriate to expand upon this a little. Is this done because the islands are too small to sustain or require a full-time elected head of government? (the mayors of similarly-sized and populated local government areas in Australia are usually work in the role on a part time basis, with the full-time CEO of the council being responsible for the day to day running of the local government's functions). Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is something different (from "what is the role?" to "why is this the case?"). The request is very interesting, but seems excessive for the article. Looking at the lengthy Germany featured article, which presents the head of government (Chancellor) as also appointed rather than elected, I do not find any explanation as to why this is the case (or why power is in the hands of the "third-highest official"). Coming from Peru, all of these different systems are interesting (the President in my country is the head of state & government, as well as the highest elected official). The literature on the topic, for the Falklands, also does not bother to explain why the Chief Executive has this role. These roles are all presented as facts; it's a standard.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure that the chief executive is actually the head of government? The constitution (which is the referenced source) actually says that the chief executive is the head of the islands' public service, which is a different thing altogether (eg, he's the head of the civil service, but doesn't necessarily have authority over the elected MLAs as the term 'head of government' implies). The constituion also says that the CE doesn't have the right to vote in meetings of the executive council (only the elected MLAs have this right). This news story says that the current chief executive was selected through an interview process conducted by MLAs and was appointed by the governor on "advice" from the executive council, which is also a rather different concept from only the governor making the appointment as the article says (the convention in British-style governments is that the appointed governors always follows "advice" from the elected government, with their role being to rubber stamp this and provide a fall back to resolve constitutional and political crises). Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good question. I reached the conclusion based on Prof. Sainato's explanation, but a closer inspection does indicate matters to be a tad more complex. According to Prof. Robert Buckman, in his book Latin America 2012 (p. 394), the Falklands has two heads of government, the governor and the chief executive. I'm going to have the article reflect what Buckman directly points out. Thanks for the catch.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " has led authorities to contain, remove or exterminate invasive species" - should this be 'attempt to contain...' given that such efforts are very difficult?
  • The article doesn't note the significant drop in the islands population which took place during the 20th century (from about 3000 to 2000 people, from memory), and the associated economic decline. This is hinted at in the 'Demographics' section, but never explicitly stated.
  • Addressed. @Nick-D: Is this the last point, or are there further matters to address?--MarshalN20 Talk 14:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for over-linking (eg, Camp is linked several times)
  • There should be an internet link to the CIA World Factbook
  • It's already in the reference citations. Is another link necessary?--MarshalN20 Talk 21:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the claim that "Agriculture (primarily sheep farming and fishing) accounts for 95 percent of the Falkland Islands' gross domestic product" accurate? The CIA World Fact Book contains this statistic, but also states that "The economy was formerly based on agriculture, mainly sheep farming but fishing and tourism currently comprise the bulk of economic activity". The Census results state that only 11% of islanders work in agriculture, and the Falklands Islands Government website says that tourism isn't much smaller than agriculture [10] (though the wording is unclear)
  • I can only work with the sources available. The CIA World Factbook estimate may be outdated since it was last calculated in 1996. The website you link to does, however, provide a statistic on the fishing industry. I'll work with both sources to improve the picture on the economy.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is obviously wrong, not least as the statistic is contradicted by the commentary which accompanies it. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CIA include fishing and sheep farming into "agriculture". Rather than obvious error or contradiction, the CIA are referring to the Primary sector of the economy, which some economists simply label "agriculture". I'll clarify the text.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is simply no way that the 95% figure is accurate, especially given that the Falklands Government says that the size of the tourism industry (which falls under the services sector) is almost as large as the agriculture industry. The Falkland Islands Economic Development Strategy (available via [11]) has various figures which look useful - the table at the end states that agriculture and fisheries accounted for 62% of gross value added in 2009. It would be also worth digging around UK government websites to see if they have more recent/better figures. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed (I hope). I included information from a 2014 book which had a whole chapter devoted to the Falkland Islands economy. It just came out last month! Very lucky find.--MarshalN20 Talk 21:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure that that book is a reliable source? It appears to have been published by a self-publishing outfit, and Global Investment and Business Center doesn't appear to have an online presence. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the publisher ([12]), and found no reason to doubt the quality of the source. The company specializes in publishing country business guides. The data being cited is also quite accurate, based on what we had been discussing here. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please explain how you reached that conclusion? The website doesn't seem to provide any details on the firm's authors/researchers or other credentials, which is highly unusual for this kind of business. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I explained my conclusion in the last two sentences of my previous statement. Their Amazon.com listing is also indicative of their area of expertise ([13]). Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 10:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That company looks anything but reliable: it names no authors for its works, which is hugely unusual for this kind of business, and appears to operate on a printing on demand model. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright Nick, I will find another (more reliable) source for it. Would addressing this issue be the last suggestion, or are there others?--MarshalN20 Talk 11:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still to look through the diffs to double check that my comments have been addressed, and have raised a point above Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick, I addressed this economics part. I used the data from the FI government website. I also used The Guardian's report to include a part on the employment.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Development projects in education and sports have been funded by the Falklands government, without aid from the United Kingdom" - this seems misleading. The UK government has invested heavily in the islands' economy since 1982 (with the military presence being a major source of economic support, even if formal development assistance is no longer being provided), and it's not clear to me how 'sports' will develop the islands' economy.
  • Sports help develop the human capital of the national economy. I don't find the text misleading. By explicitly indicating that education and sports are funded by the Falklands government, the sentence implicitly points out that other projects are not (and other parts of the article mention that the UK invested heavily in the islands).--MarshalN20 Talk 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "excluding British Ministry of Defence personnel and families based at RAF Mount Pleasant" - this wording is a little bit unclear: the census states that it does not include "military personnel serving in the Falkland Islands or their dependents", and not just those at Mount Pleasant (this is the main British base, but there's also a network of radar stations and a military port). It would be good to note how many service personnel and dependants are in the islands given that they make up a large chunk of the total population (according to The Guardian, there were 1,300 uniformed personnel and 50 civilians in 2013: [14])
  • Addressed. The Guardian's information is from a 2012 report sent to the UK Parliament.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Wagstaff a reliable source? Tourist guides are generally not considered great resources.
  • I'd suggest adding the British official history of the Falklands War to the 'further reading' section: as far as I'm aware, this is the major recent study of the history of the islands (it covers the period from the 1600s until the mid 1980s).
  • I agree with Ranger Steve's suggestion that the article include more coverage of the tourism industry (including the unique challenges posed by the very limited air routes into the islands) Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead currently states that the Falklands War was "undeclared". I've tried to fix this, but am being reverted. An 'undeclared' war is usually a covert war of some kind, or a war fought through proxies. This didn't apply to the high intensity conflict in 1982, especially as both sides recognised the other as formal belligerents for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions and the like and the British declared a formal blockade of the islands (an Argentinian and a British hospital ship actually operated in close proximity off the Falklands for much of the conflict as the British recognised the Argentines right to deploy such a vessel, and vice-versa). Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed, I think. Consensus was favorable to the removal of "undeclared".--MarshalN20 Talk 21:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, your review is much appreciated.

I'll address and/or respond each of your points as I go through them. I will save my answers in this page every so often, but this does not mean I am ignoring the other suggestions (I may need to take breaks here and there).

Responses
  • Addressed. "Enjoy" changed to "have".
  • Addressed. Footnote added. The word "estimated" is accurate. Having taken three advanced (boring & terrifying) statistics courses, I assure you that all statistical data at the macro level is an estimate.
  • I'm actually a qualified demographer :) It's unusual to refer to Census population results as an 'estimate' as they have something close to a 100% response rate and the element of them which are estimated due to non-response is normally pretty minor (though you are, of course, right in pointing out that there are inaccuracies in Census data - the level of education people claim to have is often entirely wrong, for instance): the results are usually presented as 'X people were in the country at the time of the census'. In a small society like the Falklands where they knew exactly how many citizens were out of the country at the time of the Census the figure should be very reliable - the census results summary actually notes that the statistician rang up households who appeared to have filled in their form incorrectly to double check the details with them! Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's neat. I'm still a little doubtful about the total accuracy of the census, but it's a minor matter that does no merit great debate. I trust your professional status, so I will edit as you suggest. Addressed. [:)]--MarshalN20 Talk 14:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the UN officially calls the islands "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". Their disclaimer at the bottom of the source is specifically meant to be an apology (neutrality declaration) in case the UN naming policy offends anyone.
  • OK, but that needs to be supported by a reliable source which says that Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edited version of the text in question is good.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's two perspectives. One is that both settlements knew about each other, which favors the Spanish/Argentine position, and the other is that the British settlement had no idea the French had settled the islands, which favors the UK's position. I'll try to fix the wording.
I'll continue with this in a little bit.
Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be easiest if you could respond to my comments immediately below each one so that I (and others) can easily track the responses. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks!--MarshalN20 Talk 14:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, WCM added material into the history section. I think we have addressed everything you recommended. What do you think, yay or nay for FA support? Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delays. From a quick check of the overall diffs my above comments are addressed, but I have some new ones on the new material:

  • I'm a bit sceptical about whether all the notes at the end of the article are needed. Notes B, G, L don't seem necessary, and I'd suggest reviewing the others.
  • I can remove L. However, B and G have relevance in the sovereignty dispute. I plan on copy-editing the Shackleton note.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thereafter, the archipelago became a harbour for fishing ships; " - provided harbours perhaps? (harbours aren't islands ;) )
  • U.K. or UK? Both appear and consistency is needed (I'd suggest UK, which dominates in the article, but both are basically correct)
  • " international air travel was made possible via RAF Mount Pleasant" - international flights to Argentina took place through Port Stanley Airport before the war (a persistent concern of the pre-war military forces in the Falklands was that the Argentines could invade the island by packing a scheduled flight with troops!)
  • I'm not sure that "RAF Mount Pleasant was improved to allow international air travel outside of Stanley" is correct. My understanding is that RAF Mount Pleasant was built specifically to be able to take very large intercontinental aircraft to allow the British to fly transports in, as well as to accommodate high performance fighter aircraft, and it replaced Stanley as the island's international airport. The opening of this facility permitted intercontinental flights for the first time (I'm not sure if Stanley Airport could accommodate flights from anywhere other than Argentina given that large jet aircraft couldn't safely land there). Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick, Stanley was built for short haul flights, the biggest it could handle safely was the Fokker F28 of LADE. They flew in 737 during the war but it was a tadge risky as the runway really isn't long enough for a jet that big. WCMemail 11:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that the chief executive is appointed by the governor doesn't seem correct: he or she appears to be appointed by the governor on the advice of MLAs, which is entirely different to the governor appointing them themselves (eg, as its the MLAs who make the decision which the governor then rubber stamps).
Addressed.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What role does the British minister with responsibility for the islands play? Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the same as another question asked earlier. As in the other case, I cannot find a source that explains what the minister does; all that is known is that the position and the person in charge exist. None of the other featured articles explain the role of their officials.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the present the article says that the islands are self governing except in relation to foreign affairs and defence, so identifying a British minister with responsibility for them seems odd. Judging from the minister's official website [15] it appears that he's responsible for administering British foreign policy regarding the Falklands. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes thats correct, the Minister of State is responsible for administering foreign policy. This includes nominating the Governor by the way. WCMemail 11:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review by Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the infobox details (like Hugo) don't appear to be sourced anywhere
  • Addressed. I also removed citations of some infobox details, specifically those not also sourced in other FAs like Peru and Germany.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • MercoPress: you're sometimes italicizing, sometimes linking, sometimes neither. Be consistent - no italics, pick a linking style.
  • FN4: should identify work
  • Use the loc parameter for short cites to chapters/sections instead of pages
  • FN25, 45, 115: page formatting
  • Why is one Factbook ref a full citation in footnotes while others are short cites?
  • Not sure what you mean, but I think to have addressed it.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations
  • FN62: formatting
  • FN64: missing italics
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Naval-history.net?
  • The first source is no longer used in the article. The second source, published by Naval-history.net, is widely regarded as a reliable source.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The Smith source (from Naval-history.net) was only being used once for a minor detail. For the sake of avoiding disagreement, I removed it from the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN79: formatting
  • Be consistent in when you include accessdate
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Lesser-known locations or places that have the same name (eg. Cambridge) should include state or country
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for journals
  • Johnson: given link includes full citation details at the top
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hamiltonstone[edit]

That's about it. I'm a support once these are sorted.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from hamiltonstone (talk)
Comment from Hamiltonstone. Generally excellent article.
  • The only substantive issue I see is with the history section, which appears completely about the Islands' territorial / political status; there is nothing about its economic history, for example; there is also some overlap between the history section and the subsequenty "sovereignty dispute" subsection.
  • There look to me to be too many external links in the end section. We don't need the World Factbook linked there - if it isn't being used as a source (and therefore in the referecnes), well, Wikipedia is a world factbook; we don't need links to tourism sites; certainly not to two of them, nor a link to a site that aggregates links (DMOZ). Check WP:ELNO and see if there are any others that might be trimmed.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hamiltonstone, thank you so much for the praise and suggested improvements.
In response to the first comment about the history section, which was also pointed out by Ranger Steve, all I can respond is that this section reflects the literature on the topic. All of the history works I have read about the Falklands focus on its political status. For simplicity, this can be seen not only in Wikipedia's own History of the Falkland Islands article, but even in Encyclopaedia Britannica's own history section for the Falkland Islands (please see [16]).
I agree with both you and Steve that this is an issue, because history is more than just the territorial/political aspect of a state; however, I can only work with the sources I have available, and I don't consider that this should be a reason for this article to not be promoted.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree withe the principle - that the coverage shoudl reflect the sources - but not its implementation here. I just had a quick glance at History of the Falkland Islands, and there is some economic / development history there that does not appear to be captured in the history section of this summary article. I don't doubt that the territorial aspect is the dominant one, but it appears to be covered exclusively. There is stuff in the other article on nineteenth century development of agriculture etc, including at least one reference not used in the main article that may cover this (Wigglesworth), as well as some here (which I assume is a reliable source - happy to be corrected). It doesn't need a huge amount of work, but it does need something. The overlap I mentioned can be tweaked as well. I reiterate that the article is generally very good! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source "Falklands.info" is not reliable (no citations are found to where they obtained their narrative), and any mention to it was removed during the GA process some months ago. A brief economic history is presented in the "economics" section of the article. I don't have access to the Wigglesworth source. I will do a backwards-search to find a reliable source that confirms the information on agriculture in the history of the Falklands article, but I can't promise anything as all the sources I have read up to now had no mention of this information.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like weecurrymonster has added the sort of substantive text i was hoping for. Their edit summary says cites are coming later. As long as they do, this is likely to address the bulk of the issue.hamiltonstone (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hamiltonstone. I also plan to include information on the population decline that Nick mentioned in his review.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hamiltonstone, I consider to have addressed all of the points you suggested. What do you say, pass or nay? Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It is better now.

  • There is still a residual issue about overlap between the history, and the subsection on the sovereignty dispute later on. Roughly speaking, it seems to me the following lines should become part of the history section, and the remainder - which is concentrated purely on current governance situation - stay where it is. Move these:
  • "In 1965, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2065, calling for both states to conduct bilateral negotiations to reach a peaceful settlement of the dispute.[52] Diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina, severed at the outbreak of the Falklands War in 1982, were re-established in 1990.[81]"
  • There is a direct quote in the sentence that ends with footnote K - i think that needs an inline cite separate from the footnote K.

That's about it. I'm a support once these are sorted.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Andrew Gray[edit]

  • A little late, but I can't see anything else I know to be inaccurate (though there's bound to be something!). Happy to support on content, though I'd still advise dropping the "ranking" numbers for economic statistics as noted below. "Culture" feels a little weak but not sure what else should be added as distinctively Falkland. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Andrew! I plan on improving other country articles in the future. If during that time I find anything new (for content ideas), I will certainly add it to this article; this goes for both culture and economics. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Andrew Gray (talk)
A few factual points: general points (some added)
  • Operation Tabarin was the 1944 expedition to parts of Antarctica via the Falklands (then seen as the Falklands Islands Dependencies); the 1942 deployment of a garrison battalion was an entirely unconnected operation and Tabarin itself didn't begin being planned until mid-1943.
  • It would probably be worth mentioning the Falkland Islands Dependencies in the early twentieth-century context; this covered a wide range of territory from South Georgia down to the northern Antarctic Peninsula, and during the early part of the century the whaling/sealing here was a major economic activity linked to the Falklands and (AIUI) administered out of Stanley. Perhaps a short paragraph on the bits of 20th-century history which weren't related to sovereignty or the wars, touching on economic development?
  • Addressed. I included only information that was relevant to the Falkland Islands.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Government - probably worth mentioning the recent move to paid MLAs rather than part-time, which is quite a significant shift.
  • Under Sovereignty, "The United Kingdom and Argentina claim the Falkland Islands and its dependencies" - the FI Dependencies no longer exist as such (they're now South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) and probably this needs a little rewording to avoid the current tense.
  • The article probably needs to explain the concept of "Camp". It's referred to a couple of times (three assembly members, migration, etc) but the reader would probably assume it's another town. Perhaps a line in geography?

Incidentally, let me know if you need any lookups from the Falkland Islands Journal - I have a full run in the library. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, thanks for the review and offer. Please, if you have some time, can you help me find if the Falklands have their borders delimited with Argentina, or (in case not) how exactly its maritime borders are set? Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to avoid touching on political issues here. :-) Do these maps help? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That serves the purpose! Thanks Andrew.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah! Reading into the history of the "special area" for drilling in 1995 would probably help give more detail - this sits on what looks like the de-facto boundary, and presumably the negotiations touched on the actual status of this line. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray: All suggestions were addressed. Thank you very much for the improvements! What do you think, support yay or nay?--MarshalN20 Talk 14:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for the poke. I'll have a read over it with fresh eyes tomorrow and let you know what I think. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cm[edit]

Neat article but it has a couple of issues:

  • "is ranked the 222nd largest in the world by GDP" => this is so confusing! The islands are NOT a country, so putting them in a rank among countries is at least baffling. A more appropriate method would be to give the actual figure, then say that this figure is similar to that of country X which ranks on position y among independent countries.
  • What is being ranked is the economy (economic system) of the state. The islands are not a sovereign state; its sovereignty is disputed between Argentina and the UK, but that doesn't mean the Falklands are not a state. "Country" is an ambiguous term that can refer to both sovereign (independent) and non-sovereign states, so the confusion is understandable. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that these rankings are confusing and don't really tell us anything meaningful (both within the infobox and the running text; in the infobox they're worse, as they link to lists on which the Falklands aren't rated). I would strongly suggest dropping them in favour of a direct comparison (eg "the GDP is comparable to that of Norway"). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't a direct comparison all the more complicated? I'd like to think that our readers know about the GDP of Norway, or at least know that Norway is a country in Europe, but that's (quite sadly) not the case. Most individuals are going to find it easier to understand "222nd" as an "oh, that's very down the ladder". I also don't think that the lack of information from one article (specially a non-featured list) should impact a decision in this other article. If anything, the information of the incomplete article should be improved. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "222nd" really tells us anythingwithout having to go into a lot more detail explaining (222nd of how many, for example - 225 or 250 or 300?). "The GDP of the Falklands is xxx; on a per-capita basis, this is yyyy, comparable to that of Norway, among the world's richest countries" would give us the numbers and some context in a simpler fashion. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase my comment: this is not a country in the sense of an average reader thinking a country is an independent entity. If we take countries like Netherlands is made of 4 countries, UK made of who-knows-how-many, then I bet this is not the 222nd. "out of 229", 229 what? I am sure if you compare the GPDs to a well known country, readers at least have a chance of understanding that. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, just because some readers have an erroneous understanding of the word "country" does not mean Wikipedia has to cater to their ignorance (added that the FI government self-identifies as a country [17], so it's not just independent analysts). The Netherlands is a constituent country of a larger sovereign state, but is also typically listed as a country (and compared as such among other countries). Lastly, you're taking the "out of 229" away from its context, which indicates the comparison is economic; and, again, it does not make sense to me that one the one hand you consider the reader's ignorance about governments, but on the other expect them to be knowledgeable about country GDPs. I prefer to assume most readers probably don't even know "GDP" is an acronym, and so I consider that the current text is simple and accurate. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By that thinking then we should include all territories that think of themselves as independent but are not recognized internationally. In that case I bet there would be much more than 229. There are 210ish independent countries. Anything above that limit HAS TO INCLUDE inclusion criteria for the remaining entries. I bet there are orders of magnitude of readers that know what GDP is than what do the 229 refers to. Nergaal (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? I have never stated that the Falklands are independent. Do you understand the difference between a sovereign state and a non-sovereign state? Also, notice that nowhere in the article do I use the word "country" (check Falkland Islands). As I explained before, the term "country" is very ambiguous and can refer to both sovereign & non-sovereign states.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source for this is given, its the CIA World Factbook, acknowledged as a reliable source for this information. It clearly refers to economic value, in an appropriate manner as the Falklands have their own distinct economy that is managed by the islanders themselves. Nowhere is this referenced as implying nationhood or any other spin real or imagined it refers to a Gross Domestic Product (Product Purchasing Power). Its also a standard way of completing this entry in the infobox eg Guam the very example you're touting below. I also find the same information referred to other comparable articles eg Tokelau, Anguilla, Bermuda, Cook Islands, take your pick. And you should know that if readers don't understand what it means, they can click though on the wikilinks and find out. Its a standard way of providing this information on Wikipedia, so why is it being singled out here? WCMemail 00:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a strange thing is that although this is part of the UK, there is no comparison to other parts of the UK or its dependencies; how does the economy compare to other parts of the crown holdings?
  • This is something that should be addressed in the article British Overseas Territories, and not in the article about the Falkland Islands.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, according to the BOT article, the Falklands are not part of the UK (they are administered by it).--MarshalN20 Talk 23:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For an average reader, there isn't really a difference between these islands and Gibraltar. Since the islanders are UK citizens, then it seems sensible to compare their standard of living to other such citizens. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point still holds. If readers want to know about how the BOTs compare, they would and should look for it at the British Overseas Territories article. I'll further add that I looked for sources into this topic, for the sake of fulfilling the request, but none exist.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An article on Guam or Puerto Rico would still have to have some comparisons to the mainland US. Nergaal (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't conduct WP:OR in the article; please provide me with a source that "compares" the Falklands with other BOTs, and then I'll add it to the economics section. Also, this article has plenty of written material on the interaction between the UK and the Falklands. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got to agree with Marshal here, we shouldn't be making such a comparison as that would be WP:OR and WP:SYN. We would need a source to make such a comparison, which we would then report. I am not aware of any such source and speaking frankly it would be unlikely. Economically like all BOT the Falklands manage their own economy and it is on a completely different basis to the UK; an analogy would be to compare apples and oranges. And you're wrong the islanders are not UK citizens, they are in fact British Overseas Territories citizens, who have a right to British citizenship. The rights are not reciprocal as British Citizens do not have a right to Falkland Islands' Belonger status, it has to be earned like everyone else. I've also just looked at the examples you give, take Guam for example, there isn't a comparison with the US, the article explains the relationship with the US; just as this article explains the relationship of the Falkland Islands with the UK. WCMemail 00:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • he least-populated territory in South America => really? I bet that there are some Andes or Amazonia parts that have less population. can you quantify this with respect to subdivisions of SAm countries? or at least say that it is less populated than any of the independent SAm countries
  • Sure! Addressed. I changed "territory" to "state".--MarshalN20 Talk 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still missing my point. You can't compare apples to oranges. These islands are not independent, so please try to refrain from making comparisons to independent countries without CLEARLY making the separation. Just say that they have a pop much smaller than any SAm country, and perhaps say that its pop is smaller than all the independent countries but Vatican. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Falkland Islands are a country and a non-sovereign state. That's what reliable sources present, and that's what the article presents. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From Country: The term "country" is used to refer to sovereign states. There is no universal agreement on the number of "countries" in the world, since a number of states have disputed sovereignty status. There are 206 total states, with 193 states participating in the United Nations, two observer states and 11 other states (if the Cook Islands and Niue are included, although they haven't declared their independence and are in free association with New Zealand). All are defined as states by declarative theory of statehood and constitutive theory of statehood.
If you are willing to disregard all points raised perhaps you should not come to FAC looking for feedback. If you keep on using ambiguous terms for the sake of making who-knows-what-point then go ask feedback somewhere else. Plus, googling "countries in South America" does not give reliable sources for the list of 12 entries in the wiki articles, and as such they ought to be considered OR. Nergaal (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also from Country: A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics.
Here are a couple of sources ([18] & [19]) referring to the Falklands as a "country"; no that it matters, because the article at no point refers to the Falklands as a country.
I have responded to each of your points; you consider I have "disregarded" them because you do not approve the responses. I have done the same in all of my reviews. The fact there are 5 supports for this nomination speaks for itself. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This particular comment isn't sourced, it originally came from List of South American countries by population and whilst an interesting and relevant factoid, we rather need a source to make such a statement. I am going to modify it to simply state they have a low population density suitably cited. WCMemail 00:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an agreement of some sort with regards to the territorial waters delimitation. if not is there a de facto border?

Nergaal (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very good question. I'm sure Wee Curry Monster knows more about this than me, but I will give it a look.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew up above provided a link with maps. I can't find anything on an agreement with Argentina. I think Andrew's link indicates that there is a de facto border. I will add that into the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no agreement, Argentina refuses to recognise the Falklands EEZ and has attempted to sell fishing rights and oil rights inside it. Practically, the Falklands EEZ is respected by commercial entities in the South Atlantic as the Falklands EEZ is policed by a Fisheries Protection vessel permanently deployed there. WCMemail 09:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what is the amount of land claimed by UK? Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The water claim (in nautical miles and kilometers) is already in the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"this border overlaps with the maritime boundary of Argentina" How much? Nergaal (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not state how much.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is it doesn't. Normally when two EEZ overlap the boundary would be set at the median point. In the case of the Falklands EEZ, the UK has not challenged Argentina's 200 nm limit but set the eastern edge to follow the Argentine 200 nm limit, which explains the somewhat lopsided shape of the EEZ. Argentina simply claims the Falklands territorial waters as their own; explained here and here. WCMemail 23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until my issues are addressed satisfactorily. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second oppose to a second nomination of mine. Perhaps third time is the charm. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Note -- I can see above that you've pinged RangerSteve re. your responses to his comments. Has anyone completed an image review? If not, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC

I've just run through these (there's only a dozen or so). All look good except:
  • I like all of the images in the article, but please do remove any that do not meet the appropriate standards.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think your understanding of the rules is flawed, if you refer to both of the latter images its clear that they're PD. Even if published after 2003, they became public domain 70 years after the artists death. Lt.Lowcay died 1853 so it became PD in 1923, Fanshawe died 1906 so it became PD in 1976. Even if you published them for the first time tomorrow, you couldn't claim copyright on them. WCMemail 22:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hurricanehink[edit]

I stumbled here from an FAC of my own, and thought I'd comment!

  • Somewhere in the first paragraph, I feel you should mention the archipelago is east of South America. That's probably the best way to help identify roughly where it is, as opposed to the mentions of Patagonia.
  • "The territorial waters of the Falklands extend to 200 nautical miles" - this could use conversion to miles and km
  • Similarly, all of the references to Celsius needs to have conversions to Fahrenheit
  • How come the islands aren't part of the European Union? I expected to see some mention, seeing as they're part of the UK, which itself is part of the EU, right?

All in all, a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Thank you for the review and kind comments. I have addressed all your points in the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'm happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment[edit]

Now that the review has been stable for a couple of days, I've walked through the discussions above and I believe we have consensus to promote, not so much because the supportive comments outnumber the voice of opposition, but rather because I think the objections have been satisfactorily answered and/or actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2014 (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 (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2014 (diff).

2013 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an interesting hurricane season. For the first time since 1994, there were no major hurricanes in the Atlantic. Further, this season had the fewest hurricane since 1982. Chantal was one of the fastest moving tropical cyclones in the deep tropics since the satellite era began. Hurricane Humberto almost became the latest first hurricane of the season since satellite monitoring started in the 1960s. Later in September, Hurricane Ingrid caused catastrophic flooding in Mexico with Hurricane Manuel in the Pacific. Tropical Storm Karen threatened the Gulf Coast during the U.S. government shutdown. Additionally, one tropical cyclone formed in November and another in December, which did not occur even in the 2012 season. I have worked a lot on this article so that it includes this information and much more; I also have attempted to make it consistent with FAC standards. Finally, this will be a WikiCup nomination.--12george1 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: 12george1. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - Images are okay. All are either from NASA directly or plots of courses by Wikipedians based on NASA maps. Sources are all indicated clearly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Juliancolton[edit]

Comments – it's certainly rare to see the articles of very recent seasons in such good shape, but I do think there's room for improvement. Some suggestions:

  • A solid third of the intro discusses seasonal predictions, a relatively minor aspect of the season as a whole. Predictions for a past event are pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things, and the whole paragraph is basically a list of dates and numbers. Since the lead aims to provide an accessible overview of the topic at hand, I would suggest trying to boil all the hard info down into a more digestible summary—something that says forecasts started out aggressive but were generally adjusted downward at halftime. Now, as for what the lead lacks: I'd like to see more emphasis on how the season inexplicably defied everybody's predictions and sent the long-range forecasting community into a frenzy. That's what the season is invariably remembered for in weather circles.
  • Are you asking for less predictions and more analysis on why the season defied every ones predictions?--12george1 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the revisions, activity remained far below predictions, at thirteen named storms, two hurricanes, and no major hurricanes. – 13 named storms is technically true, but I think you should figure out a way to account for the unnamed SS (especially since the infobox says 14 for total storms).
  • I don't see this discussed anywhere, but I think it's important to note that due to their bust, Gray and Klotzbach were defunded and nearly forced to end their seasonal forecasts.
  • I know this is a point of contention, but I believe the article suffers for having had the by-storm ACE table removed.
  • I am not going to take any action on this until there is an actual debate about this.--12george1 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nine consecutive subsections start with "A tropical wave", which is a bit disconcerting. That said, after the first couple instances where you demonstrate that waves enter the Atlantic via Africa, I don't think you need to keep repeating the whole geographic spiel (eg. Karen, Lorenzo).
  • Fixed some of the "a tropical wave"'s, but not the geographical thing, as I am not understanding why that is it a problem or even how to fix them.--12george1 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it just seems tedious to have to read "A tropical wave emerged into the Atlantic Ocean from the west coast of Africa" at the beginning of a dozen subsections. After the first couple instances of easterly wave-induced genesis, everybody has been told where the waves come from and how they've come upon the Atlantic. An excellent seasonal page should present itself as a smoothly flowing article instead of simply a monotonous compilation of individual storms. In that regard I think the nominated article is a bit lacking. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Storm names' section starts with The following names will be used for named storms that form in the North Atlantic in 2013 (emphasis mine). Are you sure the entire article is up-to-date?

Additionally, the prose is a bit rough in places. I'm not sure it's worth posting a laundry list of specific tasks, so after you've addressed the above comments I'll see what I can do in terms of copyediting. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update
  • Five tornadoes were spawned in the area, one of which damaged three homes. - the misplaced modifier here is enough to cause disruption in the flow of the text. There are several instances of the same problem throughout the article; I'll list a couple of the more prominent ones.
  • where heavy rainfall triggered flooding that damaged 60 homes and affected 300 people. - does this mean the 60 damaged buildings were collectively home to 300 people?
  • I think I am just going to remove "and affected 300 people" because I don't understand what that means either.--12george1 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In El Salvador, flooding caused one fatality, while another occurred after a person was struck by lightning. - needlessly cumbersome. "In El Salvador, flooding and lightning caused one fatality each." ?
  • A large-amplitude tropical wave emerged into the Atlantic Ocean from the west coast of Africa on July 4. - "large-amplitude" is quite technical (and unoriginal, seeing as it's repeated verbatim from the TCR). Surely there's a more commonly understood description to use.
  • Removing "-amplitude", since the sentence basically means that same thing without it.--12george1 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Dominican Republic, there was one direct death when a firefighter from the community of Maimon was killed as he was swept away by flood waters when he tried to clear a drain. - quite a mouthful.
  • I removed the "there was one direct death when" because there is no need to mention a death twice.--12george1 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The remnants of Chantal combined with a surface front, producing locally heavy rainfall and gusty winds over northeastern Florida. - I think Chantal is given too much credit here. The source suggests high PWATs from the system aided in the diurnal convective initiation along the frontal boundary. I wouldn't aim for excessive detail, but I do think Chantal's role in the FL weather can be more accurately explained.
  • A tropical wave, accompanied by an elongated area of low pressure - a tropical wave is an elongated area of low pressure. The same issue is also present in the sections for Dorian and Gabrielle. I know their respective TCRs use the same wording, but it's still confusing to the casual reader who only vaguely knows the definition of a tropical wave.
  • Three days later, another tropical wave, which spawned Tropical Storm Erin, also emerged into the Atlantic. - just clunky.
  • Classes in the state were closed during the storm's passage. - at what sorts of institutions?
  • Apparently it was at "all educational levels."--12george1 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would try to incorporate that into the article, then. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Oaxaca, another fatality took place after a man was swept away by a swollen river. - overly verbose. In general I think you should avoid the "a fatality took place/occurred after x" syntax.
  • Upon crossing the Lesser Antilles and entering the Caribbean Sea, another tropical wave enhanced deep convection. - clunky writing, and also not entirely supported by the source; the TCR simply states that an increase in convection occurred sometime after the second wave reached the nascent cyclone.
  • Is post-analysis intended/conventional?
  • Gabrielle brought rainfall to Puerto Rico totaling between 6 to 8 in (150 to 200 mm) in some areas, during a 48 hour period. - this sentence needs a total revamp; unnecessary comma, misplaced modifier, and it wasn't called Gabrielle yet.
  • Additionally, several trees were downed near a police station. - seems a bit irrelevant to mention the police station if it was not damaged.
  • The remnants of the depression were monitored for the potential for regeneration. - this sentence reminded me a bit of this song, which is never a good thing in academic prose. :) "The remnant system was monitored for regeneration." ?
  • Fixed the hole in the bottom of the sea :P --12george1 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong winds on the island downed trees branches caused minor infrastructural damage, and left minor power outages. - not sure how this was supposed to be formatted, but... it wasn't done properly.
  • I think there was supposed to be a comma between "branches" and "caused".--12george1 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall the Gabrielle summary seems a bit drawn-out. I wouldn't mind if the last three sentences were combined into something more digestible: "After marked oscillations in intensity on September 12, Gabrielle finally succumbed to wind shear while located midway between Bermuda and Cape Cod." ?
  • I don't mind either. :P Ever since I started working on this article, I kept trying and trying to shrink the size of Gabrielle's section.--12george1 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know what you mean. At some point you have to step back from a storm and say "wow, nobody's ever gonna care about this!" ;) – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eight tropical depression of the season - I've noticed more typos than I believe I should for an FAC article. I've fixed a couple, and normally I would continue doing so, but seeing as I missed several the first time around, and other reviewers have apparently also missed them, I can't trust that I've spotted them all. At this point I think you need to buckle down and do some good old-fashioned proofreading.
  • "Thereafter" starts five sentences throughout the article; not sure it's suitable for any of them.
  • Heavy rains across Tamaulipas and Veracruz triggered flooding in areas that were affected by Tropical Storm Fernand just two weeks prior. Many areas were under water once again. - you've gone from on-point professional writing to hyperbolic newscaster-speak over the course of a full stop. Isn't the second sentence entirely redundant to the first in any event?
  • Humberto continued to strengthen while passing south of Cape Verde, due to [...] moderate wind shear - I don't think it's fair to say the strengthening was attributable to the moderate wind shear; rather, it was not inhibited by it.
  • The storm brought periodic squalls to Cape Verde. - squalls by their nature are intermittent. Feel this could be presented better.
  • I think I should removed "periodic", because if squalls are intermittent like you say, than "periodic squalls" is an oxymoron.--12george1 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rotterdam later reached São Tomé and Príncipe, though that country's port institute and coast guard denied the freighter' presence. - typo (I'll start listing them here instead of fixing them myself, to give you an idea of what to look for), and is Rotterdam the name of the freighter that went missing? Not immediately apparent.
  • Later on September 10, deepening briefly halted as the storm curved northwest in response to a developing mid-level trough. - useless to mention the steering mechanism without relating it geographically.
  • The storm decelerated late on September 16 and early on September 17 in response to a mid- to upper-level cyclone. - again, "in response" is vague and offers no real information. What about the cyclone aloft caused Humberto to slow?
  • Not really. What changed? You just reshuffled the line. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Humberto you mention the driving force behind every change in intensity and track; Ingrid appears to have had a mind of its own. Why isn't there more consistency in the level of meteorological detail?
  • The two storms produced 5,700 cu ft (160 m3) of water through heavy rainfall, the equivalent of filling every dam in Mexico. - How does one fill a dam? Surely you would fill the reservoir held back by said instead? Also, 160 cubic meters of rain from two hurricanes seems blatantly wrong to me. A brief look at the source (translated via Google, mind) seems to suggest the volume was more on the order of 160 billion cubic meters (more like it!). As this entire sentence seems to be based on mistranslated info, I'm really uneasy about trusting the rest of the text concerning non-US countries. You really need a fluent Spanish speaker to verify that your translations are accurate.
  • Eh... "the reservoir of every dam" is just weird. I'm almost certain the intended meaning is "every reservoir", but I'm only going by Google translate (as I assume are you). Also, where did you get that new figure of 29,988,109.7 cubic meters? I still get 162 billion cubic meters. When you've settled on a figure, round it off... nobody can calculate continental-scale rainfall to the tenth of a cubic meter. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on scatterometer wind data, the northern portion moved north-northwestward and transitioned into a low pressure area early on September 28. - "As evidenced by scatterometer..." ?
  • a blocking high pressure ridge caused the storm to drift northward, before curving northeastward the following day - poorly worded; the high didn't cause the storm to drift northward, it barely allowed it to drift. Come to think of it, did it really move north at all? The source and track map don't seem to think so.
  • A bit. I think the sentence doesn't quite make it clear whether you're referring to the ridge or the storm, though. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop there. The article is rife with misinformation, poor grammar, dubious Spanish-to-English translations, incomplete meteorological descriptions, and cross-section inconsistencies. The above bullets do not represent an exhaustive list of the issues. A day's worth of hard work could theoretically bring the article where it needs to be, but as it stands I wouldn't even promote it to GA status. On these grounds I must regrettably, but firmly, oppose. Sorry. Instead of just addressing the above points, I would suggest taking the time to go through the article and ensure that it's really among our best work. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More

Some more specific comments:

  • Around then, the wave encountered an upper-level trough, increasing deep convection and spawning a broad trough of low pressure on September 28. - likely confusing to the layperson, especially since said "broad" trough is probably far less broad than the upper trough.
  • Karen was one of few named storms, such as Hurricane Alberto in 1982, during the reconnaissance era to dissipate in the Gulf of Mexico without making landfall. - needs a massage.
  • Let me remove Alberto 1982. The last system was actually Edouard 84, but I can't find a citation for that.--12george1 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the storm was threatening the Gulf Coast of the United States, the NHC issues several tropical cyclone warnings and watches as Karen approached. - typo.
  • residents were also ordered to flee Lafourche and Plaquemines. - why not "Parishes"?
  • I didn't want to make the article too religious :P --12george1 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only some of the US state names are linked in the Karen section, with no apparent rhyme or reason.
  • I didn't think this was supposed to be a rap :P In all seriousness, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and New Jersey were wikilinked in previous sections. Texas was mentioned in Ingrid, but I forgot to wikilink it, so I will do that now.--12george1 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, the moisture associated with the remnants of Karen was absorbed into a frontal system and caused minor flooding in a few states - I'm going to assume the frontal system caused the flooding, perhaps marginally enhanced by Karen's moisture.
  • I feel the Lorenzo section is a bit lopsided. The summary of its life as a TC seems overly detailed (and for a storm as uninteresting as Lorenzo, that means the prose becomes monotonous. "Shear... convection... weakened... trough... trough... degenerated... trough... convection", you get the idea. However, my initial impression is that the storm played a significant role in the genesis of the European storm, so I would very much like to see a couple sentences of info on the impacts thereof.
  • Early on November 17, an extratropical low developed along a stationary front. - where? Kind of weird to start a storm summary off without some idea of location.
  • However, a midst colder ocean temperatures - typo.
  • The remnants merged with another weather system several hours later. - if we haven't established the article is about the weather by now, we might be in trouble!
  • it executed a cyclonic loop to the south. - what does this mean?
  • I count over a dozen usages of "degenerated"/"degenerating", sometimes two or three in the same section. Look for synonyms (diminish, deteriorate, dissipate, dwindle).
  • The circulation became exposed from the convection, before all thunderstorms decreased. - an example of cumbersome wording that should be presented more smoothly. "The circulation became distanced from thunderstorm activity, which soon dissipated entirely." ?

I've reached the bottom of the article, but even if you alleviate these specific concerns, I'm afraid the article will still need quite a bit of work. You addressed my above list of comments very efficiently, and I appreciate that, but in this case I think you'd do well to actually spend some time to read the article yourself and verify the sources. I get the feeling much of the content has been taken from the individual storm articles, and that's fine; it's standard practice. However, that means you have to be super extra careful to check the info. A couple more examples:

  • Trees were knocked onto roads and power lines, leaving about 33,000 people without electricity. - Google translate suggests 33,000 homes were without power, not 33,000 people. As I don't speak French, I can't verify this... but it's important that somebody does so.
  • Apparently "foyers" means "homes" in English. Fixed.--12george1 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Members of the Mexican Navy helped evacuate 4,000 people from their homes in the state of Veracruz. - I'm not sure I totally agree that the source confirms this. It seems to say the Navy, among other branches of the military, helped people evacuate, and that 4,000 people evacuated in total. It might be a bit of a leap to assume the Navy therefore helped 4,000 people evacuate.
  • An estimated 20,000 people were affected by the floods and officials opened four shelters in the area. - the source seems to say 20,000 homes were damaged. Again, I could be completely off the mark here, but Google translate combined with my rudimentary knowledge of Spanish tell me the translations might continue to be a bit off throughout the article. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed my "oppose" and struck my comments (as well as corresponding signatures for ease of reading) that have been addressed. It's getting closer, and like I promised early on, I'll jump in and do a bit of editing myself. In the meantime, I do still have some unresolved content-related concerns above. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12george1, any progress? I said I'd be willing to help, but I'm afraid time might not be on our side here. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update
  • Support Well, I've done some editing, and I feel the article is finally up to par. It's almost certainly the most thorough single account of the season available on the internet, and while there might still be a few rough patches in the writing, I'm confident the article will continue to be polished after its promotion to FA. Nice work George, and thanks for working with me to alleviate my concerns. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink[edit]

Support now. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Given that I also have a hurricane FAC up right now, I figured I should comment.[reply]

  • When you mention "Category 2 intensity" - you should mention SSHS
  • "The season began on June 1 and ended on November 30" - I'd add "officially" somewhere in here, or add that NHC said that's what the season was, due to the December SS
  • Wait, it's not official until it's on Facebook :P--12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd link "subtropical storm" in the first paragraph of the lead, since it's not a common term
  • "Although 15 tropical cyclones developed, several were weak or remained at sea resulting in impact from the season being relatively minimal." - add a comma after "sea"
  • "Tropical Storm Andrea in early June killed four " - puppies? Dear god please don't let it be puppies.
  • "Particularly hit was Mexico" - did you mean to add "hard"?
  • When you mention Ingrid's impacts in the lead, I think you should add "in conjunction with Hurricane Manuel", since their impacts are kinda hard to distinguish.
  • I think the "pre-season forecasts" would be better organized if you mention differing factors that would make the season active or not, as compared to just a list of the forecasts and what they said. For example - "WSI noted the uncertainty in whether an El Niño would develop, while CSU did not anticipate such an event to occur." Or saying how many anticipated above normal temperatures. Similar, two of the agencies cited the increased activity since 1995 as a factor, so why not mention them together? Something like that would show the similar conditions between the agencies, as opposed to a big block of text. That way, you could also incorporate mid-season stuff, showing when the forecasts started going wrong. The whole section might need a rewrite, but I think it'd be better in the long run.
  • "fourteen named storms" - Melissa was the last named storm, which is the 13th letter of the alphabet. So....
  • "Despite the defied forecasts" - add comma
  • In the ACE section, are you including the subtropical storm? If so, you need a source to say subtropical is included. Also, "which was well below the 1981–2010 average of 92" - this isn't sourced.
  • "while initially heading north-northeastward, before recurving northeastward later that day" - I wouldn't say going from NNE to NE constitutes "recurving"
  • "A few hours later, the storm weakened slightly and made landfall near Steinhatchee, Florida later that day." - you have two generic references to time, which doesn't work IMO.
  • I assume you mean a reference to "later". Am I right?--12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were 10 tornadoes,[25] the worst of which touched down in The Acreage and downed power lines and trees, causing significant roof damage to several houses; there was also one injury." - eek, too long and jumbled
  • "One death occurred in South Carolina after a surfer went missing and was presumed to have drowned" - so it goes from death to missing to presumed drowned. Why not just say "a surfer went missing and was presumed to have drowned?"
  • Because that would just be too easy :P --12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over-top" --> "overflow"?
  • "and a minimum barometric pressure of 993 mbar (29.3 inHg)" - that doesn't match Barry's infobox
  • "In El Salvador, flooding caused one fatality, while another occurred after a person was struck by lightning." - why not mention this when you mention the other Central America impact?
  • What is "A large-amplitude tropical wave"?
  • I think it's just a fancy way of saying "large"?--12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overall, the storm caused one death and less than $10 million in damage." - I don't think you need to mention the one death again.
  • "Though the storm tracked swiftly west-northwest over warm ocean temperatures and within an environment of low wind shear initially, allowing it to attain peak winds of 60 mph (95 km/h) by July 25, the entrainment of drier mid-level air and cooler ocean waters caused a weakening trend to ensue." - a bit long
  • I think Durian's MH is a bit on the short side. You don't mention any of the TWO's that indicated it had a high potential for redevelopment north of Puerto Rico, for example.
  • "A tropical wave accompanied by an elongated area of low pressure and a large area of disorganized showers and thunderstorms, emerged off the west coast of Africa on August 15." - add comma after "wave"
  • Any impacts for Erin in the Cape Verde islands? Ditto for Gabrielle impact in Dominican Republic?
  • "The storm passed about 23 mi (37 km)" - that's awfully exact for "about"
  • "Offshore, a freighter with a crew of six went missing amid 10 to 16 ft (3 to 5 m) swells." - any further info on this?
  • "The two storms produced 5,700 cu ft (160 m3) of water, the equivalent of filling every dam in Mexico." - this could use some clarification. Maybe add "produced X of water through their heavy rainfall"?
  • "before curved northeastward the following day" - bad grammar
  • Andrea's damage total should be sourced in the season effects section
  • Any reason the damage totals are sourced but the deaths aren't?
  • What is the publisher for ref 53? Otherwise, sourcing looks good.

Overall, the article is in pretty good shape, just a little rough around the edges in some parts. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did some copyediting on the lead; feel free to change anything you like. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Continuing.
  • "The season officially began on June 1 and ended on November 30, dates that conventionally delimit the period during each year when most tropical cyclones form in the Atlantic Ocean.": That was the second sentence in the lead ... since it's not directly about this hurricane season (other than the dates, which I kept), I thought it was wrong for the first paragraph and deleted it (but feel free to revert if you disagree). One question ... do sources really say that the season ended on November 30, but the last storm of the season lasted from December 5 to 7? I don't recall hearing the term "the season" including things that didn't happen during the season before. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "TSR lowered its numbers due to predicted cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures and above-average sea surface temperatures.": ?
  • - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enough to fill every reservoir in Mexico": They did fill, or they could have filled? - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the near and to the west": ?
  • "north-northward to northward": ?
  • "operationally": At first occurrence, it might make sense to insert a short phrase that translates "operationally". Then you can use the word at will later on.
  • I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took care of most of that stuff on behalf of the nominator. As for the seasonal dates, it's well-documented that hurricane season runs June 1 to Nov 30 (mostly for bureaucratic purposes, though it's caught on with the general public as well). Since we know December 5 is after November 30, I'm not entirely sure I understand your concern there, but it may well be a case of over-familiarity with hurricane jargon on my/our end. Thanks for taking the time to go over the article. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The changes addressed my questions, thanks. On the last point, "readability" can generally be tested. My hypothesis (not proven, and I don't have a cite other than dictionary definitions) is that most readers take "season" to mean "the span of time when the events happened" ... if so, it will at least slow them down to say that one of the events of the season happened outside the season, even if they do eventually get comfortable with it. I'm throwing it into the pile of things to test on random readers, when I get around to it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A random check of five citations gives no close paraphrasing issues and states the information given, honestly have no other concerns. Secret account 00:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I removed several duplicate links, some of them only a few sentences apart. Pls check for yourself in future, using this script. N.B. I left the Veracruz dups in place as I know it's a city and a state and we probably don't need you saying "city of" and "state of" everywhere to clarify... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2014 (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 (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2014 (diff).

South Carolina-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These "epoch" warships were the first dreadnoughts fielded by the United States Navy. Congressionally-mandated weight restrictions (some two to three thousand tons less than the earlier British Dreadnought) were the impetus for some of the class' many innovations, but they also led to their uselessness during the First World War—their comparatively slow speed limited them to convoy escorting and home defense, tasks also assigned to completely obsolete battleships. Their ignominious careers were ended alongside dozens of other warships by the Washington Naval Treaty.

This article's first FAC was not promoted after I ran into several real-life obligations and was unable to address the worthy criticism. Thankfully, I have much more time now. While the style of this article may be a bit unusual, I've made many of the same choices (including the collapsed infobox) in previous FACs, such as Pennsylvania-class battleship. My thanks in advance for all constructive criticism. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for the first FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Why does some "courtesy" caption links go directly to the source and others only to the image description page?
  • File:Brassey's1912_South-Carolina.png: needs US PD tag, and if the artist is unknown how do we know they died more than 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • See no need for humongous image at top of mistakenly shrunken infobox.
  • Shrink the line drawing and why are all of these photos upright 1.4? They're far larger than normal and I don't see any real point to doing so.
  • Are these ships "shes" or "its"? The former is customary.
  • You're using the ship names far too much, mix them up with a few pronouns and "the ship".
  • Shouldn't eastern seaboard be capitalized as a proper noun?
  • Spell out state abbreviations for those outside the US. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split out |ship power from |ship propulsion and put ihp and # of boilers in ship power. Add # of shafts and engines to ship propulsion. Tell the reader that VTE engines are steam engines.
  • Link knots, nautical miles, boiler (once added) and add hyphen for triple expansion engine when spelled out as it's a compound adjective.
  • Abbreviate nautical miles and limit conversions from feet/inches to just one digit after the decimal, not the template's default.
  • Data for armor is inconsistently presented and converted.
  • Link and add an explanatory note for caliber like I had to do for Lexington-class aircraft carrier.
  • Provide a more exact scrapping or disposal date in the Ships table.
  • Specifications for Possible need to use US spellings not the template's default British spelling.
  • Figures for draft differ between Specifications section and infobox.
  • lower than HMS Dreadnought, the namesake British ship built shortly before the South Carolinas This is awkward.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Sturm. I've seen these comments and will address them as soon as I can. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replies are in order:
    • @1 and 2, it's a stylistic choice. The images and thumbnail size are like postage stamps, with little detail open to being seen. I like seeing details w/o clicking. :-) As for the collapsed infobox, it's to allow more room for imagery. All of the specifications are available with either one click or farther down in prose form.
      • Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide says: "The standard size for infobox images is 300px. Different values may be used, but you should only do so if absolutely necessary."
      • I see absolutely no reason why the infobox image should differ from the standard 300px. I'm far more willing to grant much more freedom to vary sizes for later images.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first, and most important bit of info, that the line drawing will convey is the general layout of the ship, such as turret and mast locations, etc. The only thing that you lose by using the default size is armor thickness and the stuff at the bottom, which should arguably be cropped as redundant to the infobox. This image dominates the entire article and for no good purpose, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll cut down the line drawing image; you're probably right in it dominating the surrounding text. I still don't agree on the infobox image, but can we compromise at 350px? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • What do you really gain by the extra 50 pixels? Most of what I can see now at the current size is the silhouette of the ship, details of the cage masts, some boats and the gun casemates. Most all of that will be retained if you use the standard 300 px size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone with "its" to be more formal. The only "she" is in the quote from Friedman, which I'm not allowed to change!
    • That's a really good point, especially in the specifications. I'll be addressing this.
    • Tony or Dank: eastern seaboard or Eastern Seaboard (of the US)? I think Sturm's right here.
      • Eastern Seaboard. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Dank—do you have any advice on vertical-triple-expansion vs vertical triple-expansion and the last point? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm generally not comfortable with hyphen advice (except in cases where we can just look it up). If you're asking about "its", just the fact that AP Stylebook recommends it means that 90% of copyedited text in this country goes with "its". But I buy the argument that "her" might convey a certain intimacy with the source material ... and whether that's the tone you're going for is up to you. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any state abbreviations? Or am I just blind?
    • Done.
    • Done in the infobox. Is it vertical-triple-expansion or vertical triple-expansion?
    • Done, I believe?
              • Vertical is a separate adjective from triple expansion as there were horizontal multiple-expansion engines, so it's vertical triple-expansion steam engines.
    • Armor inconsistencies fixed.
    • Will do asap. DANFS gives much more detailed info on their fates that I didn't include for some unknown reason... Complete.
    • Done.
    • I'll pull out Friedman from my book box and double-check it for the draft figures. Complete.
    • Honestly, I've been staring at that sentence too. Tony/Dank, any thoughts? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sturmvogel 66: I've either replied or addressed all of your points, with the exception of the state abbreviations and the hyphens. How do they look? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Simply as a point for future use, the template for knot automatically converts into kmh and mph; save yourself some unnecessary typing.
        • I think that it's a good idea to link terminology like knot and nautical mile in both the infobox and main body.
        • When people read engine I believe that they're automatically gonna think internal combustion engine so you simply can't say just triple-expansion engine; you have to specify that it's a steam engine.
        • I don't think that it's well covered in Friedman, but at least a mention of how the Americans moved their gun sights in the main gun turrets to either the side or the front of the turret (I forget which, off-hand) is worthy of mention. It was almost another decade before the Brits and Japanese stopped using roof-top gunsights that weakened the roof armor and could deafen the gunners in lower turrets when the superfiring guns fired above them.
        • I fixed a couple of the points above for you and cut back a couple of the unnecessary decimal places as well as I tend to be fussier about specifications, etc. than most. Still have to get to the meat of the article, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I learned something today.
          • Point well-taken. Thanks for fixing this in the article.
          • I'll work on finding a mention; there may be one in Battleship Design and Development.
          • Thanks again for the thorough review. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • early years a little imprecise, how about first decade?
    • Done.
  • Link Congress
    • Done.
  • Provide ranks for all serving officers like Capps, Taylor, etc.
    • Capps is done. I don't see a rank for Taylor (for 1905) beyond "naval constructor". I assume I need to dig deeper.
  • Be consistent in referring to all measurements of the same type, like gun bore diameters, either all spelled out or none. This overrides the normal rule about numbers less than 10 being spelled out.
    • I believe I've fixed these.
  • Convert 11 inch.
    • Done.
  • Watch for overlinks.
    • Do you have Ucucha's script for checking for overlinks? If not add this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where?
  • Trials section is a bit too detailed, IMO, other than the damage sustained during them. Done up to service history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. I could trim it down a bit around the damage, but then we lose the context. South Carolina's trials are only a few sentences long. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dude, you've got more information on the trials than you do for their armament and armor, combined! We're an encyclopedia and not supposed to include every fact that you run across just because we're not paper. I've been having a discussion with another editor over on the talk page of HMS Indomitable where he wants to add the ship's displacement and rpm count to the trials info. Simply because it's been made available by one author, even though it's been ignored by all the rest. The average reader doesn't care about that info, nor will zhe care about the dates of the subsequent trials or even the various types of trials conducted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still waiting on response/action on image issues. Why credit every image, why so big, why link to NARA more than once, etc.?
        • Yes, but tell me where I should cut it down? Michigans trials are documented because of the multiple damages. Otherwise there's one paragraph about the launch ceremonies, a short paragraph listing what the builders had to meet on the trials, one sentence on Michigan's commissioning, then a few sentences on South Carolina's trials and commissioning. Conceivably, I could remove some information in the last paragraph, but cutting anything from the Michigan paragraph would cause the damages to lose context (hence my previous comment, if that wasn't clear!).
          • I think that you're overthinking things; it's actually pretty easy. Delete the entire short para about the specifics of the trials and just say that Michigan ran aground during the trials, damaging her propellers. And then give the top speed made by each ship. I cover trials in about two sentences in my articles, so the readers lose nothing by compressing this absurd amount of detail down that much. The funny thing is that Damwiki1 (talk) who wants even more details added about trials would probably say that you've got too much of the wrong sort of info here as you don't mention ship displacement, horsepower and rpm counts. To sum up I normally cover construction and trials in a paragraph or so, so I don't see any issues with in doing the same here. IMO, you've given far too much weight to the trials than they deserve since it's about 2/3s the length of the entire service section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the images, I do it because NARA has uploaded images specifically for this article. I've done it in previous FAs of mine with no complaint. As for the sizes, WP:IMGSIZE says that there should be a "good reason" to do so. That's not a high hurdle to clear. The postage stamp-sized default thumbnail size does not show the detail that I'd like for historical images that are of this high of quality (in pixels and clarity). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I counted two or so images that Dominic loaded for you this year. The other images are usually far older. I have no particular issue mentioning the source if they were special requests, but the others should not be mentioned as per the usual practice. I regret not mentioning the image issues in the Pennsy-class article, but you were so insistent on the hidden infobox that I figured it was a waste of time, much as it seems to be proving here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is all the info I gave on the Ise class for their trials, from the propulsion section: Both ships comfortably exceeded their designed speed of 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph) during their sea trials; Ise reached 23.6 knots (43.7 km/h; 27.2 mph) from 56,498 shp (42,131 kW) and Hyūga exceeded that with 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph) from 63,211 shp (47,136 kW). I see no need for all of the excessive detail on their trials. Michigan's grounding arguably could be covered in the individual ship article rather than here, but typically I give dates for their trials in the individual ship articles as it's not particularly relevant for a class article, IMO. Why do you think that this plethora of info is worth including here? Simply because it's available? As far as I can tell the info here exceeds the coverage given the trials of virtually every other ship class article on Wiki, battleship or not. IMO the coverage that you had on the trials in your last FA, the Pennsylvania-class BBs, is about right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: ... none of those ships were damaged on their trial runs, were they? :-) I've shortened both paragraphs in question more. I'd like to keep the short paragraph with what they were contractually obligated to do, as that's rather important information. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The detailed info on the format of the trials is pretty much the same for what the RN did and is likely similar for all navies of the period, so why is it important for these ships as opposed to any other class? If there was more organized information as to what was involved for more navies, I could see a worthwhile comparative article on the different practices for trials of different navies. That could cover differences between various measured miles, French and Italian practices of running trials without armament to increase reported top speeds, use of best-quality coals and additional stokers for the RN, etc. But as an isolated bit in one article, the info is mildly interesting at best and lacks context. Honestly, I think that you're enamored with this info because you've not seen it anywhere else and thus think that it's worth incorporating into this article. Remember Wiki's scope, we don't add every single bit of info that we discover; we have to pick and choose the most important bits lest general readers get bogged down in a forest of details and miss the important stuff. And I think that the trials info is far less important than the development history, technical specs and service histories of this class. Personally, I wouldn't bother with Michigan's grounding here, but I can see your point and have no problem with it remaining.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not enamored (and frankly find that a little insulting); I do think that contractual requirements might be important in the context of the class' history, and left out plenty of information in sources when writing the story. But I give up and have removed the paragraph. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: I'm ready to close this (with alacrity!) unless you've anything more to add... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. While I still don't like the oversized image in the infobox and the credits in the images, they're not worth opposing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your hard work here, Sturmvogel 66. While we (obviously) don't always agree, your input is always appreciated. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Link Norman Friedman
  • Can't you just put a footnote into the quote box instead of a full reference?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of journal articles
  • FN4: does the Campbell title include that date range? It's not in the References entry
  • Be consistent in whether you use "South Carolina Sisters" or "The South Carolina Sisters" in short cites
  • FN16 should have same capitalization as References entry. Also, here you use a more complete title than in FN20 - check for other inconsistencies in short cites
  • FN24, 25: don't need location in short cite
  • Compare Jones title in References versus short cites. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the delegates, since the editor hasn't responded to comments in almost a month, I recommend that this review be archived so he can resubmit when he has more free time to deal with the issues raised above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, sorry for the lack of a response. I was forced to move about a month ago and we just got Internet at the new place two days ago. I have time blocked out this weekend to respond to all of the above points. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Request withdrawn, just say that you're temporarily incommunicado, next time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, although I really hope that never happens again. ;-) Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • As I said in the first FAC, I don't care for the collapsed infobox. I understand that you want room for images, but even with the box expanded, there's plenty of room for the photo of New Hampshire before it runs into the line drawing at the bottom of the section. You'd need a rather wide screen for that to be a problem, and you could shorten the infobox some by removing the cost figures (which are next to useless to readers, since they cannot be easily converted to 2014 dollars) and the note on the source of figures (which could easily be converted into a footnote and placed elsewhere, such as the "General characteristics" line of the box). You could also stand to lose the ship type field as well.
    • Done. I wrestled with the sourcing note as well, but I don't really have another place to put it, as it applies to the whole infobox. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo of New Hampshire should really be on the left side, since it's right-facing.
  • I also think the line-drawing is rather too large - you might be better served by reducing it to 3-400px and moving it into the design section (and shifting the quote box down). An added bonus is that this would further reduce the need for collapsing the box, especially coupled with moving the photo of New Hampshire to the left.
  • "As the superfiring arrangement used a great amount of space within each already-limited ship..." - did it use more space than the 5 turrets of Dreadnought or the eight of Satsuma? Or more compared to the Italian Dante Alighieri or Russian Gangut? What I'm getting at is, was it the superfiring arrangement that took up more space or simply the fact that it was twice as many 12" guns, with twice as many corresponding magazines, shell rooms, etc. that caused the space crunch?
    • It was a combination of factors. The superfiring/centerline arrangement took up space that had been previously devoted to boilers, for instance. The ship could have been made bigger/longer to compensate, I suppose, but the congressional displacement limit would be broken by a larger ship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, but what I'm getting at is whether the superfiring arrangement took up more of the ship's volume than 4 turrets in a different arrangement (say the lozenge of the Invincibles) would have taken up. As it reads now, it suggests that four turrets in a superfiring arrangement took up more space than the equivalent number of heavy guns in Invincible - which is to say, the internal volume problem was one of arrangement, rather than the simple fact that 4 large barbettes/shell rooms/magazines/etc. requires more room than 2 of them. Does my question make sense? Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Parsecboy: I don't think we're making it clear to each other. :-) First, Friedman doesn't say what would use up more space. However, in a ship that was already shortened due to congressional weight restrictions and being designed by individuals who were used to only having to place two main turrets on the centerline, the superfiring arrangement took up far more space than they were used to, requiring them to move many traditional locations (the boiler room, for one). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you've answered my question - if so, then it should be reworded to something like "As the additional main battery turrets with their associated magazines used a great amount of space within each already-limited ship..." - the point being to make clear that it was the additional number of main battery turrets, not the particular arrangement, that was responsible for the space problem. What you have now won't be an issue for most readers, but to those of us "in the know", it would suggest that the superfiring arrangement was particularly wasteful of space as compared to other arrangements. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that it would be best to concentrate the discussion of the merits of the superfiring arrangement in one place - right now it's spread out a bit in the design section and then a bit more in the characteristics section.
  • Did experience with the Kearsarge or Rhode Island classes play any role in the adoption of superfiring turrets? These ships didn't have superfiring guns per se, but from what I understand they were rather unsuccessful and might have caused some opposition to a superfiring arrangement.
    • That's actually something I looked for while writing up the background. While it would stand to reason that those ships would comw up, Friedman doesn't mention them even once in US Battleships. The main controversy came from C&R's insistence that mixed batteries were fine; or as Friedman puts it, "The bureau also observed sarcastically that quite competent authorities had been happy enough with a mixed battery only a short time before ..." My suspicion is that while they seem similar, the reality was different enough to lead detractors to focus on different topics. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did draft change at full load?
    • This is going to sound odd, but I don't have any sources that give their full-load drafts. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add crew figures to the characteristics section please
  • Any info on what types/number of boats each ship carried?
  • How about for the electrical system (i.e., type and number of generators, combined output, etc.)?
  • And range and performance data for the main battery guns? Elevation/depression?
  • Where were the casemate guns located? Any idea if they had the same problem with being worked in heavy seas as many contemporary ships did?
    • Re last two questions, I don't have that information in my sources, and Navweaps is still not reliable (afaik). I have, however, ordered Friedman's US Naval Weapons, which should correct that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have Friedman's Naval Weapons of World War I, which should have the same information, if you need it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Parsecboy: Yes, that would be great. There's no tracking information yet, leading me to think that they've just marked it as 'shipped' so I can't cancel, and Amazon tells me that it could be at my house as late as July 10th. Thank you very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Parsecboy:, US Naval Weapons doesn't cover the SC's casemates. Can your book fill the gap? Apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't mention the casemates either. Do you happen to know what the specific type of gun it was? I'm guessing the Mk III gun. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't confirm that either. I've sent an email to Tony DeGiulian. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Parsecboy: I've forwarded you an email. In short, DeGiulian thinks that the guns were at least Mark 5, but he can't be sure on the exact mark—and he's working with a picture from 1914, so they may have been upgraded after being commissioned. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • According to Friedman, the Mk III was the version in production when these ships were built. I wonder if any articles in Proceedings would mention the specific type? Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the torpedo armament in the text?
  • You have a few dupe links in the article - do you have the script to detect them?
    • Just installed it. I've removed most of them, though I've left the additional links in the specifications section with the idea that the technical terms should be linked. Please let me know if you object!
      • Fair enough - though I'd cut one of the links to Dreadnought in the Design section - the quote box is right next to the paragraph with the link in it, which is a bit much IMO.
  • Re: Kieler Woche - link to regatta
  • Why Vera Cruz instead of Veracruz?
  • "due to their top speeds, which were lower than the later Standard-type battleships" - the Standards only started with the Nevadas (i.e., the second generation of US dreadnoughts) - all of the rest of the first generation (Delaware to New York classes) were 21-knotters (and it was the 1st gen ships that did the bulk of USN service in Europe in WWI).
  • "which limited naval construction in the hope of averting a vastly expensive naval arms race" - it wasn't just "in hope" of averting another arms race, it did avert another race (or at least delay it for 15 years). Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other thing occurs to me upon re-reading the introduction - it really ought to mention the superfiring arrangement. Dreadnought was the first in service with the all-big-gun arrangement (though her real innovation was the use of turbines in a large warship) but the superfiring, all-centerline arrangement was also a major step forward (and was only employed in the other major navies several years later). Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had I not re-read the lead before this, I would have sworn it was in there. It definitely deserves to be. Will add. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • After a third look at the lead, I think it might be wise to include the fact that the shift to the all-big-gun armament was occurring elsewhere besides the USN - at very least I'd think Dreadnought should be mentioned and maybe Satsuma as well.
  • Something else just caught my eye - "little-armored destroyers" in the Background section - as far as I'm aware, there weren't any destroyers of the period that carried armor - probably better to just say "unarmored" instead. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2014 (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 05:16, 16 July 2014 [21].

Jean Bellette[edit]

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Australian modernist painter, whose unorthodox choice of subject (classical Greek myth) at a time when critical nationalism was in full swing in art both won her acclaim (two wins in the Sulman Prize) but also nonplussed critics in the long run. To anticipate one query - why so little about the decades of her work after she went to Majorca in 1957 - the answer is: because no-one writes about them. I don't understand why, either. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mirokado[edit]

  • Please correct CS1 problems:
    • invalid date contents such as "purchased 1954" (three occurrences, see Category:CS1 errors: dates)
      • I have changed two of the three cases. With respect to the third, this has a history. During the FAC process for Florence Fuller, Nikkimaria and I had a discussion about what to do with the citation of works of art in gallery collection databases, when referencing the fact of the gallery's ownership. She correctly pointed out that the date to include is the acquisition date, not the date at which the work was painted. That is the reason for the use of this language. I realise it produces a CS1 error, but my concern is the accurate citation, not whether the code likes it. If however you can suggest a way to include the date that works around this, i'd be happy to know, as it would be great to not get those error messages.hamiltonstone (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • deprecated parameters (|year=2012 |month=June) in Klepac, Lou (June 2012) cite (use |date=, see Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters)
      • Done. This is a bit frustrating, since the parameter names came from a WP template in the edit options bar...hamiltonstone (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • use |first= |last= consistently (instead of sometimes |author=Klepac, Lou or whatever too)
  • Non-free images: I can see why you want them, but unless things have changed they are not allowed in an FA (someone please comment if this is no longer the case)
    Chiming in to say that non-free images are most definitely allowed in FAs as long as the rationale is strong enough. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and training: "She subsequently was" -> "She was subsequently"
  • Career: "about some of whom Bellette published writings": "... published articles" would read better (unless the contributions cannot be regarded as articles of course)

-- Mirokado (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks.[reply]

  • Please add alt text to the images. The alt text is for vision-impaired readers and describes what we can see in the picture.
  • Max Dupain took a photo of Bellette in 1936 which is I think in the public domain in Australia since taken before 1955, thus probably in the U.S. too. You would need to contact the National Library of Australia. If this or a similar picture can be used, we should probably use it.
  • I've ruled that one out, because Max Dupain is a recognised artist and as such that photograph would be treated as a work of art, not as a regular snap - as such, its copyright depends on the death date of the artist, not on the fact that it was taken before 1955. I believe Commons is mistaken in hosting at least one photograph by him. However, i'm not an expert; if there has been a discussion on WP or commons that concluded that all photographs are covered by the pre-1955 rule, regardless of their maker / artistic quality, then i would change my view.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking about the date issue... Neither that nor the answers to the following open questions are likely to stop me supporting this well-written article:

  • Can the Retrospective in 2004–2005 be a source of more information than is currently used? Should it be mentioned as as significant milestone in its own right?
      • I have used the publication associated with that as an extensive source now. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The S H Ervin Gallery Exhibition Calendar 2005 says "This comprehensive retrospective offers the first opportunity to re-assess and celebrate the remarkable life and career of Jean Bellette. The exhibition explores her expressions of neo-classicism, still life and drawings from the 1930s, 40s & 50s, through to her work as an expatriate artist in Majorca from 1958 until her death there in 1991." That is of course advertising blurb, but perhaps the exhibition catalogue has background articles.
  • Amanda Lawson in "A Speculative Venture: Contemporary Art, History and Hill End" says: "If the concept of national identity associated with the bush myth was notorious for its exclusion of women, Indigenous people and urban/suburban life, the artistic traditions that came to be identified with Hill End were equally exclusive: painting was the medium that counted, landscape the subject of choice. A female artist such as Jean Bellette (1909-1991), for example, although a member of the Hill End Group, only achieved significant recognition through a retrospective exhibition in 2004; her interest in classicism sits uneasily with the populist focus of 'vernacular modernism' (Wilson 21-24)."
    • This asserts the significance of that exhibition.
    • It mentions her gender. Is there any widespread suggestion that this, as well as her choice of subject matter, was an issue?
      • I have picked up at least one source in this, in my latest revisions.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Hill End Group" is not mentioned in our article by name as "a Group". Should it be?

--Mirokado (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will work on your (and Ceoil's) comments over coming days).hamiltonstone (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough response. I'll have another look through the article over the weekend since you have added quite a lot of material, but I imagine anything I notice would be minor now: alt text is still needed for the images. Changing to support. --Mirokado (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now looked through the article again. It is a good read.

  • lead: "Married to artist and critic Paul Haefliger, the couple moved to Majorca in 1957. Though she visited and exhibited in Australia thereafter, she did not return to live, and became peripheral to the Australian art scene." There is a transfer of subject from Jean to the couple and the sentence links the two events too closely – they were married in 1935. How about: "Bellette married artist and critic Paul Haefliger in 1935. The couple moved to Majorca in 1957: although she visited and exhibited in Australia thereafter, she did not return to live, and became peripheral to the Australian art scene."
  • refs and citations:
    • there are three unresolved callouts to French 2004 and one to French 2005. It can be difficult to spot these without mechanical help. so I suggest you install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. I guess these are to the France 2004 gallery catalogue (in case anyone else spot-checks WorldCat, you correctly refer to Christine France even though some listings say Christine Francis), but there are a couple of other problems which would also need to be sorted out
    • French 2004 p. 2, the page range does not match any of the citations
      • I couldn't work out how to cite the inside cover page without creating another cite to the same book. But i've done that now. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • France 2004 citation has the same chapter title as Hall 2004 – I guess there is a copy-paste error
    • Grishin 2013, WorldCat says 2014 for both visible editions, please check
      • I have the book, and it has 2013 printed on the title page.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mirokado (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I have made a couple of further changes to the bibliography, it was simpler to do it than to describe what I felt was necessary. I see no further issues so I wish you happy editing. --Mirokado (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Non-free images are allowed in FAs; however, the "n.a." parameters should be filled in for the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article as written is very good, and the prose are great; to the point, elegant and clear. But I get no sence of her as an artist, what/whom she was influenced by, what she was interested in, which formats, colour ranges, subject matter, etc she used. This is esentially a bio timeline, which in most painter's articles would be the first half of the page. I realise this is difficult with more modern painters, but I would be delighted to see a "works" or "style" section. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am leaning support here; and it may just be a matter off adding quotes from reviews, and consolidating material already on the page. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ceoil. I've added some material, but need to try and get to one particular reference work to which i've not had access. There's also a 1946 review i haven't had the chance to quote. I'll have to think some more about reorganising the text to create a specific section on her works or style.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm very pleased to see these additions. Otherwise, Ive gone through this article in detail, with minor c/es, and am overall impressed by both editor and artist. But...continue! Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be busy this week, but can you ping me on my talk when you want me to revist re the expansion. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update to say that this has now been added, and there is just one more source I'd like to check, though i don't know when i will get access to it.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've found everything, I think. These are the final changes. Thank you Ceoil, let me know what you think.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to delegates, though i expect you already know - Ceoil appears to have retired to County Antrim...which sounds lovely.) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re my reservation on comprehensiveness; has been met, am happy now to support. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

An interesting article. You're an old hand at this, so just a few quibbles before I support. I'm a Brit, so ignore comments where Oz usage differs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • She regularly painted scenes—I wonder if you mean "frequently"?
  • Displaying works in the 1934 student art exhibition, her drawings and watercolours attracted favourable comment—ungrammatical, I think ; Her drawings and watercolours displayed in the 1934 student art exhibition attracted favourable comment
  • about some of whom Bellette published articles in the journal Art in Australia.—clunky, perhaps some of whom Bellette wrote articles about in the journal...
  • caryatids—footnote after ref explaining this obscure word?
  • black and white—in BE this should be hyphenated
  • but reconciled—in BE, I'd add "were"
  • that reflected a Spanish influence—Is this actually what the source says? Majorca has quite a distinctive culture, and the language is closer to Catalan than Spanish
  • I don't have access to that book now. From memory it said Spanish - i think because it was framing this as much geographically as culturally. I certainly do not recall any reference to Catalonia in any of the sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rise of abstract expressionism, strong influence of a small number of gallery owners—I'd put "the" before "strong"
  • I prefer Australian regions to be spelt out, but it needs to be consistent (you have a mix of spelt-out and abbreviations)
  • It seems odd to abbreviate "'Victoria" while spelling out the longer New South Wales, and even odder to have two variants of capitalisation for the shortened form.

Thank you! hamiltonstone (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support above. With regard to the caryatids, my preference would be to use footnote format rather than reference format since it's a comment rather than a source. I leave that to your discretion, but either way I'd be inclined to move the link to the end rather than intruded into the quote Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Switched. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't double location in newspaper refs - for example "The Argus (Melbourne) (Melbourne"
  • Good question. This is a fifty year-old clipping held in the collection of the National Library of Australia. All other clippings there are paginated but this one is not. I can only surmise that it came from an unnumbered supplement section or something (though it might also just have been an error). There's nothing i can do about it though... hamiltonstone (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2014 (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 04:57, 16 July 2014 [22].

The Whistleblower[edit]

Nominator(s): 1ST7 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Whistleblower is a 2010 thriller film about human trafficking in postwar Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is based on the account of Nebraska police officer Kathryn Bolkovac, who worked as a peacekeeper in the region during the late 1990s and discovered a sex trafficking ring being facilitated by international peacekeeping personnel. The article was promoted to GA status in October 2013 and underwent a copyedit by the Guild of Copy Editors in December. I believe it meets the requirements for FA status and nominated it a few months ago, but the nomination stalled after receiving two support votes. I'm hoping that it will receive more reviews this time around and would greatly appreciate any comments. 1ST7 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I supported this article's promotion the last time around, but I've come to see some details that need to be fixed so I won't support just yet.
  • The opening line should read something like: The Whistleblower is a 2010 Canadian-German thriller film..."
  • The film's budget should get a mention somewhere.
  • How did the media in the Balkans respond to the film? This should be mentioned in the "Reviews" section.

Other than that, it still looks good to me. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I've altered the opening line and added some information about the film's reception in the Balkans. However, I haven't been able to find the exact film budget anywhere, just several articles saying that it was low. According to this link, the budget is unknown, and I remember having read one article that mentioned it never being disclosed. --1ST7 (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I think I'll support now. 23 editor (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Corvoe[edit]

Hello there, 1ST7! Happy to start reviewing this, I'll get through as much as I can now and wrap it up later tonight or tomorrow. I'll go section by section with a fine tooth comb. I'll also make a handful of copy-editing changes.

Lead
  • I actually have to start off by refuting one of 23 editor's comments. According to WP:FILMLEAD, "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." I've gone ahead and made this change. Sorry 23 editor, I don't mean to offend if I have.
  • Not a fan of the parentheses in the lead. I feel like "attempting to shut down" would be sufficient, and less visually distracting.
  • Specific dates for the TIFF premiere and theatrical release would be nice. Also, mentioning the US release in the lead is pretty irrelevant, since the US had nothing to do with the production of this film (see WP:FILMRELEASE)
  • "The Whistleblower received several awards and nominations, including the 2012 Genie Awards." Did it receive several nominations at the Genie Awards, or was it nominated for the Genie Award?
Plot
  • "(entitled "Do not read this if you have a weak stomach or a guilty conscience")" is definitely weird, and seems unnecessary.
  • Link BBC. A lot of non-British people don't know it. Also, which branch? I'm assuming BBC News, so I'd specify that.
Production
  • "which served (and was protected by) other peacekeepers." I can't think of another way to word this, but it feels weird.
  • Photo of Madeleine Rees shouldn't be so wide. I'd crop it down slightly, so it's upright.
  • "she resolved to adapt the story for the screen; however, "I love documentaries, but I wouldn't even know how to make one." This feels awkward and kind of unrelated. I could be wrong.
  • "The Whistleblower is a Canadian–German co-production (Kondracki is Canadian)". Why does it matter that she's Canadian? Her nationality has nothing to do with the countries of production (see The Grand Budapest Hotel).
  • Filming section's quotes are formatted really strangely, they don't look like they're quotes (not the one from Bolkovac, the two in-text quotes).
Themes
  • Photos at the beginning of a section shouldn't be on the left, it makes the reader have to search for the starting text.
Reception
  • I've gone ahead and made some changes that I personally think adds to it. Feel free to revert these changes. Corvoe (speak to me) 22:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed "R rating" note, as it's rating was never a point of relevance.

All in all, when these are all acknowledged, I'd be more than happy to support this.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I believe I have addressed all but two things: first, I have not altered the photo of Madeleine Rees because I don't know how to crop images; second, I am uncertain about changing the quote boxes, as another reviewer (from the last FA nomination) told me that they should be formatted that way due to the length of the quotes. --1ST7 (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quote boxes were fine, I was referring to the in-text ones. I feel like there's a better way, but I can't think of one so I won't penalize you. Also, I cropped the image and added it in. Lastly, you have my... Corvoe (speak to me) 04:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article is extremely well-written, well-sourced, and all-inclusive. It contains a large amount of information about the topic, all presented with quality illustrations and excellent prose. This is one of the best film articles I've encountered, no doubt. Congratulations to 1ST7 for this outstanding work. Corvoe (speak to me) 04:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Nikki, could you do a source review as well when you have time? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as McGuigan's role, do not appear to be sourced
  • Double-check italicization - for example, NPR should not typically be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think those issues have been fixed. Thanks for the source review! --1ST7 (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2014 (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 05:11, 16 July 2014 [23].

Snoring rail[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The snoring rail is even more elusive than the invisible rail, so this is a short article because so little is known about it. Gerd Heinrich puts in another appearance though, so that's something to look forward to! Thanks to Crisco for sleeking the plumage before I brought the bird here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review
File:Aramidopsis plateni 1898.jpg - Fine
File:Aramidopsisplatenimap.png - Source for your data doesn't appear to be working
I've replaced the template with a simple link, now seems OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and images. Well written short article. I'll AGF on comprehensiveness, as I am sadly unfamiliar with birding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your edit, I was lulled into "the Celebes" by the plural-like spelling, so it's stupidity rather than BE (: Thanks for support and you earlier help, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Taxonomy "It is now considered to be more similar to the Inaccessible Island and white-throated rails than to members of the Rallus genus." but the cladogram in this paper

Kirchman, JJ (2012). "Speciation of flightless rails on islands: A DNA-based phylogeny of the typical rails of the pacific". Auk. 129: 56–69. doi:10.1525/auk.2011.11096.

based on sequencing 3 mitochondrial genes suggests that the closest relatives are Lewin's rail (Gallirallus pectoralis/Lewinia pectoralis) and the Slaty-breasted rail (Gallirallus striatus) Aa77zz (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd missed that paper, thanks for that, text updated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points

  • "other than a report of an adult seen feeding with two chicks in August 1983,[4] but the original report gives no details of the claimed sighting.[17]" This is very confusing. Footnote 12 (Birdbase) also contains "A bird was observed with two chicks in August 1983 (Andrew and Holmes 1990)." This looks as if one author copied from another without going back to the primary source. (Please could you email Andrew and Holmes 1990 to me). If Andrew and Holmes don't mention the sighting, then perhaps the wiki article shouldn't either.
  • I'll send you the article, but the relevant text says C: At c. 08.00 hrs on 18 Aug 1983, one observed with two chicks foraging in lightly disturbed hill forest bordering dense regrowth near Sidaunta on the western boundary of T.N. Lore Lindu, appears to be the first record of breeding of this elusive species (KDB) (see also Lambert, 1989). That's it. No published description to confirm the identity, no description of the chicks, no comment on the record (Lambert 1989 isn't relevant, just his description of calls and sightings of adults Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I misunderstood "but the original report gives no details of the claimed sighting" - I wrongly assumed that the authors had not mentioned the sighting - while in fact they just didn't give "details", as the text correctly states. Looking at your text now, I can't see why I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Aa77zz (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "estimated population of 3,500–15,000 individuals" I'm amazed that it possible to estimate the population when there have been so few sightings. I had naively assumed that population estimates were based on actual data. I don't think this estimate can be considered reliable. Aa77zz (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the "full account" tab, the IUCN give their rationale there. The IUCN Red List is a reputable source for conservation matters, and however suspect their estimate might be, I can't not quote it. Similarly, it would be OR for me to criticise the estimate, and I wouldn't know where to look for a better figure. These flightless rails are incredibly difficult to see, and the islands lack the scientific and physical infrastructure needed for an accurate census. Even European volant species like Corn Crake and Spotted Crake are estimated on calling birds, not sight observations. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that you need to quote the IUCN Red List and that (unfortunately) it would be OR to criticise. Although it is easy to believe that the species is threatened, with so few sightings, the numbers are obviously suspect. Aa77zz (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article fulfills all the criteria. For your next FAC how about a bird that I'm likely to be able to see.I've been watching a pair of Gobemouche gris (Spotted flycatchers) that have conveniently chosen to build a nest against the wall of a house next to the dining table on the terrace. (gris seems more appropriate than spotted) Aa77zz (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for support. I'm planning to do Gerd Heinrich as a long-term aim, probably won't be until the autumn once we have recovered from moving. No reason not to do a bird in tandem though. Shall I take spotted fly as a request, or do you have a preferred UK species? And yes, even the young aren't that spotty Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

  • great article, almost there.
  • In the Description section, it states "Immature and juvenile plumages are undescribed." In Behaviour it says "Rail chicks are typically precocial, downy and black,[16] but the original report gives no details of the claimed sighting". I find these three sentences hard to reconcile. If we know the chicks are downy and black, is that a reference only to rails in general rather than those seen in 1983? If so, it is slightly confusing to have the general sentence provided in this context - it made this reader think it was about those chicks seen in 1983.
Point taken, I've removed the general comment that chicks are usually black and downy, and left just what we actually know about this species — nothing! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing: there seem to be some books cited in Harvard style, but other books fully cited in the references. Can this be checked for consistency? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually very careful on this, but I appear to have completely failed to follow my normal procedure. All print books are now short-form, with journals and web pages in full, my standard FA practice
Thanks for reviewing, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

As you say, a short article on a little known species. A couple of points struck me:

  • "The difficulty of its habitat and sparse distribution means that little is known about this species." - I don't really think you can have a difficult habitat.
  • I'm not totally convinced, but changed to stress inaccessibility anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rail is trapped for food, and killed by dogs, cats and other introduced predators." - This is more of a criticism of your source than the article, but since the species is so rarely seen, it seems a bold assertion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wondered about the extent of these myself, particularly as the rail seems to be increasingly rare. I've past-tensed the hunting and made the predation less assertive (although I suspect that dogs and cats are much better at finding their dinner than humans) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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 08:04, 15 July 2014 [24].

Si Ronda[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a film which is not only lost, but for which very little sourcing is available (and yes, I have a sourced statement that little reference material is available). Si Ronda is a silat film in a similar vein to the film Si Tjonat, although sadly not based on a novel and thus the exact plot isn't certain. Produced by Tan's Film, it was one in a fairly long line of films in the genre, although I've never seen any sources which discuss how well it was received. I think this is as comprehensive an article as anyone can expect for this film, even with its startling brevity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Taylor Trescott

Oooooh... aiming for the shortest FA, I see. Bold move. Here's some comments because I can't resist lost film articles.

  • Wasn't there once a picture of the film in this article? I recall one
    • There used to be, but after my visit to Sinematek Indonesia in December I found that Biran had been mistaken in labeling it Si Ronda. My notes indicate that the image was included in the 15 January 1930 edition of Doenia Film (which I don't seem to have photographed) but with a different title (as stated here). As such, I removed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't there be a period after the A in A Loepias if it stands for something? I see Nancy Bikin Pembalesan uses a full stop
    • Removed in NBP, in accordance with BrE grammar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be helpful to say Nancy Bikin Pembalesan came out in May
  • Ref 5 says "Retrieved 22 July 2012." Doesn't seem like it, since this article was created in April 2013 :)

Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks comprehensive enough. Can't wait to see this article pop up in sentences like "it's not as short as Si Ronda" in FACs down the line. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, one comment Only trivial issue is that initials are inconsistent, one with a full stop, one without Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support almost nothing to quibble with
Lede
  • "existing" maybe "contemporary". Just think "existing" might be a reference to the stage play surviving, unlike the film.
  • "this silent film" you use "film" three times in a short span starting here.

Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short and sweet I suppose, but I do have a few reservations. The easy ones first:
  • Why is silat italicised? We don't italicise judo or aikido for instance.
  • Judo, at the very least, has common currency, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to compare the frequency of aikido and silat in the common usage. English sources seem to italicise silat on first use like this or italicise it throughout, like this.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can nothing be done to avoid the run-on blue links in "silent silat"?
  • "Bachtiar Effendi would later leave Tan's Film to head a magazine." Why the subjunctive "would ... leave" rather than the rather more straightforward "left", and "later" in the context of an image caption is pretty much meaningless, so why not say when he left?
  • "Momo continued acting until the 1940s, with Tan's until 1932 and with Standard Film in 1941." I think it's stretching it a bit to call 1941 "into the 1940s", plural.
And now for my major concern, which is the lack of any kind of plot summary or even any idea what the film is actually about. We're told that "... in 1929 the Wong brothers released Rampok Preanger, with similar themes", but what are those themes? Does the stage play on which the film was based give us no clues? Does the 1978 remake follow the same story? How did the 1978 filmmakers know what the story was if we don't?
  • None of my sources indicate whether or not the 1978 version of the story had the same plot. Considering the very different socio-political context of the 1978 version, in which it was common for Dutchmen to be the enemies (compare the 1970s adaptations of Si Pitung's story), and the 1920s, in which even the hint that a Dutchman had acted unethically was enough to cause government censure (Salah Asuhan originally had Corrie as a prostitute, but it had to be changed... I'll dig up the ref if you want it), I am hesitant to assume they have more than a passing similarity. The same goes for the lenong play; a current production would not necessarily have the same story as a 1920s production, in part because lenong itself (particularly in the 1920s, before literacy was common among the commoners) is not in the Western tradition of scripted works which are preserved in writing. As for the "themes", perhaps that was the wrong word; I've removed that clause entirely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How can "A second movie based on the story, Si Ronda Macan Betawi, was made in 1978" be justified then, if nobody knows what the original story was? Eric Corbett 00:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the story of Si Ronda as it developed over time. It didn't stop being performed in lenong after this film was completed, after all. However, as I said above, lenong is a form of oral literature. No two performances are the same, although they still follow the same general formula (at least, over a limited period of time; stories can shift quite drastically over the years). The story of Si Ronda changed over the years and the retellings.
Take the case of Njai Dasima. Originally written by G. Francis in 1896, it was immediately popular and adapted into at least two syair by two different authors as well as the stage. As time passed and Njai Dasima became part of the oral literature of Batavia/Jakarta, the pro-European stance of Francis's original was overwritten by more pro-Betawi/pro-Sundanese forms (in which the Europeans became increasingly villainous). Ultimately, the 1970 film of the story (Samiun dan Dasima) had Dasima leave her master out of disgust for his orgies and other sexual deviances. It's still based on the same story, but reimagined to the point Francis would have gone mad had he seen it.
Sadly, we don't have an article on that work yet. However, if you need a reference regarding how these stories change from retelling to retelling, the article on Si Pitung does have some. Of particular note would be "In the lenong version, Pitung is described as a humble person, a good Muslim, a hero of Betawi people, and an upholder of justice. ... In Si Pitoeng, a 1931 film and the first produced about Pitung's life, he was shown as a real bandit. However, in the 1970 film of the same name, Pitung's characteristics were closer to the traditional Indonesian depictions." I can cite this information in a footnote here if necessary (discussion how stories would change over time and in different adaptations). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a perhaps more direct note, I've reworked the lead to avoid implying that it is the film's story that was the basis for the 1978 adaptation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to have to keep harping on about this, but if it's possible to assert that "Similar stories to Si Ronda include those of Si Jampang and Si Pitung" then it must be possible to identify those similarities and thus at least an outline of the plot, even if it's just that the eponymous hero is regarded as a bandit by the authorities and that the film follows his exploits. You say in your nomination statement that the exact plot isn't known, which is fine, but what about a general plot outline, even if it's as rudimentary as I've suggested? Eric Corbett 11:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To do so would mean turning to the lenong versions (of which I am not aware of any contemporary performances recorded, either in film, audio, or text) and/or using very general parallels (i.e. "stories of bandits and silat masters popular in Betawi folklore" or something similar; a very simple version is already in the text). I've worked the second one in. As illustrated by the case of the 1931 Pitoeng film, I doubt we can even safely say the character is a "hero" in the film. As I've explained below, this is less Oedipus Rex and more Little Red Riding Hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The story was selected because of its action sequences, which had generally been inspired by American works ...". I'm not quite following this. Is it saying that action sequences had generally been inspired by American works up until then, or that the action sequences in Si Ronda were inspired by American works?
  • Action sequences in the Indies, particularly in this time period, were modeled on what they saw in American works. Google has a snippet view, but my Indonesian edition of Sen (page 25 in this book) says (retranslated from Indonesian) "during this period, well-established and popular traditional art forms were fused with American action and cinematic techniques as a recipe for success". I've reworked to make this clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... for instance, in 1929 the Wong brothers released Rampok Preanger". In what way is that an example of the increasing popularity of the silat genre?
  • I've reworked. It's meant to show that several films were being made in the genre (do you think I should add roughly what percentage of local production that was? It's a fairly significant number: 66% for 1929 [2/3], ~15% for 1930 [1/6], ~13% [1/7] for 1931, or 25% of all local films for the three year period; this would be referenced to Biran's list and simple maths as allowed by WP:CALC). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead ought to be expanded by a sentence or two to include some of the new information you've discovered about the film's storyline.
  • I have tried to add the information without getting into too much detail. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That'll do for me. Eric Corbett 13:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The article looks considerably better now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Corbett 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Short but sweet! Nicely put together, and no issues I can see. A plot would have been good, but if there is no reliable source that helps us provide one, then there isn't much we can do. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment; Eric, Brian, While I share your desire to have more information about the plot, I think that without a reliable source that covers the subject a little more closely, if we try and outline this plot based on the original storyline, we run the risk of moving into OR or synthesis. I have in mind some modern examples, where the "based on" tag has meant little - The Italian Job really shouldn't be compared with The Italian Job (2003 film) and Fleming's Thunderball novel isn't too close to the Thunderball film, and even further away from Never Say Never Again – the films are supposed to be "based on" the same novel and are wildly different from both the source novel and each other. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. And so much don't I agree that I would have opposed this article's promotion had Crisco not added the brief summary that he did earlier, which is all that I've been asking for for far too long. Eric Corbett 17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was that every possible avenue was followed in looking for and utilising relevant reliable sources. Crisco has responded to this concern, has added 100 words of material, and has convinced me that he has indeed done all that is reasonably possible. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And my concern was that it was nonsensical to claim that this film had a similar story to other films without any idea whatsoever what that story was. But I'm satisfied now, although slightly disappointed at the unseemly rush to support an article that was clearly in need of some fine tuning. Eric Corbett 20:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note, the GA-promoted version of this article had a "Premise" section (here) which I had merged into the body before FAC because of previous objections to a 1 sentence section at Gagak Item's FAC. That being said, I agree with Eric that the current wording gives a more useful idea of what the film may have been about (and I have no issues with this wording because it's clear we're talking about Si Ronda as a lenong performance). Again, thank you for the review, and for the necessary push in that direction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I share Eric's concern expresssed above about the lack of any plot details. If the film was based on a "popular" stage play, surely there is some record of what the play was about?
  • As I've been trying to explain (although to be honest I could have been clearer), the stories of Si Ronda / Si Jampang / Si Pitung are not fixed stories as in the Western tradition, but rather templates (named after the central character) on which stories are built. Although Si Ronda is not mentioned explicitly here, it does illustrate the issue of why determining any more than what I've included in this article is problematic. Ronda could be a hero or a villain, depending on the story, just like Tjonat went from being a villain in the novel and film to a hero in subsequent stage versions. We shouldn't be comparing these stories with, say, Romeo and Juliet or Grease, which exist within a literate society and have more or less fixed plots, but rather the various versions of Snow White or Little Red Riding Hood, which are from an oral society and have a basic template which is filled in using a variety of aspects. I think the issue is the term "stage play", which apparently has stronger connotations with being "fixed" than I realised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term silat should be explained in the lead – otherwise, most readers will immediately have to jump out of the article via the link, to find out what the film was about.
  • This is what confuses me. Eric questioned why this is italicised and not straight (which would presume this is a common term and would preclude a gloss), whereas you're asking me to gloss it. I lean more towards the latter than the former, however, so I'll gloss. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead uses the terms "film" and "movie". The later is perhaps informal, unencyclopedic?
  • I don't think it's informal, and if so a much lesser evil than "flick". That being said, I've reworked the sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Production" section, Njai Dasima should be identified as a film, again to avoid the necesssity of using the link to find this out.
  • I loathe writing the word film again in that paragraph. I've instead added "the company's" (i.e. Tan's Film, which is clearly a film company based on the name alone), which allows us to say it's a film version without actually using the word film again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little more description required for "Momo"; presumabaly an actor, but male or female?
  • "Momo" says male to me, but the sources give nothing more than a name, and it's not a common name any more. Single names are common for Indonesians (Roekiah, Sukarno, etc.), and even more so in the 1920s, so there'd be no family name to add. Drove the Dutch mad. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through Doenia Film (15 March 1930, about Njai Dasima part 2) I've confirmed that Momo was a man. At a loss for a graceful way to include this in the running text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we know his nationality he could be "an ...ian actor". If we don't, you've done all you can.
  • Ethnicity would be the question here, as this is 15 years too early for "Indonesian". He'd have probably been Sundanese, but no references for that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary meaning of "titular" is "in name only", which doesn't fit here. The more general form is "title role".
  • "Similar stories to Si Ronda include those of Si Jampang and Si Pitung". This should be "Si Ronda's"; also, were the other two also martial arts experts?
  • In all adaptations that I've seen, yes (also in sources). Apostrophe s added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph of the Production section is out of sequence, since it gives pre-production, background information.
  • There's a misplaced "however" in the third paragraph of the "Release" section – it should be at the beginning of the sentence. The same sentence adds that a number of Japanese propaganda films survived; this seems to be a separate point, and I'm not quite sure of its relevance without a little more explanation.
  • However moved, and Japanese propaganda removed (those films came about 15 years later) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a general point, there are a couple of possible overlinking issues: "black-and-white" and "silent film", in the context of a film article, are self-explanatory.
  • Removed B&W, although I'd rather keep silent film linked as that's a nice, comprehensive article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I have experience of the problems associated with writing an article on a "disappeared" work of art or literature (see e.g. The Temple at Thatch) and can thus sympathise. In such cases it is necessary to leave no stone unturned in search of sources of relevant information. Are you certain that this has been done?
    • Have not found anything but the 1932 screening at Delpher.nl (a newspaper archive from the Netherlands which includes Dutch-language newspapers from the Indies), nothing in Doenia Film at the National Library of Indonesia (the magazine had coverage of other works, like Njai Dasima), nothing that I haven't already used in Google Books, and Biran and Said are both picked clean. Sadly I don't have Jstor access at home, but I'll ping RX to see if the two Gouda articles I found have anything new. To be honest, I'm surprised at just how little coverage there is; Njai Dasima and Si Tjonat are much better documented.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a single sentence from the Jstor sources; everything else was redundant to what we already had. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for all of your comments, Brian! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one more comment. The suffix "-esque", meaning "in the manner of", works in some cases but not others, and "Robin Hood-esque" is positively painful. I can't immediately think offhand of a suitable alternative ("Robin Hoodish or Robin Hoodian" are if anything worse). In the absence of something more elegant, it may be necessary to rephrase, eg. "a Robin Hood type of figure". I don't think the "brilliant prose" criterion can accept "Robin Hood-esque". Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems Eric has already made the change you suggested. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Support: I think you've done all you can, now. Brianboulton (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for all of the input. The article looks considerably better and more accessible now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Note -- Brian (I know you may not have completed your review) or Nikki, could one of you do the source review honours when you get a chance? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness

  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • Said 1982: Worldcat suggests publisher name is one word
    • Typo on WorldCat's part (admittedly the space is very small in the publisher's logo, but it's there; the name is spaced in the foreword as well). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Works cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2014 (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 07:57, 15 July 2014 [25].

Drakengard[edit]

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drakengard is a single-player action role-playing video game developed by now-defunct Japanese video game developer Cavia. It was released on the PlayStation 2 on September 11, 2003 in Japan, March 2, 2004 in North America and May 21, 2004 in European territories. The title was published in Japan and North America by Square Enix and in European territories by Take-Two Interactive. A mobile port of the game was co-developed and co-published by Square Enix and Macrospace in 2004. The title is a gameplay hybrid between the beat-em-up video game series Dynasty Warriors, and the aerial combat series Ace Combat: the ground gameplay is based around hack-and-slash combat, while the aerial combat has the player fighting with a dragon. Its story and atmosphere was inspired by popular animes and movies of the day. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by PresN[edit]

I think I've done that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now passed. --PresN 23:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find this article well written and all so I say Pass but I still find the sentences "The events of the fifth ending lead into Nier" and "These events lead into Drakengard 2." to be unnecessary. You aren't informing anything about the plot with that. Maybe they could be used in legacy. The reference from the lead's first paragraph should also be removed per WP:Lead since that isn't such controversional statement.Tintor2 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done as you suggested, plus a few little edits in the quote references for consistency. It looks much neater now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CR4ZE[edit]

Copy-edit of Gameplay/Plot done. (Coming back to do more later). Review my changes to see if you like them. Try to use "that" in place of "which", unless using ", which" as an aside. I saw switching between "players" and "the player" throughout, so I've picked "players" and kept it consistent.

  • "Angelus gains experience points and levels up through combat similar to the weapons for ground-based combat." Which is similar – experience points, leveling up or combat? Clarify.
  • "magical objects tied to a living female". Is the Goddess of the Seal literally bonded to the seals or is it a magical connection? Clarify.
  • "and the destruction of the seals ... begin destroying humanity". This sentence struck me as a bit funny. Too much "the [x]" and "and"'s, feels like there should be commas in there somewhere. (I split the sentences joined together with colons because they felt like separate clauses).
  • "During a battle with the forces of the Empire to protect Furiae, Caim is severely injured". Who is protecting Furiae? Perhaps try "Caim is severely injured while trying to protect Furiae during a battle with the forces of the Empire". I'll leave that one up to you.
  • "Encountering Angelus wounded from torture, the two agree to make a pact and save each other". Who are the two? Angelus and Caim? Do they...encounter Angelus? Clarify.
  • "Verdelet and Caim travel to each of the Seals". How many Seals are there? A small thing, but it'd help give the reader an idea of the scope of the plot.
  • "and spirits her away". What does this mean?
  • "which led to Inuart becoming jealous and easily turned against them during his captivity". Is the switch to past tense deliberate here? "easily turned against them" sounds a bit off. If "easily turned" is an adverb it should be hyphened. Otherwise, clarify.
  • I changed "Inuart manages to resurrect Furiae, turning her into a monster which kills him" but I'm still not happy with either rendition. Can you have a go at clarifying this sentence?
  • "but not before clones of her are produced to destroy humanity". Do the clones actually destroy humanity or is it just implied?
  • I've brought this up in the peer review before, but I'm still seeing a lot of "the game" or "Drakengard" in place of "it". Have a go at reworking sentences altogether so that you don't need to keep referring back. Often I find (in my own writing) you don't need to use anything because the reader always assumes you're talking about the game. (Here's a diff during Grand Theft Auto V's FAC to show you the approach I think you could take).
  • I'll leave you with that for now as it's all I've got time for, but I'll be back later to run through the rest of the article. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done all of the above I think. I've gone through it with a tooth-comb. Now the only references to "Drakengard" and "the game" are ones I left in there to alter it might have made the sentence look clunky or confusing. I also rewrote a few pieces so they made more sense. If there are any I've missed, please point them out. I'm determined to get that little golden star for this article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit of Development/Reception/Legacy done. Thanks for getting to the above. I'm still not getting Angelus' leveling up during combat. What is similar to Caim's weapons? "Linked" is still as ambiguous as "ties" when talking about the Goddess's magical objects. What is the link/tie?

  • "who each independently created their backgrounds". They created the backgrounds of themselves or the characters? Clarify.
  • "she admitted to feeling embarrassed by her writing as the child who voice Seere and Manah spoke her lines". I was going to try to fix this, but I have no idea what it means.
  • "in contrast to the likes of Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy". What is the relevance of the comparison here? Is it something the journalist writing the article found or a goal set out by the developers? Clarify.
  • "everything [felt] like it was coming together in the best possibly way". What was coming together? Perhaps paraphrase or remove this part of the quote.
  • Should western be capitalised? I could be wrong on this.
  • "In addition to this, some of the more mature themes, such as references to sexual taboos, were censored in the western localization". This is really interesting. Is there more to develop on this point? What was censored and why?
  • The bit about the mobile phone still feels a little tacked-on. Perhaps you could move it to the end of the paragraph and mention Macrospace as its developer (then the bit about PS2 tips). That might fit better. And you'd lose the need to have the footnote in the infobox, too.
  • "composition"→"being composed". A fix I made that I just thought I'd bring your attention to for future. "Composition" really only works as a noun.
  • "By the end of 2003, it had sold 241,014 copies in the region". Check the source here to make sure it's referring to sold-through not sold-in. I'm not sure if you're Japanese or even speak the language, but check just to be sure.
  • Following from that, I still feel like getting some commentary beyond just a review score from Japanese reviewers is missing. Are you certain you've done everything you can to get your hands on the Famitsu review? Have you asked at jawp? Have you tried online archives? It'd be really additive to the entire section to have some analysis from a native reviewer.
  • "IGN's Jeremy Dunham called it the game's "biggest strength", praising the edgy themes the game explored, the balance between fantasy and the realistic world and character design, and the multiple parallels with Neon Genesis Evangelion". I started to fix this messy sentence but it still needs more work. Too much "and". Perhaps there's three-sentences' material in this?
  • "saying it seemed to surpass other RPGs produced by Square Enix at the time". Sexy sibilance, sir, if a little kitsch. "saying it seemed" is a bit awkward. Is it the "maturity and wit of the dialogue" or the "unfolding plot" that surpasses RPGs?
  • I was going to rework the Reception by removing the topic sentences and reducing some of those heavy sentences. I think the former comes down to preference, but I would like you to run through Reception and make sure you keep sentences as concise as possible. Would you like to have a try? It's just off reaching the "brilliant" criteria.
  • "Hardcore Gamer's Jahanzeb Khan spoke favorably referred to it as a precursor". Probably a typo here but didn't know how to fix it. What is the "it" in this sentence? I know I said above to reduce "the game" and "Drakengard" but be very careful because the previous sentence has a different subject that could be the "it" of the following. Clarify.

That's it from me. Not too much work needed. You're basically there. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CR4ZE: I really have tried my very best to address the issues. The Reception section was inspired by the structure of Final Fantasy XIII-2. I've tried to do some clarification, alteration and correction, and removed quotes where needed. As to Japanese reviews, the ones that are there are the ones that I found after searching through tons of internet fodder. Without a fluent knowledge of written Japanese and the original magazine in my hand, I can't do anything more. I realize that I may have missed something, or several somethings, but I've done my very best. Every single article concerned with the Drakengard series has provided this kind of difficulty. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose then. My suggestion (for this and other Drakengard articles) is that you ask at jawp and see if there's someone there who could lend a hand. I'm sure you'd be forgiven if you spoke to them with Google Translate. Otherwise, the reviews you have now will do. Your changes look good. The minor cleanups to Reception work for me. I think the entire family of Drakengard-related articles looks great, so I encourage you to take the entire topic all the way. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero[edit]

As I promised.

  • I've made a few small prose fixes.
  • Is it appropriate to make a comparison to other franchises in the Gameplay body at all?
  • It's GameSpot, not Gamespot.
  • "Each a four-level cap." - Each has a four-level cap? Each four-level cap does something?
  • "living female" - Living female what? Human? You can just go with "woman", "girl", or something of the like, then.
  • "with her believing" - I'd prefer "including the belief"
  • "Furiae stabs herself" - I'd add "non-fatally"
  • "epics from Asia" - Epic... poems? Epic prose? Epic films?
  • "role-playing game" - To clarify, do you mean "role-playing video game"?
  • Speaking of which, why isn't "action role-playing game" said once in Gameplay?
  • Northern Europe should be linked.
  • Prince, however, shouldn't.
  • "Though citing" - Grammatical?
  • Why is the Japanese coverart used, especially since it doesn't even share the North American title?

And... that should be it. Tezero (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero: I think I've got it all sorted. Your opinion, please? --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sorry, I caught this yesterday but got distracted before I could pin up my vote. I believe this article passes the FA criteria and am happy to help it along its way. Nice work. Tezero (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It appears well written, thorough, images few and properly justified, sources are reliable and well regarded. It will serve as a good start for a Drakengard Featured Topic! Great work as always. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
    • It was published in Japan and North America by Square Enix and in European territories by Take-Two Interactive. It was released on September 11, 2003 in Japan, on March 2, 2004 in North America, and on May 21, 2004 in Europe. - I have the feeling that you could merge these two sentences easily
    • Looking at the lead, there are too many sentences starting with "It" or "Its"; very repetitiitititive
    • I'd introduce the chapters and verses as levels before going into the mechanics, otherwise the exact definition of "Level" is not clear
    • The structure of the first paragraph of #Gameplay is rather odd. It goes from Gameplay, Definition of Levels, to Gameplay. I'd have the levels with levels and the gameplay mode information with other such information.
    • a full-screen map can be switched to that covers the entire area and shows mission objectives - I'd rework this to avoid the dangling participle ("can be switched to")
  • Link some gaming terms for casual readers, such as world map --> world map etc.
  • Your link to "Levels" (Level (video gaming)) is about the "verses" in this game rather than actual weapon levelling (that would be at Experience_level#Level-based_progression). I suggest massaging the text a bit to allow links to both articles.
  • The soundtrack was originally released in two volumes under the names Drag-On Dragoon Original Soundtrack Vol.1 and Drag-On Dragoon Original Soundtrack Vol.2. They were released on October 22 and November 21, 2003 respectively. - This could also be merged without any problems
  • years later - when?
  • The characters' stories were created by Yoko, Shiba and Iwasaki, who each independently created the character backgrounds. - Did they all individually develop backgrounds for each character, or were they each given certain characters to go over?
  • The paragraph starting "The characters' stories" leaps from characters to overall to characters again.
  • You should probably find a way to cut down on the frequency of then- and "at the time". Obviously this is in the past tense, so some of it is redundant.
  • novel adaptions - novelisations / novelizations is also correct, and perhaps a less tortured construction
  • More later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work on it. I rearranged the gameplay and development sections, though the latter may need a rewrite. I also did my best looking for excessive use of "it"s and past-tense wording. I also did some more trimming with commas and merging some sentences. Plus, a minor correction and some clarification concerning who created the characters. It's very difficult when you're working almost exclusively from Japanese. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You repeat "in Japan", "in X", etc. a lot in #Reception. Finding a way to cut that down would help
  • Game Informer were - I believe in AmE this would be "Game Informer was"
I've just done these. Thanks. Everything helps. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last comment from me: any coverage of the mobile phone port? You mention in the lead and in passing, but don't actually give much information about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I had found anything more on the mobile version, I would have put it in. That's the main gap in the article, and it's a gap that can't be plugged. And I did a minor grammar fix in the lead. I know it uses an "it", but it was the only way I could make the sentence work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • French, German, anything? We don't even have a release date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. Zip. Nada. I've looked, and on top of that the Square Enix Mobile references are dead and don't exist on any reputable archiving sites. So we either keep what there is and admit that there are gaps or delete it from the article. There is nothing there but what I and others found and could use. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This, maybe? (July 2004). Full bibliographic information at List of Square Enix mobile games. Or Games TM's "All Square with Vidaphone" (which gives August, but also discusses the position of Drakengard in Square's mobile strategy). From these two you can at least say "A Europe-exclusive mobile version of Drakengard was released in mid-2004 as part of a collaboration between Square-Enix and Vodafone" or something similar. (On an unrelated note: ActRaiser for mobile sounds very interesting) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've put in the info. It's actually looking quite good now. Again, thank you. Now, unless there are other issues that need pointing out (such as with the editing I've just done), would you count this article as a pass of a fail? --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2014 (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 GrahamColm 16:47, 13 July 2014 [26].

Winnipeg[edit]

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the locale fondly known as "Winterpeg", the capital of Manitoba and the Slurpee capital of the world. It is a GA that recently received a brief yet helpful PR, and I believe it to be a concise yet comprehensive account of the city. Any and all comments welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • "as the least expensive locations to do business": the least, or one of the least?
  • "17 Wing of the Canadian Forces is": There's disagreement on whether it's a good idea to start a sentence with a numeral if the numeral is part of a proper noun. The sentence can be reworded, if you like.
  • "Saskatchewan/Alberta", "tanker/transport", "River Heights/Tuxedo": I'm pretty sure that WP:SLASH doesn't want to see three of these in two consecutive paragraphs. I don't have a strong feeling about it. Ian can help with "tanker/transport"; he writes about those a lot.
  • I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your edits, Dan. I think I've addressed all of these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see this is stalled. Nikki, I'm not usually supporting at FAC these days (unless I've supported an article previously), but I'll make an exception here if you'll run through and fix the problems that have crept in since I copyedited (curly quotes and single quotes jump out at me). - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I don't know what this means, but I also don't know the best way to say it: " It has a diversified economy, covering finance, manufacturing, transportation, food and beverage production, industry, culture, government, retail, and tourism." - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments I always like seeing the population history table in city articles, and they are found in nearly all of them. Is there any reason it was moved to the sub-category Demographics of Winnipeg for Winnipeg? I sampled randomly other FA cities and they all had the table (in one form or another). Not critical but is it possible to have a higher resolution image for the montage? I assume they are all taken from much higher resolution source images, and the image deserves to be larger. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus, I've upped the size on the montage, but lead images are generally not any wider than 300px per MOS. As for the population history, it seemed undue for the necessarily broad overview in this article - fine-grained detail like that is better suited to the more specific sub-articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry I was not clear. The size of the montage on the page was fine, I would in fact return it to how it was before. Just the file itself has very low resolution, 444 × 600 pixels is very very small for a lead image. For example, the original source for top image of the legislature alone is 5 times the resolution of the whole montage. Whoever made the montage shrank it almost ridiculously small. I will revert the size change since I was being unclear. Can't convince you of the historic pop table? I won't push the issue since historic pops are a niche interest of mine (and maybe not many others), I can make one more click. Mattximus (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bring this up again but I just did a survey of Canadian cities that are GA or Featured and found that 100% of them have the historic population table in the article under the demographics section. Would it not be weird that Winnipeg is the only one without a table? For reference see Montreal, Edmonton, London, Ontario, Coquitlam, Lethbridge, Moncton, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador and Hamilton (although this one uses a graph instead of table). Mattximus (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, no. I'm not sure what decisions led to it being included on those articles, but I still believe that it is better suited to the more specific Demographics article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about it quite a bit and come to the conclusion that it's an invaluable addition. Giving a sense of history and scope to the city at a glance. I think without this table the article would not be complete, and inconsistant with all the featured articles and good articles listed above (so comparisons are harder to make). weak oppose on this ground. Mattximus (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Extended comments from Curly Turkey moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the area was populated for thousands of years by First Nations. - can we be any more specific? "several thousand"? or something? "thousands" just comes across as a bit nebulous.
Fort Gibraltar doesn't get a locator descriptor till its second mention, and Fort Douglas has none at all (it'd be good to a have an idea of where it is in relation to modern-day winnipeg)
The last sentence of the 1919 Strike to present just sorta sits there on its lonesome - can it be added to or tacked on somewhere or something?

The rest of the article reads well and does a good job of summarising what could otherwise read very listy. Nice work on that. However, I do feel that the lead reads a little mechanically and could do with a little massaging - just can't think how right this second. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas, I've made some tweaks - see what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good - everythnig good, though I have been musing on the lead. The second para has the first two sentences sounding a bit formulaic starting, "The...." - if we can slip one other interesting/notable item that words differently I think that'd be great. Last para of lead a tiny bit listy - if any outstanding fact can be insetrted between last two sentences about any thing in/of the city I think it'd help greatly. I think once done then we're over the line. Alternate ideas on lead welcomed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added more info to try and make it less mechanical. You can view the new intro on my Wikipedia User page. --Jd.101 (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make the intro better again.--Jd.101 (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
---Thats my own photo. The resolution is like that because I basically cropped it on Microsoft paint. --Jd.101 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. That explains all of my concerns — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Crisco, thanks for reviewing. I've swapped in a different Folklorama image and shrunk the flag. I believe that the two Wpg guys are one and the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, and I don't see any contradictory evidence. Do you want me to handle the crop of the Red River campus image? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that'd be great if you don't mind. Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Hamiltonstone

  • Nice article, and a lot of work. Wow, I never knew that about Winnie-the-Pooh!
  • "In 1805, First Nations peoples were observed engaging in farming activity along the Red River. The practice quickly caught on..." Something odd here. If First Nations peoples were already observed farming, then among whom did it then "catch on"? White settlers? Other First Nations?
  • The article mentions archaeological etc evidence. Is there any dating evidence?
  • Minimum 6000 years ago, but I've seen estimates up to 12,000, which is why I was rather general with the description. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you add something like "The area was settled at least 6000 years BP[cite], though some studies suggest it was inhabited as much as 12,000 years BP [cite]"?
Fantastic. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1953, Manitoba was hit with the worst outbreak of polio in Canada. There were 2,357 cases and 80 deaths" - to the extent that this isn't about Winnipeg, perhaps it should be omitted?
  • There is some unnecessary repetition of info about floods between the history and the geography sections.
  • "named after the area's original grain exchange from 1880 to 1913" I think this means "named after the area's original grain exchange, which operated from 1880 to 1913"?
  • Is it correct Canadian English to refer to "Aboriginals" (rather than to either "Aboriginal people" or "Aborigines")?
  • Both "Aboriginals" and "Aboriginal people" are correct, although since the latter is more broadly used I've switched to that; "Aborigines" is AFAIK exclusively used in Canada to refer to the Australian group. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the Economy section is not sufficiently substantial. The culture section tells me about an almost numbing number of institutions. Yet under the economy, there are no figures on unemployment rates, relative wealth, no numbers on the size of any of the economic sectors, no data on levels of income equality / inequality. I'm particularly struck by this because later I learn the city is Canada's murder capital - and that usually means significant levels of economic stagnation and/or inequality. Is there really no more information in this area?
  • Surprisingly enough, the data doesn't support that conclusion - unemployment rates and income inequality are both lower than the national average. I've added some statistics, though unfortunately many key details are available only at the provincial level. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the improvements. The last sentence - "As of May 2014, the Consumer Price Index was 125.8" will need some explanation. In Australia, CPI is usually referred to in terms of rates of change ("the CPI rose 2.7 percent"). I don't know the meaning of the straight figure (125.8). Is that a comparitor to...what? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, it can be used to compare geographical locations or historical periods directly. I am certainly no economist, though, so I might be wrong. Is it worth including or should I take it back out? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, i get it. I think only keep it if the reader can be given some context, eg "...was 125.8, reflecting higher/lower consumer costs compared to Canada as a whole with an index of Y".hamiltonstone (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Winnipeg was named the Cultural Capital of Canada in 2010" - this looks dodgy - i clicked the link for the source, andthe impression i got was that this was a marketing action, whereby the city's art council gave itself that name. If so, then delete altogether. If not, can we clarify who bestowed this illustrious title?
  • Canadian Heritage, a department of the Government of Canada. The program has since been discontinued. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The city has developed many of distinct dishes and cooking styles" - stray "of"?
  • "a vaudeville house" - any potential target to link this to?

Otherwise excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Except as indicated, everything should now be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Information on race, ethnicity, and demographic trends seems to be largely missing from the text of the demographics section. Many people will be looking for such information, so I feel it is important to provide it here. --Philpill691 (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philpill, there is information on these things included - did you have something in particular that you felt was missing? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel both of the following would be beneficial:
  • A description of recent demographic trends, especially having to do with the racial makeup of the population changing in recent years (white proportion decreasing, with visible minorities and Aboriginals increasing).
  • The current percentages of the various racial groups (currently there is only the ranking among cities for proportion of visible minorities; I feel specific percentages of the racial groups would be much more informative).
I'm sure there's a way to work these in neatly. --Philpill691 (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philpill, there is already a table indicating the current percentages of residents by ethnic origin. I've added some data on demographic trends. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is data on ethnic origins, but not on racial makeup. Also, it still isn't emphasized that white people are decreasing as a percentage of the population, while other groups are increasing (though you have noted that Aboriginals are increasing numerically, it still isn't clear that both they and visible minorities are growing as a percentage of the population). This is a notable demographic trend which is important to mention in the article. BTW there is a cite error in this section. --Philpill691 (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. --Philpill691 (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article, well-written and comprehensive. I've made one minor change, but other than that I could find nothing to bring up here. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coemgenus! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Andrea Doria-class battleship[edit]

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 GrahamColm 16:49, 13 July 2014 [27].


Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy

This is a joint effort between Parsecboy and I - these two ships had relatively uneventful careers for vessels that were in service for both world wars. They spent WWI in port but did see some action during WWII, including the raid on Taranto in 1940, where Caio Duilio was torpedoed. Both ships survived the war and were permitted to remain in Italian hands - they continued to soldier on, alternating as the fleet flagship until the early 1950s, when they were finally decommissioned after nearly four decades in service. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some details (like displacement) differ between infobox and article text
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not
  • "Further reference" should be "Further reading"
  • Conway Maritime Press or just Conway? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both, different iterations of the company name. Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning support (and hope to be more prompt than the last one, sorry.

Lede
  • "incidents, including the Corfu incident" Can we avoid the repetition?
  • Been trying to think about alternatives, but fracas, affair, etc. all have the wrong connotations. Suggestions welcomed.
  • FWIW I had the same thought as Wehwalt when I copyedited/reviewed at MilHist ACR, but came to the same conclusion as Sturm here, so I left it. I am planning to recuse from coord duties and revisit as a reviewer here, perhaps something will come to one of us yet... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say in the lede they were withdrawn from service. The body says they were placed in reserve. Is this the same thing? You also are more specific about the year (1933) than you are in the body.
Propulsion
  • "12 of which burned both oil and coal." To quote from Johnny Dangerously, "one at a time or both together"?
Armament
  • "claims" I would not use this word unless I had very serious doubts about what is being stated. I think it says to the reader not to take seriously what follows.
  • "a bit" a bit informal. Perhaps "somewhat"?
  • " a total of" Unless I'm missing something, this can be safely cut
  • There are a number of places where words are repeated ("guns" "armor" "strake") in close proximity. I realize we are dealing with things that don't synonymize well, but do what you can. Not really an action item, because I lack the technical knowledge to know which ones can and which ones can't. More a suggestion.
Modifications etc.
  • "All of the changes made during their reconstruction" "All of" can be cut, I think.
Service history
  • "assisted in the suppression of Gabriele D'Annunzio" suppression reads oddly as applied to a person
  • That's about it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that I've cleared up the rest of these. See how well they read for you now. Thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness. The only things remaining are matters of editorial discretion, which I respect.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

First, the image review. File:Battleship Andrea Doria.png seems fine, but it should be moved to Commons (unless someone wants to retain a copy here for some reason). {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} is for works which are free in the US but not in the source country; which is not the case here. File:Andrea Doria class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg seems fine. As for File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria.jpg, is the Imperial War Museum part of the United Kingdom government? File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria gunnery training.png has no author or date. File:Duilio 1948.jpg has text in Italian, which should be translated to English. It requires as well a license for its status in the US. I will make the article review later. Cambalachero (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria.jpg - Yes, the IWM is a national museum.
Re: File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria gunnery training.png - Added the year (it was in the citation, just not copied down when the description box was added) and no author is credited in the original publication.
Re: File:Duilio 1948.jpg - Added {{PD-URAA}}. The Italian text is just an explanation of Italian copyright law and is unnecessary - I've removed it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All files seem right now. The ones that are free at both the home country and the US should be moved to Commons, but that can be done anytime and has no importance for this FAC. Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Design

You should clarify the nationality of Guiseppe Valsecchi, to clarify the context. An article on him may be useful; but the link to vice admiral (just a rank) is a bit of overlinking. "General characteristics" and "Propulsion" are section of a single paragraph, they should be either expanded or upmerged. Sometimes you use unit acronyms, and others full word units. Sources disagree on gun's performance, but you mentioned Giorgio Giorgerini in the body and Friedman is hidden inside a ref note.

I think that readers will reasonably understand that Valsecchi was Italian absent any mention an international design competition. I have clarified that he was a naval architect. The four subsections of a general design and description section are a pretty standard format for ship FAs even though the general characteristics and propulsion sections are usually only a single para long. Generally we spell out a measurement on first usage and may or may not abbreviate it subsequently, usually depending on length. Giorgerini is privileged because he provides a single figure while Friedman gives a range of numbers. I suspect that he's quoting data from different models of shells used by the guns over time, but cannot be certain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has this layout standard been discussed before? Can you name other articles that follow it? As for Friedman and Giorgerini, remember that we are not truth finders. If there is a dispute, then you must describe the dispute (that Friedman gives a certain figure and Giorgerini talks about a range), not give more prominence to one of the sides. Segregation of other points of view into less visible sections of the article layout is discouraged at WP:STRUCTURE.
Here are some of my FAs that use this structure: Japanese battleship Nagato, Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū, Russian battleship Retvizan, and Conte di Cavour-class battleship. Giorgerini provides shell weight, muzzle velocity and range, while Friedman gives a range of weights and velocities, without any range figures. Since this last is arguably the most important I went with it. I think that providing Friedman's alternate data is acceptably handled in a note so that readers can see the differences if they care.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Modifications and reconstruction

"Warhead" is a not a specialized technical word, it's not needed to link it.

I disagree with you here; the word's almost exclusively used in relation to weapons of one sort or another, in my experience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good reason, I will drop my concern. Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Service history

You may consider adding a link to Military history of Italy during World War I and Military history of Italy during World War II, or just World War I and World War II. "too effectively" is unneeded, just "effectively" would be enough. Change "decided to implement" to "implemented". Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WWI and WWII are linked in the lede. Concur with your assessment on "too effectively"; disagree with your next point. We describing di Revel's thought process on how to deal with the A-H naval threat; if the point were more isolated and only dealt with Italian naval strategy your phrasing would be correct. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, so repeating internal links is not a problem. It is correct that you shouldn't link to a same article several times, but doing it in the lead and in the body is not a problem. The point with "decided to implement" is that it is a bit wordy; we are not describing his thought processes but his actions, and the context provided already does a good job in clarifying why did he do that. Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the two sentences prior to the one under discussion discuss Di Revel's analysis of the tactical situation and decision not to directly attack the A-H fleet. And this sentence flows directly from the others. I would, however, welcome comments from any other editors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was longer I don't mind linking in the lede and the main body, but it seems insulting to readers to do so in a 15K article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Recusing myself from delegate/coordinator duties, when this was at MilHist ACR I copyedited and reviewed structure, detail, images and sources before supporting. Looking over changes since then, I just had one tweak to make to the prose and am happy to support here as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Haven't checked image status or sources but I support on all other criteria except comprehensiveness, which I'm not qualified to judge. Comments. I'll add notes here as I go through the article. I've completed the review; the article is in great shape and I expect to be able to support once the minor points below are addressed.

  • "Both ships were scrapped after 1956": I assume this is phrased this way because the sources give no details on the date they were scrapped, but it reads oddly. How about using the same phrasing as in the body of the article, which makes it clearer what happened: "Both ships stricken from the naval register in September 1956 and were subsequently broken up for scrap"?
    I now see the scrap dates in the body of the article -- 1957 and 1961. I'd suggest just giving those dates in the lead, to avoid the odd phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that the phrase reads oddly. Remember that the lede is supposed to summarize the main body and that phrase provides the general info as to the fate of the ships while the main body provides the more exact details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By that time, Italy had entered World War II": I'd suggest adding "on the side of the Axis"; you specify Italy's side in WW I just a few lines above, and I think the same should be done here.
  • Did anyone of note serve on either ship? I don't know if it's usual in ship articles to mention who the commanding officers were, but I wondered about that too.
    • I have no idea if anyone of note served aboard; Italian naval officers are very poorly covered in English-language sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are "Shafts" and "Geared" written with the initial upper case in the "General characteristics" section of the infobox?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 22 June 2014 (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 09:25, 12 July 2014 [28].

Flight Unlimited II[edit]

Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 1995, Looking Glass Technologies' Flight Unlimited was a surprise hit that challenged Microsoft's dominance of the flight simulator genre. The game featured a groundbreaking computational fluid dynamics engine coded by Seamus Blackley, a former researcher at Fermilab. Fast-forward to 1997, and the company was hoping to capitalize on their past success with Flight Unlimited II—but a lot had changed. Blackley had been fired over a dispute with management, and his physics engine had been scrapped. Instead of being an aerobatic "playground" like its predecessor, Flight Unlimited II was a simulation of a living airspace. Critics enjoyed it, but its sales didn't come close to those of the original game.

This is my first FAC since 2011, when Flight Unlimited became the first flight simulator FA. Flight Unlimited II's brevity compared to that article can be chalked up to the sources: there simply were not as many in-depth articles about this game. I have no idea how high FA standards have gotten in the last three years, but I hope that this article is close to meeting them. I look forward to the reviews. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In terms of length, this is perfectly fine (assuming it's comprehensive). My nomination below, on a considerably more obscure film, is less than half the length of this article. Referencing looks reasonable (although that is not an in-depth source check). Someone may end up reviewing the article for close paraphrasing and copyright violations, which was introduced a few years back after certain articles caused issues, but you shouldn't take offense to that; everyone who hasn't nominated in a while, or who has never nominated before, gets one. I'll do an image review and a prose review.
  • Image review
    • File:CGfog.jpg - Not very effective at illustrating the caption as this is from a different program (and completely unrelated to flight). I'd nix this.
      • It's an illustration of distance fog taken from the article on the topic. Because the subject is kind of technical, I thought that a visual aid would help. I'm a bit wary of removing it just on the grounds that it isn't from the game.
    • File:Berryessa rain.jpg - Needs to be downsampled to have a maximum of 100k pixels, per WP:IMAGERES
      • I've never been very good at dealing with images, so I have no idea how to do this. Could you explain further?
    • File:Fu2 front.jpg - Do you still have a direct link? Otherwise I'd find a way of attributing the scan without including a link
      • I've never edited that page, so no. I removed the link.
  • alongside several hundred artificially intelligent aircraft directed by real-time air traffic control. - any way to rework this to avoid suggesting the player also controls the other aircraft? (check the collocation).
  • Took a shot at this. See what you think.
  • Per WP:LEDE, this should only have a 2 paragraph lede.
  • I don't see how I could do that without dramatically cutting important summary information. Also, where did you get a character count below 15,000? I copy/pasted the article body into a character counter and it came to over 25,000.
  • With references and wikimarkup? I use User:Shubinator/DYKcheck to get only "readable prose" (i.e. the actual prose portion of the article, excluding references, markup, the TOC etc., and thus a more accurate count of the actual "meat" in the article) and I get 11,034 characters for the length. 25k includes all of your reference mark-up (the <ref> and </ref> tags, for instance) and other things. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh well. I cut out most of the second paragraph from the lead. I don't think it's an improvement, but check it out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of my sources refer to the Microsoft Flight Simulator series as a singular game, but I changed it anyway.
  • Well, at the time was it a single game, or was it already a series? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had been a series for many years. The thing is that most of the sources I used in the article saw Microsoft Flight Simulator as a single product that received yearly upgrades. But it really isn't that big of a deal. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZOAR - standardize whether you put this in quotes or not... also, what's it short for, if anything?
  • Fixed. Also, according to one of the article's sources, ZOAR has no meaning. It's probably a pun on the word soar; but I have no idea.
  • Radio communications between air traffic controllers (ATC), artificially intelligent (AI) planes and the player occur in real-time: a "sophisticated audio splicing system" gathers pre-recorded voice fragments into contextually appropriate sentences. - You've already glossed several of these in the earlier section; I'd just use the abbreviations. Also, try to avoid excessive linking
  • Done.
  • The team planned to add more terrain and planes and a multiplayer feature after the game's release. - but...?
  • No multiplayer feature or new terrain ever materialized. Unfortunately, I don't have a source for this, so I couldn't add it.
  • Duplicate links: San Francisco Bay Area, air traffic controllers, artificial intelligence, Jane's Attack Squadron
  • Done.

Too close for missiles; I'm switching to guns.[edit]

Ayyyy, here I am. Looking at the article now. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It could be made more clear what the teapot image represents. I took it that it was something rendered in ZOAR - or even some abstruse screenshot of FUII.
  • Took steps to address this. See what you think.
  • "The game's terrain area was increased to 11,000 square feet, roughly 300 times the size of its predecessor's" - Increased from what? I thought the technology wasn't reused.
  • It wasn't. However, since the game is a sequel to Flight Unlimited, the comparatively larger terrain size is technically an increase.
  • I'm still uneasy, as "the game" suddenly refers to the original Flight Unlimited here. What about "The game's terrain covers 11,000 square feet, roughly 300 times the size of its predecessor's"? Tezero (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He summarized, "Overall, this simulation is somewhat above average"" - It'd be prudent to add a mention of him scoring the game 4.5/5.
  • Actually, the CGM review to which you're referring is a 3.5/5. CGW, the 4.5/5 review, called it "a must-have for any general-aviation enthusiast."
  • Citation #10 (PR Newswire) needs an accessdate.
  • Done.
  • Is the reliability of the individual author at Adrenaline Vault established, per the publication's placement in the goldenrod zone at WP:VG/RS?
  • VG/RS lists AVault as a "former premier site"—in other words, reliable without question. Only the newest incarnation of AVault is noted as having reliability issues. Since the source used is from the '90s AVault, I don't think this is a problem.

Tezero (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the problematic sentence. Cut the 11,000 square miles part entirely, since it was redundant with the Gameplay section anyway. Also, I scraped a few last details out of the sources. See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; the additions all look fine and my concerns have been fixed. Tezero (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well sourced and well written article. --Carioca (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Pass - Review train, coming through!

  • Your prose is certainly better than mine (especially at the FLC you reviewed the other day); I suppose there's a reason you've copyedited for me before, rather than the other way around.
  • "Blackley's CFDs system was "all black box spaghetti code" that the team could not reproduce" - they weren't trying to reproduce (recreate) it at first, right? They were trying to expand on it/extend it/build on top of.
  • Good point. Changed to "understand".
  • "but this causes pop-in issues that the team sought to avoid" - I know what pop-in issues are, of course, but the average reader might not have heard of that term- describe or link to the right section of Draw distance (if you do that, drop the link in the next sentence).
  • Done.
  • That sentence and the next use present-tense, which is technically fine since the engines do still do those things, but feels jarring since the whole rest of the paragraph is in past tense, including the last sentence which is also about what the engine does (did).
  • I changed one instance of past tense to present, but, aside from that, I think this is all grammatically correct. I agree that it's somewhat jarring, but I don't think I can do anything about it.
  • Why not link Computer Gaming World in the last para of the dev section, instead of in the reception section?
  • This was an accident. Fixed.
  • Jane's is stealth-linked in the first sentence of development, under "Flight Combat".
  • You don't need to list the author as "Staff" when no author is given in references (10, 17, 19)
  • I thought it looked better, but ok.
  • Drop the allcaps in ref 12, 13
  • Done.
  • Why italicize a non-magazine website (ref 2, 11, 22, 30, 32, etc.)?
  • Fixed.
  • Actually, not sure if it's required, but consider adding publishers to all your magazine/newspaper cites
  • Done.
  • While I'm being nitpicky about non-required fields, I like having ISSNs on magazine cites, like you would have ISBNs on books.
  • I have no idea how to find these, so, since they're not required, I'll leave them out.
  • Three redirects that don't look intentional- the Piper plane, square miles, and single player in the infobox.
  • Fixed.
  • Two thumbs up for archiving your sources! --PresN 22:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all! I'll add a source review below, just to clear it out. --PresN 22:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review: Pass

  • It all looks fine, actually- you've used all these in FAs before. The only one that's close is the Adrenaline Vault site, mentioned above, which as you mention was an RS at the time these sources were written, though the zombie version of the site isn't necessarily. Flightsim.com isn't well-known now, as a niche website, but was/is certainly reliable, especially for the time period. --PresN 22:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Big thanks for the review. Tried to address your concerns. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to pass. --PresN 21:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DarthBotto[edit]

  • The two paragraphs of the lead are professional. However, I would prefer there to be a third paragraph detailing the general reception of this flight simulator. Would that be possible, or do you have a specific reason for not including one?
  • It was originally 3 paragraphs, but Crisco pointed out above that, according to WP:LEAD, the shortness of the article entails a 1- or 2-paragraph lead. I cut it down accordingly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if the consensus is for two paragraph, then I suppose I'll be agreeable. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much like the direct and neat presentation of the gameplay. However, I did notice that the first Flight Unlimited included a paragraph about flight lessons. I might want to see that expanded further into an additional paragraph, but I would like to hear what JimmyBlackwing has in mind about keeping it to two paragraphs, given his extensive history with not only this title, but the franchise as a whole.
  • The paragraph about lessons and modes in FU was necessary because of the structure of that simulator. Unlike FU2, its point wasn't to simulate a freeroam world. It had small maps and its gameplay was mode-based, almost like an arcade game. Plus, its lesson mode was billed as one of its core features. FU2's lessons weren't a big deal at the time, and the game wasn't split up into modes. I'm not sure what I could include in a third paragraph that isn't already covered. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, there seems to be more in detail on the first Flight Unlimited page, with mentions of additional instruments and maneuvers. I admittedly prefer the expanded take of that page, due to its broader scope, while also not treading into game guide territory.
  • FU2's new technology pretty much took fancy maneuvers off the table. However, the game's cockpits were upgraded quite a bit, which I apparently forgot to address in the Gameplay section. I added a sentence; see what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the lack of fancy maneuvers in the sequel, as I admittedly am an outsider. That new sentence drawing parallels to the real-world counterparts does add a lot of substance. Other than that, your reasoning is sound, so I'm giving this section my stamp of approval. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed this while reading the gameplay section, but for numbers leading up to one hundred, I'd prefer the long-hand version. For example, "There are 25 adventures in total" could have that number changed to "twenty-five". This would be applicable to the entirety of the article.
  • I tend to reserve plain text for numbers one to ten. This seems to be an AP-Chicago quibble more than a WP:MOS issue, so I'd prefer to leave the numbers as-is, if possible. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of amusing that my wiki crowd that has been building the Valve Corporation articles try to use the long-winded method of writing numbers. AP-Chicago is indeed a viable path, so I'll let it go. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the development section, everything seems in order save for one detail. The Electronic Entertainment Expo is mentioned in the final paragraph, but there seems to be some mention about the reception and critics questioning certain decisions. Do you believe this might be better suited for the reception section? This isn't a terrible gripe of mine, I'm just curious as to what you think. If you believe it is fine where it is, then I won't argue.
  • In general, I like to keep pre-release reception in the Development section. My opinion is that it helps to make the development timeline clearer for the reader, since pre-release reception at trade shows is relevant to team morale, game completeness and the business aspect. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. You'll probably see a different approach to what I did at the Dota 2 article, where pre-release and post-release are a part of the same coin. Very well- let it stay. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, the development section looks fantastic.
  • With reception sections, I typically prefer a general statement about the overall critical reception such as "moderately positive" to lead things up. For this, I would call upon the works of GameRankings and Metacritic.
  • I'd normally agree, but FU2's situation isn't that simple. Metacritic's page for FU2 is blank, and the GameRankings page contains only four reviews, two of which are questionably reliable. Making generalizations about a game's reception based on that is pretty dubious, so I chose to leave them out while writing the article. I wasn't able to locate a general description of the game's reception anywhere else, either. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certain titles do have extraordinary circumstances that are exceptional to this rule of thumb. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there additional reviews for the reception section? If so, I would include them in the ratings box, if not the general text, so you can include specifics from others and give variety to this section.
  • I can access more reviews, but they're from newspapers that (to my knowledge) didn't use scoring systems. This means that I won't be able to add anything to the ratings box. However, I could add another paragraph to Reception if you think the section is too thin. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that being said, I'd say that we can leave the box as is then. The text of the reception section is in good order- I don't believe a full new paragraph is necessary. If it is something of interest to you, you are welcome to add a couple more perspectives from reviews. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not necessary, so I'll leave it as it stands. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion for the aftermath subsection is to moved it to the development section.
  • Aside from the first two sentences, which discuss a post-release patch, the section has nothing to do with FU2's development. To me, it makes sense to leave it at the end of the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more in terms of that information being a part of the conclusion to a development cycle. However, you may indeed have a point. Tell me, do you think it should remain a subsection, or is there possibly merit to name it as its own section? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that it doesn't make much sense as a Reception subsection. I gave it a section of its own. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, great page! There is room for improvement, namely in the name of expansion, but I believe it's closer than what I generally anticipate for FACs. If my suggestions are addressed, I will gladly endorse the promotion of this FAC. In the meantime, I would be most pleased if you would give your input at the FAC I have opened for Dota 2. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added comments above. I'll try to drop by the Dota 2 nom in the next day or two. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Anyways, I'd say that with everything you've replied with, you're pretty close to having my complete seal of approval! I have but a couple new replies to yours that may require action, so please look through them, get back to me, then we can go from there! ;)
Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - JimmyBlackwing has been as thorough and professional as one could hope for, which explains why this article is of Featured Article quality. While I may have personal inclinations that do not agree with his conclusions, I find his reasoning to be sound nonetheless. I endorse this article's FA status. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, if you are so inclined, "Aftermath" may be better suited with the header of "Legacy". ;) DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:37, 9 July 2014 (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 09:46, 12 July 2014 [29].

Mischief Makers[edit]

Nominator(s): czar ♔ 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shake, shake! Another cult classic, MM was a strange game—perhaps par for Treasure—but also their first Nintendo game. It had really strange gameplay centered around grabbing and shaking things—I haven't heard of it being adopted since. While it got mixed reviews at the time, perhaps due to the unpopularity of a 2D game during great hype for 3D technology, GamesRadar called the game "possibly the most underrated and widely ignored ... on the N64". So away it will be filed in antiquity, but with a really good Wikipedia article. This is the most complete rendition ever written about this game, and it will likely remain as such. czar ♔ 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Czar. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Crisco 1492[edit]

Image review by Crisco 1492

@Crisco 1492, done—how about now? czar ♔ 19:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that's good. I'll try and do a prose review later today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose comments
    • maid - This feels like overlinking... such a common term
    • The gameplay revolves around grabbing, shaking, and throwing. Almost all items can be grabbed and shaken. - Any way to avoid the repetition?
    • E3 1997 - I'd link E3, at the very least
    • Later reviewers noted that the game originally received bad reviews, and disagreed in retrospection. - Perhaps "Later, retrospective reviewers disagreed with these original bad reviews, and in 2009 GamesRadar called it "possibly the most underrated and widely ignored game on the N64"? or something similar? "Disagreed in retrospection" is rather awkward.
    • Multiple reviewers recalled Marina's signature "Shake, shake!" sound bite. Electronic Gaming Monthly awarded the game their silver award. - Feels like the chronology is not clear here. Which reviewers? More recent ones, or the original ones?
    • The player-character, a robotic maid named Marina, journeys to save her kidnapped creator. - you go into more detail on the plot in the next paragraph. Why not just save this for that paragraph?
    • yellow gems hidden in the levels that extend the length of the ending. - as in, they add extra scenes to the ending, or?
    • The game has been described as "2½D" since the background is in 3D but the gameplay is in two dimensions. - This might work better further north, when you discuss this game being 2D
    • the company chose to take risks and released highly regarded games such as Gunstar Heroes and Dynamite Headdy. - What does "chose to take risks" add to this sentence, and how does it relate to the games mentioned?
    • Though its team composition was different from that of their previous titles, their lead programmer and character designer had previously worked on Gunstar Heroes. - Might want to specify that you are talking about MM here
    • Around the time of Mischief Maker's Nintendo release, Enix had just signed its Dragon Quest VII—historically a Nintendo franchise—to Sony. - How is this related to the rest of the paragraph?
    • Its Japanese title is Yuke-Yuke Trouble Makers, or Go-Go Trouble Makers. - I don't think we usually include this outside the lede
    • the Clanball platforming - don't recall seeing this in the article
    • In the years since, Retro Gamer reported Mischief Makers as a 7 of 10 on their rarity scale, with 10 as the rarest. - what is a "rarity scale"?
    • Might want to be more explicit when differentiating between recent and earlier reviews.
    • The link to Nintendo World Report in #Legacy is a duplicate link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492, thanks for this. I have a few responses, but otherwise I think I've addressed everything, so let me know what you think? I think the "disagreed in retrospection" was fine, but I changed it anyway. Also removed the EGM mention from the lede as unnecessary (minor award). I included "Yuke Yuke" in the prose, since otherwise it would be only in the lede and unsourced in the article. I didn't feel it was necessary to distinguish between original and new reviews except where the extra time would have been a factor in the choice of quote. Re: unintuitive Clanballing: "grabbing hold of Clanballs to leap to a greater height is not instinctive at first". czar ♔ 00:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant I didn't remember seeing "Clanball" in our article. Looking again, it's giving a passing mention, but not really clear what it's supposed to be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492, it's a floating ball that can be grabbed—I added that they're platforms. Also I had updated the screenshot to show the Clanballs, if you want to take another look. czar ♔ 01:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I agree with Hann's point about the need for Japanese reviews, so I'll stay on the fence for a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - At least a bit of discussion of Japanese reviews... acceptable, though I'm still hoping for more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hahnchen[edit]

  • Oppose - No Japanese reception for a Japanese video game. That's an instant oppose, but further comments below.
    • I'm not sure how much value Metacritic has with its 8 reviews, when you already have 7 in the box. I generally think one aggregator is enough.
    • Provide a better caption for the screenshot, what's going on? What elements are on screen?
    • Consider just firing up an emulator and taking a better screenshot. The quality is terrible.
    • 2.5D is really broadly defined, I'm not sure it adds any real understanding to the game. If everything is pre-rendered like Donkey Kong Country, I'd consider that 2D.
    • What does this mean? - "In his obsession, the Emperor kidnaps visiting robotics genius Professor Theo by way of brainwashed local Clancer people."
    • How does the game end? Does the player kill the emperor and rescue the professor?
    • Be clear what you mean with "take full use of the console's capabilities", because it doesn't seem to be pushing out polygons. Reading the source, it seems to use it as a figure of speech to show how the game does things the previous generation couldn't.
    • User:JimmyBlackwing has taken over Mitaphane's Next Generation magazine archive (because they're both awesome). He should have the print review in issue 34 (with its score) to complement the online review you've already referenced.
    • I prefer when composite scores such as EGM's are separated. Maybe as a note if not in the table.
    • No sales data at all?
@Hahnchen, what type of Japanese coverage would you recommend? I had searched for Famitsu and couldn't find anything. (Same for sales numbers other than that it sold poorly. I'd say the figures don't exist unless you know of some other place I can find them.) Thanks for the review czar ♔ 22:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be any publicly available sales data. There will be Japanese reception though, Famitsu and Dengeki are acceptable, but I don't know where to find them. - hahnchen 23:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hahnchen, okay. I'm enlisting WTVG help on that. As for everything else, I believe I've addressed the rest with some comments to follow—let me know what you think? I left the two aggregators because otherwise someone's going to add it back in—if you really think I should drop one, I'd prefer to drop GR (fewer reviews aggregated). I added the 2.5D since the sources brought it up a few times and felt it was more important to explain and include than to exclude. Not a single source mentioned anything more about the "plot"—you think it's worth including more? czar ♔ 01:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hahnchen and Crisco 1492, I'm not getting any bites on Japanese reviews (or help getting them otherwise). Do you have any suggestions on how else I could handle this? Other than tracking down a rare issue of Famitsu from 1997, I've included everything else possible, so I'm not sure what else I can do. czar ♔ 02:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that my Google searches for Japanese reviews of this game turned up little more than BIGLOBE blogs and other fan-run sites. The Famitsu and Dengeki reviews are not accessible online, even in Japanese. I would assume that only a Japanese collector could provide scans of them—and it's anyone's guess where to find such a person. While I agree in principle that Japanese games should have Japanese sources, it doesn't make sense to oppose based on a missing source that cannot be obtained. When you combine that with the fact that the article is already loaded with sources, I'd say that it's unreasonable for Japanese coverage to be a make-or-break issue. Just my two cents. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly Turkey is in Japan, reads Japanese, and (one would hope) may have access to sources with reviews. It's highly unlikely that there were no contemporary reviews in Japan, and one would expect Japanese reviews for a Japanese game. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll need a helping hand with titles—I was an ardent gamer until I was twenty, but I gave up on gaming entirely before I ever came to Japan. If you can give me titles of magazines that likely would have reviews, I can see if I can track them down at the library or in used book shops. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey—appreciate your help. You'd be looking for ゆけゆけ！！トラブルメーカーズ in Famitsu (the gold standard), Dengeki Nintendo 64, and/or 64 Dream around June 1997. I know Famitsu has a preview in #448 (July 1997), which might be interesting, but we're mainly looking for reviews. Also, I can interlibrary loan issues or page ranges that you find, if it would help—I just don't have any means for finding where the game is in the magazines' back catalogs. Thank you for your help czar ♔ 15:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that neither the municipal nor prefectural libraries in Shizuoka stock issues of those magazines. It looks like there was a review in issue 446 of Famitsu, though (two issues before the preview?). Haven't had any luck turning anything else up so far... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Famitsu's corroborated score, which was enough for Final Fantasy VI (which is ostensibly even more Japanese) and hopefully enough for us. I've contacted any person who has ever posted Famitsu scans online, but since it's been over a week I'm skeptical that anyone will come through. I've also contacted academic libraries in Japan and no one has holdings of these issues. It is sufficient to say this is all that's available. I want to invite @Hahnchen and Crisco 1492 to take a look, and thank @JimmyBlackwing and Curly Turkey for their sleuthing on my behalf. czar ♔ 01:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the oppose as I haven't been on top of this. But I generally expect more from 1c than just Googling the Famitsu score. - hahnchen 18:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I would hope that the hours I've put into contacting every lead on the Internet and every suggested Japanese library for 90s Famitsu magazines would hold a bit more weight in your regard of 1c. If even a scan of a Famitsu review ever does comes my way, it would then be a nightmare for anyone—even a period expert—to verify. czar ♔ 18:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by JimmyBlackwing[edit]

Since Hahnchen has disappeared, and it would be a shame for this nomination to be closed due to lack of interest, I'll provide a review. 1a will be my main focus.

  • Your opening sentence is quite a snake. It's very difficult to read, and it contains a lot of unnecessary information. Here's an alternative:
  • The lead sentence related to the "robotic maid Marina" does not make the player's role clear. For all the reader knows, you're supposed to play the emperor.
  • "and Treasure's first on a Nintendo console" — Treasure's first what? If it was their first 2D side-scroller, then this leaves open the possibility that they had made other types of games for Nintendo.
  • "began development in mid-1995 with interest in" —> "began developing Mischief Makers in mid-1995 with an interest in".
  • The following sentence is clunky; here's an alternative:
  • "The 12-person team wanted to create a new an innovative gameplay mechanic, and implementing their resulting resultant "catching" technique was the hardest part to implement their biggest challenge."
  • "early game learning curve and accessibility" — This is very unclear. Maybe just axe the "early game" part.
  • Another rewrite:
  • "Later reviewers Critics disagreed with this the game's poor reception in retrospection., and they Multiple reviewers recalled Marina's signature "Shake, shake!" sound bite positively." (If they recalled "Shake, shake!" negatively, then the sentence should be changed to reflect that. If they simply recalled it, then I'm not sure it's necessary for inclusion in the lead.)
  • "a new sequel" — "New" is redundant.
  • The second sentence of Gameplay begins: "The gameplay is varied". First, this is the third repetition of "the" in less than ten words. Second, "varied" has a positive connotation, which raises POV concerns. I recommend this rewrite:
  • "The Its gameplay is varied, with features platform mechanics at its core alongside and additional aspects from the action and puzzle genres."
  • "The game has been described as "2½D" since the background is in 3D but the gameplay is in two dimensions." — More "the" overuse. Also, add a comma after "2½D", and consider changing "gameplay is" to "gameplay occurs".
  • "more exploratory" —> "more exploration-based".
  • "player-character" —> "player character". This applies to all instances of "player-character" in the article.
I hyphenate player-character for readability—otherwise it appears more jargony czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The player character article title has no hyphen, and I've never seen the phrase hyphenated on Wikipedia. Further, the hyphen is grammatically incorrect. It needs to go. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The story takes place on the Planet Clancer" — Since Planet Clancer is a proper name, and you introduce it as a planet right after this, the "the" seems unnecessary.
  • A rewrite:
  • "By way of brainwashed local Clancer people, The Emperor brainwashes Clancer locals to kidnaps visiting the robotics genius Professor Theo."
  • "His creation" —> "Theo's creation".
  • "Marina grabs these things to latch on" — This is a tautology, and the word "things" should be replaced with something more formal and definite, like "objects".
  • "The combat is shake-based." — More unnecessary "the" repetition.
  • "Shaking items uncovers new gameplay mechanics, such as guns that shoot triple shots or homing missiles." — Strictly speaking, a "gameplay mechanic" is a set of rules created by a developer, rather than an object that can be discovered in the game world. Further, "guns that shoot triple shots" is meaningless to a non-gamer. I recommend this rewrite:
  • Shaking items uncovers new gameplay mechanics, tools such as machine guns that shoot triple shots or and homing missiles."
  • "hidden in the levels" — More "the" repetition.
  • "boosting" — What does this mean?
  • "apiece" — An informal word. Consider "each".
not sure why this would be informal czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and rides bikes and wire mazes." — How do you ride a wire maze? At first glance, this makes no sense to me, even as a gamer. Also, "bike" is an informal word that can refer to bicycles or motorcycles.
"bike" is what the source used, so it's unclear there too—I'll put it in quotes czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The worlds each have final bosses and mid-level bosses." —> "Each world has a mid-level and a final boss."
  • "scaling and screen rotation special effects" — Blue links here would be helpful.
There are no suitable articles to link czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rewrite:
  • "Almost all things entities on Planet Clancer—, including people, buildings, and pets—, on the Clancer planet have share the same "creepy 'sad face' mask with red, glowing eyes"."
  • "A Clancer named" —> "A Clancer local named".
  • "a petulant Clancer" —> "A petulant native of Clancer".
I established "Clancer" as the name for the people earlier, so I thought these would be okay czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The characters and backgrounds are modeled in pre-rendered 3D similar to Donkey Kong Country's 'Advanced Computer Modeling'." — Move this up so that it follows the sentence related to 2½D. It makes far more sense there.

I'll be back later to review the rest of the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "mid 1995" —> "mid-1995"
I don't think this has a hyphen because it isn't being used as an adjective (use case #1 in NOAD) czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "generally interested" —> "interested"
  • "The new console's" — You just said "the console", so changing this to "The Nintendo 64's" would be better.
  • "more advanced visual effects" — More advanced than what?
  • "first on a Nintendo console" — First what?
  • "did not have a "special relationship" with Nintendo for the release" — What does that mean? Definitely needs clarification.
  • A rewrite:
  • "Previously, The company Treasure had historically worked on games for Sega consoles games, in part because partially due to what they deemed an easier development cycle found them easier to develop for than competing systems."
  • A rewrite:
  • "Also However, although the Nintendo 64's cartridges were more expensive than CD-ROMs, though they loaded data instantly in comparison and were thus more conducive for action games such as Mischief Makers."
  • "The team did not use technical methods specific to the hardware when making the game, though the bosses built in 3D required special attention." — This sentence needs massive clarification. It's so vague that it's basically meaningless as it stands.
  • A rewrite
  • "Treasure's founders had come from Konami, where they worked on Nintendo Entertainment System games such as Castlevania and Contra,. They but found the this development environment restrictive and left on a mission to try riskier concepts and to singularly focus on making "great games"."
  • "An average of 12 people worked on Treasure's Mischief Makers development team" —> "An average of 12 people worked on Mischief Makers".
  • A rewrite:
  • "Though the The game was made by a different team composition was different from than had developed that of previous Treasure titles, although its their lead programmer and character designer had previously worked on Gunstar Heroes."
  • A rewrite:
  • "Treasure's CEO said that the company likes liked to expand into new genres, though they planned expect to primarily work primarily in genres where they have had experience."
  • "new and original" — This is redundant. One word would be enough.
  • A rewrite:
  • "As for Regarding the game's aesthetic, Treasure CEO Maegawa felt that the company's Treasure's games did not "have a particularly foreign, ... non-Japanese look" as compared to those of other Japanese game developers."
  • "their known expertise in the action game genre" —> "their expertise in the action genre".
  • "Treasure chose Enix with their decision to make the game for the Nintendo 64." — I have no idea what this means.
  • A rewrite:
  • "At the same time that Just as Mischief Makers marked Treasure's switch to other video game consoles from its reputation as a than the Sega Genesis developer, Enix had recently ended its longtime loyalty to Nintendo in signing their by developing Dragon Quest VII—historically a Nintendo franchise—to for Sony's PlayStation."
  • "its release date was pushed earlier" — Earlier than what? The Japanese release? If not, then you should specify the original and revised dates. Use month-year to avoid redundancy with the next paragraph.
  • "Japanese launch in June 1997" — Its launch time was just mentioned; axe the date.
  • "release in September," — Should be a colon instead of a comma.
  • "The game received 'mixed or average reviews'" — Since you were just talking about Bangai-O, it would be clearer to say "Mischief Makers" instead of "the game".
  • "short length" — This phrase is the scourge of WikiProject Video games. Try "brevity".
scourge? I prefer "short length" over "brevity" because it's more specific and has better syllabic conservation (two versus three syllables) czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Short length is a borderline oxymoron, and it's been criticized multiple times in the past at FAC. I went ahead and replaced it myself. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "early game" line is just as confusing here.
  • "in retrospection" —> "in retrospect".
  • "recalled Marina's signature "Shake, shake!" sound bite" — Again: positively or negatively?
  • "up to innovative standards set" — "up to the standard set".
  • "as about" —> "as being about".
  • "most bizarre and surreal" — One of these is enough.
they don't mean the same thing, so I kept both czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and complained about the controls" — This makes him sound petulant and wrong. Try "but disliked the controls".
  • "including the directional pad, but also wrote" —> "including the directional pad. However, he wrote".
  • "the bosses felt like that of its brethren" —> "the bosses felt like those of the earlier game".
  • "O'Neill of Nintendo Life" — He was already introduced.
  • "Cerberus Alpha/Sasquatch Beta/Phoenix Gamma boss" — Surely there's a clearer and more professional way to refer to this boss.
  • Sushi-X should be wikilinked.
what is this I don't even czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rewrite:
  • "Gamasutra's John Harris noted cited the game's gameplay as a rare rarity for 2D platformers, with 'tremendous variety' in levels, from a Track & Field remake to recipes to outrunning a missile barrage, and commented that 'it is obvious that Treasure poured their hearts into this game.'"
  • "predicted that most players will not play the game through more than once" —> "predicted that most players would not complete the game more than once".
  • A rewrite:
  • "Bartholow also said found that the game felt limited by its cartridge space, since a with its small selection of tiles, objects, and soundtracks are reused throughout the game,. He also cited the game's dearth of limited sound effects, and its generally bland backgrounds (compared to the "impressive" boss battle animations and effects), as examples of hardware limitations."
  • "a new sequel" — Again, redundant.
  • "Nintendo 64 games if only for its "unbridled quality"." —> "Nintendo 64 games, because of its "unbridled quality"."
  • "2D nature during a period where players expected 3D games on a console known for 3D" —> "2D graphics, during a period when players expected 3D games from the Nintendo 64".
  • "though not the best" —> "though imperfect".

That should do it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's generally my policy to remain decision-neutral during a review, I suppose I should make it clear that I oppose this article's promotion until my concerns have been addressed. As it stands, the prose fails 1a. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JimmyBlackwing, I'm halfway through your edits. I should be finished tonight. czar ♔ 17:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JimmyBlackwing, thanks for the detailed prose review. I appreciate your help. I think I've addressed everything—take a look? Some of the suggestions went against the sources, so I made the changes I thought appropriate and added a few notes above, where necessary czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice work. I went through the article and made a few final adjustments. Of note, I removed the "culinary recipes" mention, first because three examples aren't necessary, second because it was too vague to mean anything without a beefy digression. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Derboo[edit]

Just a comment - I've read through parts of the article, and while it's excellent, two of the notes seem superfluous and seem like they should rather be integrated into the main text. Note (a) lists a number of objects that are to be grabbed, then links to a note that most game objects can be grabbed. I know this was in the prose before and has been criticized for repetitiveness, but I don't think making readers klick on a note to surprise them with the repetition instead is a very good solution. And note (c): "Treasure exclusively worked on games for Sega consoles," (reference) -> note: "Treasure thought it was easier to develop for Sega consoles." (same reference). I don't see the reason to make people click on a note link for that. Why not just write "Treasure exclusively worked on games for Sega consoles, because the company thought them easier to handle," or something like that? Derboo (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Derboo, good point. I repurposed the notes—let me know what you think? czar ♔ 03:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me now. Derboo (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • "Shaken objects sometimes reveal new features, such as homing missiles and multi-directional gun shots" - What do you mean by "reveal"? Does she get those abilities? Do those objects attack her when acted upon, like the monster chests in the old Final Fantasys?
  • Does her jetpack have a time or distance limit, or is it infinite? If there's a limit, how is it represented onscreen?
  • ""creepy 'sad face' ... with red, glowing eyes"" - Why is this quote significant? Who's it from?
  • "An average of 12 people worked on Mischief Makers, with up to 15 at times" - Is there any info on how frequently members joined or left, or on who stayed the longest?
  • "As compared to other Japanese games, Treasure's CEO felt that their games did not reflect a "non-Japanese" aesthetic" - Did reflect, or did not reflect? Perhaps "did not" is correct, but IME Japanese media creators don't usually see their work as non-Japanese, even if the rest of the world does (as the thousands of search entries for "why are anime characters white" can tell you), and Mischief Makers doesn't look especially Eastern to me.
  • "Near the time of the game's Japanese launch, Treasure announced that they were working on another Japan-only Nintendo 64 game for a September release: Bakuretsu Muteki Bangaioh, which was later introduced to North America as Bangai-O" - Relevance?
  • "Critics praised the game's inventiveness, personality, "variety", and boss fights,[2][8][9][15] and criticized its brevity, low difficulty, low replay value,[8][9][17] sound,[3][9][4][19] and harsh introductory learning curve.[2][8][15]" - Why is this summarized at the start? Shouldn't this kind of overture go in the intro?
  • "Marina can collect three extra health bars" - You mean like Pieces of Heart from Zelda, or just health replenishers? If the latter, are there only three in the whole game, three in each life, or three in each level?

Tezero (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero, I believe I've addressed everything. Take a look? Limits to boosting are not covered by the RS or even the instruction manual. I could add it and cite the game, but only if you feel it's necessary. The "creepy" quote is difficult to rephrase and would appear non-neutral if rephrased. The only other information on the specifics of the staff would be its credits (not listed at AllGame). Bangai-O part is supposed to indicate that they liked the N64 enough to continue developing for it—let me know if you have a rephrase. Not sure what you mean about the Reception opener, but my first ¶ is designed to give an overview of the most important points of the section. czar ♔ 16:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer if you did cite the game for what seems like an important gameplay detail; you can take it out later if someone else objects.
  • What about "grotesque sad face with glowing red eyes"? If there's truly text where you placed the ellipsis, this shouldn't be a close-paraphrasing violation.
  • Make it clear that motivation to continue N64 development is why you're including it, then.
  • I know summary is what it's designed to do, but why does it need to? It's a section of the body text, and it's redundant as the article already has an intro. The reader will be perusing Reception for detailed information and will not need a summary. You don't summarize any other sections within themselves; why do it there?
Tezero (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tezero, done. The Reception summary explains the game's overall reception in a sentence. Because I don't structure my Reception ¶s by topic, the summary sentence even explains reviewer agreement about some aspects that I did not have the space to go into with the prose, which is likely at its reasonable capacity. czar ♔ 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DarthBotto[edit]

Lead

  • I typically prefer leads to have the framework of "Intro with key dates", "Description of gameplay", then "Reception overview". However, it seems that there is some different context for this game, as it's a cult classic, so I'm fine with the way it is.
  • "The company began Mischief Makers's development in mid-1995 with interest in, but little knowledge of, the console's features" - I would rework this sentence, as it seems a little dicey with commas. The part I specifically am not terribly fond of is the "interest" portion. My suggestion would be "The company began Mischief Makers's development in mid-1995 with little knowledge of the console's capabilities". I mean, obviously they were interested, so I think that's unnecessary.
  • I wouldn't include the mention of Metacritic. I would rather give a statement about "mixed reviews" and leave the mentions of the aggregators to the reception section.
  • I would cut out the "Video game journalists from outlets such as GamesRadar and Nintendo World Report cited Mischief Makers as ripe for reissue either through the Nintendo eShop or in a sequel or franchise reboot. In 2009, GamesRadar called it 'possibly the most underrated and widely ignored game on the N64'" portion from the lead, as it seems rather specific. I like the general statements beforehand, though. That being said, perhaps more general statements could be included in place of the over-specific ones?

Gameplay

  • "Mischief Makers is a single-player 2D side-scrolling platform game, the first on the Nintendo 64 console." I would change it to "Mischief Makers is the first single-player 2D side-scrolling platform game on the Nintendo 64 console". A little less convoluted.
  • The writing of the gameplay section is indeed in fine order, with proper references and what-not. However, the information could be split to make room for a plot section.
  • Does Marina's creator have a name?

Development

  • I am not all that fond of the Nintendo 64 console image being there. Does it add anything substantive to the article?
  • Other than that, I admire the quality of the writing in this section. It would appear as though editors have worked arduously to ensure its quality.

Reception

  • This section seems a little too heavy on the citations, as there are many cases in which the same citation is used repeatedly in the same sentence. Likewise, the citations seem a little stacked up in places, which I find slightly cumbersome.
  • I feel as though this section has a bit too much in detail. Not every review needs to be written out, so my suggestion would be to trim about a paragraph's worth from this, because that's about how much excess their is. Other than that, I do like the quality of writing and content. Just, a little less content would be welcome.

Provisional support - This FAC has been open for quite a while, which is complemented by the effort that has been put into making the proper modifications. It is my opinion that if my suggestions are answered, this article will be indeed worth of Featured Article status. In the meantime, I welcome you to provide your input at my own FAC for Dota 2. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto, thanks for the review! Really helpful suggestions. I believe I've addressed them all—take a look? Explanations: I prefer to cite an aggregator's view of the reception than to make the claim myself (which I see as a kind of OR), so that's why I credit it to Metacritic. Otherwise I'd be crediting it to some news outlet. I try only to put in the specifics when the fact is likely to be challenged, which makes it more believable. Marina's creator is Prof. Theo (Theo's creation). I like the N64 image for those unfamiliar with the console. The first ¶ of Reception will be dense on the citations because it's making a lot of points, but I believe the rest should be fine. Unless you have specific recommendations on what to cut, I'd like to leave what currently remains from my own cutting. Also, can I interest you in doing a quick source review? czar ♔ 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed below. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review - Most everything would appear to be in good order, with reliable and third-party sources. My one gripe, (which may not be fixable), is that I cannot tell who the author of "Now Playing" from Nintendo Power's October 1997 issue is. Would this information be obtainable? Other than that, I will be ready to give this FAC my stamp of approval when this one source is commented on in an adequate manner, or else amended. ;) DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto, thanks, again. That section is by the magazine as a whole and doesn't have an author byline. Just to clarify, did you do a verification spot check of the sources with your review? czar ♔ 01:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, I did, Czar. I nearly vomited from all the old school nostalgia I experienced, but other than that, most everything seems to be in order! I cannot personally verify the integrity of sources [1], as well as those by GameFan, as I am having trouble finding the latter and the former requires access to the game, which is impossible, considering I have not my N64 where I live. Other than that, I am satisfied with the integrity of these archived sources. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I think we're ready for a coordinator. Anything left to do? czar ♔ 05:09, 10 July 2014 (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 09:27, 12 July 2014 [30].

Freedom of Worship (painting)[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified WP:HUMAN RIGHTS, WP:VISUALARTS, WP:RELIGION, WP:WPMEDIA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the WP:GAC reviewer Seabuckthorn.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the four paintings in a famous painting series by Norman Rockwell. It has sufficient stand-alone encyclopedic content to merit consideration here. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments from Wehwalt
Comments, leaning support. As I think I've mentioned to you, I have a set of the Four Freedoms in a dilapidated War Bonds envelope that has been folded sometime in the past seventy years. I've spent several minutes studying the painting. The detail on the fingers is ... amazing. Just saying. Now to the review.
Lede
  • The first sentence could use at least one comma, after "Roosevelt". I might put a second one in, but that would be purely stylistic. But I think you need one.
  • Similarly, I think you need one before "Will Durant".
Background
  • Moving to the opposite pole, the comma before "Four" in the first sentence seems unneeded and out of place. Also the one prior to "Franklin"
  • I think Ariel Durant should be mentioned as co-author of the book series.
I'm going to pause at this point because you've caused me to check my personal library and I have useful information. Send me an email and I will send you the pages as attachments. I am traveling later today so I may be slow to actually send them.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resuming
Background (cont)
  • The final statement in the section needs a source.
  • The statement about Durant lecturing, and the following one, might well be switched in order. Seems more logical.
  • "the series". Make clear we are talking about the paintings, not Durant's books.
Description
  • I'm not happy about the term "bible-toting" which is a bit pejorative and not really applicable to the situation. Additionally, as one somewhat familiar with Jewish prayer and its rituals, the Bible is not an object of prayer, though customs differ on some elements of prayer within Judaism and I'm less familiar with some. May I ask, if it is available, what the source says exactly?
  • I am not in possession of any offline sources. I had them checked out from the Chicago Public Library for about 5 or 6 months (renewing 3 week borrowings) until I started to forget to renew them. I may be able to get to the Library in the next week or two or your local Library may have the book.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am traveling at present which is why I am so slow to get these done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • "all seeking barber services" perhaps "waiting their turn in the barber's chair" or similar, as what you have seems a bit overly formal. I guess we can't say they are all there for a haircut, they might want a shave.
  • "serviced" served?
  • "preppy" This evokes a much-later time period. Preppy as in the stereotypical prep school look?
  • I'm thinking of the Preppy Handbook and so forth, that I remember from the early Eighties.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rockwell's intended theme was religious tolerance, and it seemed lost in the original composition according to Rockwell" to avoid the repetition, perhaps "Rockwell's intended theme was religious tolerance, but he felt the original composition did not successfully make this point."
  • I would put the sentence about Hoyt's specific denomination in a footnote. It bogs things down on a side point. But aren't Episcopalians protestants?
  • "the Koran" I see only one book. Is this the Bible mentioned before as being toted?
  • "didn't" I didn't think we were supposed to use contractions.
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are okay - Two non-free images, both with solid FURs. Should be ready to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bull manure from Curly Turkey[edit]

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Hamiltonstone[edit]

  • "Post editor Ben Hibbs chose Durant," Per body text standing independently of the lead, we need this person's first name. Also, the lead says WIll Durant was a philosopher; the body text says he "also lectured on history and philosophy". those two don't quite gel. Can we clarify what was his academic qualification / profession?
    • WP:LASTNAME is generally an exception to the "body text standing independently of the lead" consideration.
    • I just went downtown yesterday to get books from the library whose content was being challenged. However, I did not pick this one up. Saying he is a philosopher does not contradict that he lectured on history and philosophy. I assume many philosophers give lectures on philosophy as well as another subject or two.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, here is the exact quote: "...Freedom of Worship ran, along with an essay by best-selling writer and lecturer on history and philosophy, Will Durant. In his mid-fifties, Durant was at the height of his fame and busy with his ten-volume life's work, The Story of Civilization.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The figure carrying the religious book in the lower left is Jewish." Lower right?
  • "The dark-haired woman with the well-lit face" - but she has light hair - compare her to both the jew and the man behind her. The other two figures only have lighter hair than her because theirs is a pale grey.
  • "In June 1942, Post editor Ben Hibbs took to Rockwell's Four Freedoms sketches" What is meant by "took to"? I assume it means something like "took to them with a (metaphorical) hammer", but it needs to be clarified.
  • "His final version relied on more subtle visual clues, including a rosary and a religious book". I must be missing something here. What could be less subtle than a rosary and a religious book? It is particularly hard to understand this analysis when one has his first work-up as context, where one of his problems had turned out to be the very subtle cues, that had themselves caused him to veer toward ethnic caricatures that he disliked.
  • "The work even had dark-skinned black worshipers juxtaposed on the edges." Maybe that was cutting edge in the forties, but put that way in a contemporary article ("even"?), that sounds very off.
  • "The Four Freedoms did — do so" why is this dash here? I couldn't get it to scan.
  • "Critical review of the painting describes disappointment of the universality of the Freedom of Religion,..." This expression doesn't make sense to me. I can't understand the phrase "disappointment of the universality of" so don't understand what the sentence is saying. Can you clarify?
    • I believe this means that the individual worshiper may be put off by a work that supports the practice of faiths other than their own. I think it means people want to see support for their own faith, but not necissarily support for other faiths. Suppose this was an artwork about freedom to love whomever or whatever you want. Although people might feel good about their own love interests being supported, they may not want to see a poster endorsing every freaky love interest known to man. A poster with a LGBT-sensitive depictions, men loving blowup dolls, men loving animals, women with dildos, etc, might be a bit much for the traditionalist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, can you revise it to be clearer about that. Maybe just "Some are disappointed by the acceptance of all faiths expressed in Freedom of Religion"?hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you confirm the Time magazine item at footnote 8 really does not have an author?
  • There is an inconsistency in the expression of page ranges between footnotes 15 and 19.
  • Is that a mis-spelling of "Creepy" in the quote? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting piece, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2014 (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 08:14, 9 July 2014 [31].

Harta Berdarah[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I'm back with another film written by Saeroen and produced by Union Films. Like our previous FAs Sorga Ka Toedjoe and Asmara Moerni, I built this article around a novelization found at Taman Siswa's library. Harta Berdarah is a cautionary tale about valuing money over social obligations and the needs of society. Sadly, it is a lost film, and little documentation survives. This article has had a wonderful peer review by Wehwalt and User:SchroCat, and is now ready to be presented to you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another gem of an article about a lost film: an interesting read, very nicely put together, and certainly worthy of FA status. - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for all of your help at PR, and the review here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Another peer reviewer heard from. I had my say there, and my concerns were addressed. Another worthy addition to the canon of articles on vanished Indonesian films.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thank you for being there to "witness" them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Taylor Trescott

  • Any objection to making the release date in the infobox say "October 1940"?
  • "Cinematography for the production was completed by KH Tjit" Can't say I'm a huge fan of "completed" in this instance. Makes it sound like he stepped in to finish somebody else's job.
  • A translation for Bloedgeld should be included
  • It's still Bloody Treasure or (maybe) Blood Gold, so I didn't include it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Personally I found "new hire" a bit odd as a very American term in a part of the world beyond the US sphere, but given your country of origin I can't really object to that (: Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, since this is supposed to be BrE, we can't have that. Tried editing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Quote should be cited in the lead
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2014 (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 08:56, 9 July 2014 [32].

Blue men of the Minch[edit]

Nominator(s): Sagaciousphil (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third article in our Scottish mythology series, about creatures in human form who inhabit the Minch, a strait between the norther Outer Hebrides and mainland Scotland. They may be a tribe of fallen angels, Picts, or North African slaves taken to Scotland by the Vikings. You decide. Eric Corbett 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jamesx12345[edit]

This looks like another interesting one.

  • Just to note that there are no incoming links from The Minch.
    We're not responsible for the Minch's article, which is little more than a stub anyway. Eric Corbett 21:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complete two lines of poetry." - it isn't immediately clear that this is to follow on from an offering by the blue man.
    I don't understand what you're getting at here. The text seems quite clear to me: "... their chief rises up out of the water and shouts two lines of poetry to the skipper, and if he cannot add two lines to complete the verse the blue men seize his boat." Eric Corbett 21:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading it, I thought for a few seconds that the captain would just have to finish (complete) two lines of poetry, maybe a rhyming couplet. Even appending "...offered by the blue man." would make it clearer. Jamesx12345 21:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's exactly what happens; the chief of the blue men shouts out two lines of verse, then the skipper adds two lines to complete the verse. The chief may then shout out another two lines, which the skipper would also have to complete, and so on. Maybe Sagaciousphil will have more luck than me in understanding what it is you're getting at. Eric Corbett 12:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also felt it wasn't really necessary; however, it could be Eric and I have read it so many times there is a subliminal type effect coming into play, so I have amended it as per James' suggestion. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "boats resembling kayaks" - I can't help but feel that this is a bit dubious, and "small boats" is more likely to be correct.
    The source says "... perhaps something like the kayaks of the 'Finn-men'". Eric Corbett 21:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that, but some quick research suggests that coracles and currachs would have been used. A kayak is a very particular design of boat. Jamesx12345 21:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not what the source says, and we're not at liberty to draw conclusions from our own research. Eric Corbett 12:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did have a quick look to see if I could find any sources suggesting "currachs" but without any success. As Eric says, kayaks is specifically used in the source we have, so we can't synthesise it into currachs; the author was probably attempting to come up with something modern day readers could visualise (whoops, now I'm hypothesising!)? Thanks for trying to research it, James - if you do have a source that says the blue men used currachs, please let us know and we'll certainly consider using it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are two fairly reliable sources on the boats that would have been used by Picts. I don't think there is good reason to say "coracle", although that is likely to be the kind of boat in question, but "resembling a kayak" is almost certainly wrong. A kayak is long and pointy, whereas a coracle is like a bathtub. A search for "Pictish kayak" produces no meaningful results. Jamesx12345 17:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, James, but I'm really not following where those books can tie in with this? Kingshill/Westwood are reliable sources - they are not saying it was a kayak, only that it was possibly similar to a kayak. To use anything else without a direct tie-in to the blue men would, I think, be original research. SagaciousPhil - Chat 04:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note about the fact that this is is suggested to be borrowed from the Finn-men, as Picts in kayaks would alarm a few people. Jamesx12345 21:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tempestuous water around the..." - this sentence is confusing. "The tempestuous water around the Shiant Isles 19 kilometres (12 mi) to the north of Skye is known as the Current of Destruction owing to the number of ships wrecked there. This area, subject to rapid tides in all weathers, is where the caves inhabited by the blue men are located." - maybe.
  • Some redundancy removed.
  • "These turbulent waters are inhabited by several spirits." - this sentence is very abrupt. "These turbulent waters are inhabited by several other mythical spirits." - possibly expand on that.
    I've merged that sentence with the previous one. Any expansion ought to be in the Minch's article, not this one. Eric Corbett 21:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the Annals of Ireland known to be any of these? Might be a long shot.
  • Unfortunately it's not specified - I might be able to make a guess at it but that's going into original research again ;-) so not a good idea! I also think it would be starting to stray off topic. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too keen on the use of the word "negro", not only because it is potentially offensive but also because the word itself has very strong connections with the colour black, more so than "black person," making the translations seem a bit off.
    It is nevertheless the word chosen by the translator, so we're not at liberty to choose an alternative word some may find less offensive. I don't see anything offensive about the word in any case. Eric Corbett 12:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find it offensive in the context we have used; it is also included as a direct quote that is not used in any derogatory way and provides a good explanation as to where the origins of the story may lie. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

  • The #Etymology section is but two sentences in length. I'd try and merge it somewhere, or expand further.
    I've added some commentary about the blue men's alternative name of storm kelpies. Eric Corbett 13:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blue men may have been part of a tribe of "fallen angels" that split into three; the first became the ground dwelling fairies, the second evolved to become the sea inhabiting blue men, and the remainder the "Merry Dancers" of the Northern Lights in the sky. - We should be clear from the get-go that these are mythological, I think. You don't use "mythical" in this section until the next sentence. Further sentences such as "Blue men have the power to create severe storms," likewise blur the boundaries.
    "Mythical" has been added to the first sentence, to establish the frame of reference for the rest of the section. And having established that frame of reference I think it would be tedious to prefix every mention of the blue men's attributes or powers with words such as reputed, alleged, claimed and so on. Eric Corbett 13:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I liked it better before "fabled", "legendary", etc. were each added several times into the text. The section is named "Folk beliefs", and given the very whimsical topic at hand, I don't think there should be any confusion. It's not a big deal, but surely there's a compromise between acknowledging the mythical nature of the stories in general and reaffirming it every paragraph. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So did I. Eric Corbett 15:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken it back a notch or two, hopefully a compromise? SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Church of Scotland Minister John Brand - Per WP:SEAOFBLUE this should be reworked or a link should be removed. I'd take out the link to "minister"
    "Minister" has been delinked. Eric Corbett 13:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise nothing from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to have a look. Eric Corbett 13:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Another great article on Scottish folklore from the two of you. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Crisco! SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – following my previous comment, I'm happy to offer my support for an interesting and engaging article. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - glad you enjoyed it! SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hamiltonstone. Very interesting and couldn't fault it.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 03:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source check by Hamiltonstone

  • Two images, both with appropriate licensing.
  • Sources: footnotes 6, 13: why is this a location number rather than a page number?
  • Clarified to show ASIN for Kindle ebook.
  • OK, i guess this comes from being technologically backward - i still don't know what that number is that appears after the author and year in the Harvard cite: is it a paragraph number? An entry number? It needs some sort of explanation. The cite template says it is a location (I assume that is what is meant by "loc"), but i don't know what that means. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ebooks don't generally have page numbers, they have location numbers, i.e. a position in the eBook that can be used just like a page number to find a specific piece of text. I really don't think it's our job to explain how eBooks work. Eric Corbett 12:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but at the moment i have no idea what that number is - so i can't tell if it has something to do with an e-book or something else. That's the virtue of the "p." for page, or "para" for paragraph. Isn't there a symbol or abbreviation for an ebook location number, so we know it's an ebook location number? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 17: this looks like a reference to a journal article item, but the reference is listed in the bibliography, but the references 26, 35 and 38 are journal articles that are listed in the citations. What's the rationale here?
  • Changed footnote 17 to citation.
  • Also re footnote 17: why is it listed as anonymous? My suspicion is that an editor has been able to locate this information using google books but because of snippet view, hasn't been able to locate the author of the paper in which it occurs. But the paper almost certainly does have an author - it's just that their name needs to be hunted down...
  • Inserted author and article title.

Otherwise good.hamiltonstone (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hamiltonstone, I think we've now tweaked those. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:47, 28 June 2014 (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 08:58, 9 July 2014 [33].

Fantastic Novels[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Novels was a minor science fiction and fantasy pulp magazine of the 1940s, a companion to Famous Fantastic Mysteries, which was promoted to FA last year and which reviewers may find useful as a comparison. Fantastic Novels had a shorter run, and was less well-known; as a result this is quite a short article, though not as short as some existing FAs. It includes everything I could find on the topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The article seems slight, at 12kb. Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's certainly short; it wouldn't be the shortest FA, but there would only be twenty or so below it in the list. I believe it's comprehensive, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Mike, will read again through it again on that basis. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support have read through with light c/e's (any of which can be reversed), and am impressed. Its short *but* tight, informative and engaging, far from fandom, and sourced by a person who is evidently truly versed in the subject matter and understands wiki policy on sourcing. One of our best examples to hold up; for sure. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! For both the compliment and the support; and also for the copyedit, which was very helpful. I tweaked it a little more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Better again. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: It's been some time, Mike – welcome back to FAC. Some general comments:

Thanks! It's good to be back; I hope to show up here a little more regularly, and to be able to contribute some more reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should mention the publishers in the lead, and also say where in the US the magazine was published
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A garbled sentence in the lead: "It lasted for 25 issues, with was Mary Gnaedinger as editor."
    Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you've sorted that out, I think you need to clarify the figures. "It lasted for 25 issues" implies continuity, which is misleading. Better to say that the first incarnation lasted for 5 issues and the second for 20. Also, clarify in the lead that the Canadian and British reprints were separate from the main issues.
    I clarified the issues; good point. I'm not clear what the problem is with the reprints -- doesn't the fact that they are stated to be reprints make it clear what's going on? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a little ce on the latter part of the lead – see what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks fine to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the early decades..." or "In the early decades..."?
    Either would be true, but I picked "By..." because science fiction stories were already appearing regularly in popular magazines by the late 19th century, though they weren't called that and did not yet constitute a genre. Do you think it should be changed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your call Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    After thinking about this I decided to switch to "In"; the implied reference to earlier science fiction isn't really useful here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not more usual to give the "SF" abbreviation in upper case? It looks odd to my eye in lower case.
    The lowercase form is used in many of the secondary sources, including the Clute/Nicholls Encyclopedia, which is the most authoritative source. "SF" is certainly used as well, in some sources; I tend to prefer the lowercase form because the uppercase form can stand for other things (San Francisco, for example) whereas the lowercase form isn't easy to mistake for anything. I was hoping that specifically introducing the abbreviation would make this acceptable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bimonthly" is an awkward word, because it can mean both "every two months" or "twice a month". I'd rephrase to avoid the ambiguous word
    I've rephrased, to try to keep the word; in magazine publishing it pretty much invariably means every two months, and since the sources use it unabashedly I'd like to do the same. I've added an explanation inline that I hope makes this OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though the scheduled slipped" – a stray extra "d" there?
    Oops again; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fantastic Novels was suspended with that issue" → "Fantastic Novels was suspended after that issue"
    Yes, better; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was World War II a factor that affected production, since the US was not at war until December 1941?
    The sources don't specify, but going on what else I've read about the situation in magazine publishing at that time, I suspect the issue was that Canada was at war from late 1939, and Canada was also a major supplier of wood pulp. Transportation in Canada would certainly have been requisitioned, even if the lumber was not, so it seems likely that something like that would explain why US magazines ran into difficulties before the country formally entered the war. However, that's speculation on my part; the sources don't give details, so I don't feel I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words "as well" are unnecessary.
    Agreed; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the demand from" is awkward repetition
    That was introduced by another editor recently; I have reverted to the previous wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continued to reprint work by A. Merritt" → "continued to reprint work by Merritt"
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with" and "including" in the same sentence is inadvisable. I think I'd split it.
    I've had a go at fixing this; see if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the early 1950s, when first Fantastic Novels and two years later Famous Fantastic Mysteries..." This has to be "In..."; "two years later" cannot follow "by"
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contents and reception": nothing here about the reception. Are there sales figures, as an indicator of popularity, or any recorded appreciative or critical comments?
    There are no sales figures -- it wasn't until the early 1960s that US magazines were required by law to print circulation information. There's nothing significant on reception either, perhaps because the magazine consisted largely of reprints, and so any critical commentary really wouldn't have been directed at the magazine itself. I changed the section title to "Contents". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the issues that would have been dated March 1941 and March 1951 were delayed by one month" – hasn't this information already been given, in the Publication history section?
  • Likewise, the details relating to Munsey and Popular Press are unnecessarily repeated.
    Both the above two points are correct, but I'm a bit torn about deleting them. I think it's beneficial to have all the bibliographic information in one place in a single section, but I don't want that to prevent me from mentioning some key points about schedule in the "Publication history" section. For example, a schedule slipping from monthly to bimonthly was often an indication that the magazine was having financial trouble, so it's not a solely bibliographic fact. Do you feel it really should be cut from one place or the other?Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On the first point, well and good. But the simple repetition of the publishers' names seems unnecessary. If you want to include these names in the bibliographical section, you could work them into the first sentence, thus: "Mary Gnaedinger was the editor of Fantastic Novels for both the Munsey and Popular Publications series" – or some such. It is not, however, a sticking point; I'll leave you to decide. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an improvement, I agree; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping when ready. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review...Ping! @Brianboulton:. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: I think that's everything; thanks, Brian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (subject to sources and image clearance): I'm happy with your changes. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments bt Crisco

  • more recent reprints, including Henry Kuttner and C.L. Moore's Earth's Last Citadel. - Were the reprints more recent, or were the works being reprinted more recent? Also, I'd include "works by" before Henry Kuttner
    Earth's Last Citadel is actually by Kuttner and Moore; I've rephrased to make this unambiguous and also to clarify that the reprinted works were originally printed recently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardise whether you use the abbreviation "SF" after you've glossed it the first time.
    I'd like to keep both, if possible; it makes for more variety, and there are occasionally paragraphs in articles about old science fiction magazines that contain "science fiction" multiple times; it gets quite tedious to see either "science fiction" or "sf" repeated too many times. In this case the first paragraph of "Publication history" is the only place where the term appears frequently; I can make this "sf" throughout, but I don't think it's a kindness to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on the contents of the second series? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The last point is surely covered in the "Content" section, second para? Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; or is the request for a couple more names of the works reprinted? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fumble on my part. Oops. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, all of my concerns have been addressed. Support. Reading articles like this gives me ideas for Poedjangga Baroe, which I'd like to take a step further (though I think there's still discussion of the different polemics which I need to work in); thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Missing full bibliographic info for Davin
  • Compare author formatting on FNs 10 and 11
  • Compare Day and Tuck title punctuation in short cites and References
  • No citations to Ashley 2005, Clute & Grant
  • Be consistent in whether you format locations as "city state" or "city, state". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria:: All done except the third bullet -- I can't spot the difference; sorry. Can you let me know what the problem is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Science Fiction Magazines" vs "Science-Fiction Magazines" for Day, "Fantasy, Volume" vs "Fantasy: Volume" for Tuck. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - [[Speci

Image review - @Nikkimaria: could you also pls just check the licensing on the sole image? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing is fine, although it would be better to use creation/publication rather than upload date in the "date" field. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: do you mean in the license or the information template, or both? I'm not expert on the use of either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both, but the license already implies the correct date - the template says 2013. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: thanks; both are now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 28 June 2014 (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 08:30, 9 July 2014 [34].

Gemini (2002 Tamil film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sriram speak up 06:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has been fine tuned since a previous review stalled and have also gone through a copyedit. Sriram speak up 06:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

Resolved comments from Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Make sure only the main characters – the hero, heroine, villain, and (optional) a major supporting character – are listed in the infobox.
Taare Zameen Par lists Sachet Engineer and Taney Chheda within the infobox. I don't mind removing Manorama but I'm just asking for universality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • The lead section does not need sources as per WP:LEAD, unless the same content is sourced in the body of the article.
I think you meant it the other way round. It has already been taken care of during the GA review. There are references only when the claims aren't in the article body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Still, to make it look clean without bumps, the ref's can be removed. But make sure the same content is in the body.
Done -- Sriram speak up 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opposite Kiran Rathod of Yaadein fame cast" - is Yaadein really necessary here?
Accepted; removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • "A cameo appearance by veteran Gemini Ganesan was his last film appearance before his death in March 2005" - move the statement and it's source to "Casting" section.
Statement moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • "its success was attributed to the popularity of the song "O Podu" " - if this statement also appears in the body of the article with a source, then it does not need one in the lead.
Done -- Sriram speak up 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saran remade the film in Telugu—his only non-Tamil film—under the same title" - you can consider it the same title, but the remake is spelled "Gemeni", with only one minor spelling change. So how about it be as "Saran remade the film in Telugu—his only non-Tamil film—as Gemeni"?
Done. I had mentioned so earlier but changed it later when the 'Requested move' was questioned.
  • "the remake starred Venkatesh and Bhairavi (Namitha) in the lead" - I don't think the name Bhairavi is really necessary here, even if that was Namitha's name at that time.
Moved to main text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Plot
  • "Teja (Kalabhavan Mani), a big-shot don" - doesn't big-shot don sound too colloquial?
I don't think so. If it had been so, the GOCE member would have rephrased it while copy editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Well then, we'll wait for another FAC reviewer to see this. But "criminal", "mobster" and "gangster" sound more formal than "don".
Have re-written. Does that help?
Yes, and thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • The cast members may be billed according to their appearance in the credits.
It has been so for a long time now. Pls check the comments within the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • The quote box can be shifted to the "casting" section, while the image of the cast can be here instead.
Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
She was credited so in the film. You might argue the same with 'Chiyaan' Vikram. But she isn't as famous as Vikram to be recognized easily. Isn't it the same as saying Jayam Ravi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Reply: Please read WP:Honorific for more info. It says "honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article" and adds, "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included". Actors Ajith and Vijay are popularly known as "Thala" and "Thalapathy" respectively, but still you cannot use those "titles" in Wiki as they are still best known by their normal names. Also, Rani's article is Rani (Tamil actress), which may mean she is not yet so commonly known as "O Podu Rani".
FYI, I created that article. When I did, I came to know that she has acted in a few Kannada films under the name Raksha. Since I wasn't sure which one of them is her real name, I just used Rani.
Removed honorific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
@Kailash29792: The prefix "O Podu" isn't an honorific. If she is well-known by that name, it should be the common name and her article should be moved to that title. I see no harm in including that especially if she was credited like that in the movie. —Vensatry (ping) 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
Production
No claims from the source has been added to the article. I have added it only for further reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • "Speculations that Sneha play the heroine were untrue" - the source does not state that she was confirmed to act in the film. So I think you can write, "Despite speculation that Sneha would play the heroine," as the next line reads that Kiran was confirmed.
Have rephrased the sentence. Is it okay now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Yup. Because Kiran was cast, it is obvious that Sneha was not cast.
  • "When asked about casting them" - mention Mani and Murali if true.
Moved text to avoid repetition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • "The film's release was brought forward by two days, apparently to capitalise on weekend collections." - please provide source.
Added reference.
Soundtrack
  • " "Naattu Katta" is another track whose lyrics are based on a folk song." - which song? if source does not mention the song, and if you yourself are not sure, then write, "whose lyrics are based on folk music".
But how can lyrics be based on music?
In the source, Vairamuthu says, "Nattu Kattai... " is based on a folk song. He did not state which song. If that is the only source where he made such a claim, how abt adding a footnote explaining the absence of the song name? Eg: In Pather Panchali, a footnote reads, "The comment by Basil Wright appears in James Chapman's 2003 book Cinemas of the World: Film and Society from 1895 to the Present. The year of the comment is not mentioned." Kailash29792 (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added note. Is it okay? -- Sriram speak up 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thank you very much. Seems the article will certainly pass this time. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • "Mammootty's Junior Senior released on 19 April" - is it really necessary? because it is stated as having released on 19 April.
To give the reader the idea of the films that released alongside, I have added it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Still it looks irrelevant, because this is not an article about Tamil New Year releases of 2002.
Well, I haven't mentioned every film that released in 2002. Is it irrelevant to inform the reader of the films that were running simultaneously in cinemas?
It is only relevant to mention those that released on the same date. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gemini was a commercial success at the box office and was the biggest hit of the year." - I would prefer "Gemini was a box office success and became the biggest hit of the year."
  • Mention the years for Aaru, Vattaram and Muni in brackets.
Done.
  • "The film was screened as part of a six-day workshop conducted jointly by the Department of Journalism and Communication, and the Mass Communication Alumni Association, of the University of Madras; it focussed on the impact of cinema on society." - I don't think this will fit in the sub section "Critical reception", but will do in "Release and reception".
I have moved it but it doesn't look that good.
Nor will it look good in a section that talks about reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about the pop culture section? BollyJeff | talk 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Lemme try it. -- Sriram speak up 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remakes
  • There is some bad sourcing/proofing in this section. I have no time to fix this, so please rewrite everything here according to the supporting sources.
Will take a look.
Has this been dealt with yet? I would like to know if the remake performed well too. BollyJeff | talk 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's wrong. There are no claims contradicting with the supporting sources and all claims have been sourced then and there. Can you be more specific on what's the issue? -- Sriram speak up 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My only remaining comments in the entire article are:
  • "while Kalabhavan Mani and Murali reprised their roles from the Tamil version. Most of the crew members were retained." - the supporting source does not support the claim (it does not even mention the terms "Mani", "Murali" and "Telugu"). Kailash29792 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not mentioned when the Telugu remake released, or how well it was received. You can add this review and this as they contain the information I suggested. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* The lead can mention something about the multiple award wins. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have all your concerns been addressed? -- Sriram speak up 15:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Congratulations Sriram, this FAC has my support, as all my comments have been addressed. However, do remember that I too contributed significantly to the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Doctor[edit]

Lede
  • What is Malayalam meant to link to? Malayalam cinema?
Either Malayalam or Malayalam cinema. Both works.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Done: I have linked it to Malayalam cinema. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film's narrative is loosely based on the true stories of real-life criminals 'Vellai' Ravi and Chera, and is about gang wars in Chennai." -would be better worded as "The film, about gang conflict in Chennai, is loosely based on the true stories of real-life criminals 'Vellai' Ravi and Chera".
Rephrased. Does that suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • "When an outlaw and aspiring don falls in love, he decides" -who??
Fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • AVM Studios -in Mumbai?
No. It is in Chennai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
As Chennai has now been mentioned in the article as the city where AVM lies, we can consider this Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the remake starred Venkatesh and Namitha in the lead, Kalabhavan Mani and Murali reprised their roles. Gemini was also dubbed into Hindi as Angaar: The Deadly One." -I'm not sure this is really relevant in the lede, looks a bit trivial there to me.
Half Done as asked, because the dubbed version is interesting to include. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant that it could be included later, just that it's not important enough to be in the lede section. Also, I don't think you are supposed to strike other editor's comments, only your own. BollyJeff | talk 12:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it is now Fully Done, as I have removed mention of the dubbed version in the lead (you know, Hindi dubbed versions of South Indian films are not so notable outside television runs). I hope Sriram Vikram has no problem with this. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to come next week. I'd rather not continue, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is ok. But once these comments have been addressed, it may be taken as a "support" then. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90[edit]

Resolved comments from KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • The film released two days prior to the Tamil New Year. Is this notable enough to be mentioned in the lead? If not, I suggest you mention just the release date.
Already mentioned 12 April. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...yes. Not quite what I said. I meant mention only the release date. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done written as "Gemini was released on 12 April 2002—two days before the date of the Tamil New Year." Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the film was highly successful and was the biggest hit of the year". Biggest hit in Tamil cinema, I presume?
Obviously the biggest Tamil hit only. Is it fine to write "the most commercially successful Tamil film of the year"? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done written as "Despite receiving mixed critical reviews, the film became the most commercially successful Tamil film of the year". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • "Big-shot" is not encyclopedic. Please reword. Also wikilink "don".
Any other formal name for it? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • Why isn't Murali wikilinked in the plot section?
Done wikilinked him. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...is promoted to become the Director General of Police (DGP)" ==> "...is promoted to the position of Director..."
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Keen on wiping out rowdy behaviour". Again, not enclyopedic enough. How about "Keen on eradicating crime"?
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The arrests are made "off the record" because they both Teja and Gemini have political influence. " Grammatically incorrect sentence.
Done written as "The arrests are made "off the record" because both Teja and Gemini have political influence." Kailash29792 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain consistency in referring to Singaperumal by his name or by his designation to avoid confusion.
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and a corrupt officer (Vinu Chakravarthy) is promoted to DGP." ==> Simpler to say "...a corrupt officer (Vinu Chakravarthy) takes his place".
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the fight Gemini, beats up Teja and swaps their clothes, leaving Teja bound and gagged." The commas are not in the right places.
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • "after the successful films Kaadhal Mannan (1998) and Amarkalam (1999), both which had Ajith in the lead roles." You mean "both of which had Ajith..."?
Done I've taken care of this. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ajith or Ajit? I find two different spellings in this section.
The only time when "Ajit" appears is in a quote from this source and we maintain WP:SIC and WP:Quotation. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I put "Ajit" in sic, so it can be considered done. 04:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, now it has been paraphrased with his normal spelling. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Released for Diwali"? "On" Diwali.
Rephrased. Please see now. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of this section suddenly changes the tense. Why?
Let Sriram Vikram handle this. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet done. The sentence is very jarring. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Changed present tense to past tense. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Gemini Studios in italics?
Done de-italicised. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..sent his blessings.." Too much unnecessary trivia, don't you think?
Let Sriram Vikram handle this. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)

More to come later. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Any reason why the nominator is not active in this FAC? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I have mailed him, and I should be expecting a reply soon. Though I am not a co-nominator, I still feel I can be considered one, just like how Bollyjeff and Blofeld jointly worked on Mughal-e-Azam. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious about that too. Although you made comments here, you are also doing most of the work. BollyJeff | talk 18:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am back. Had some issues with my broadband. Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)


I am sorry for playing spoilsport here, but I see several obvious issues with the text. Yes, the article is good, and is most definitely of GA-standard, but in my opinion needs much more polishing to achieve FA-status. Anyway, here are some more comments:

Casting
  • Kiran Rathod who made her debut with Yaadein. Why the fame with association here?
Done: removed Yaadein. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the article's body, she hasn't been mentioned beforehand. Doesn't she need to be introduced to the readers before discussing about her? -- Sriram speak up 15:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reportedly, actress Raveena Tandon's manager suggested Gemini to Rathod, who is Tandon's cousin." Reported by whom?
Krimuk90, currently the text reads "Kiran Rathod is a native of Jaipur.[19][20] Reportedly, actress Raveena Tandon's manager suggested Gemini to Rathod, who is Tandon's cousin.[21]" How about "Actress Raveena Tandon's manager suggested Gemini to Tandon's cousin Kiran Rathod,[21] a native of Japiur[19][20]"? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have rephrased it? Is it clear now? -- Sriram speak up 19:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I have written, "Actress Raveena Tandon's manager gave Tandon's cousin Kiran Rathod (a native of Jaipur, Rajasthan from where the Marwari's originate[18][19]) the offer to act in Gemini." I don't think it can get better than this. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saran cast Rathod after seeing a photograph of her, making Gemini her Tamil debut." Can be phrased better.
How about "Saran cast Rathod after seeing a photograph of her. Gemini thus became her debut Tamil film"? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- Sriram speak up 19:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saran said, "I like the dedication of Malayalee artistes towards their work. People like Kalabhavan Mani and Murali are in it because of their love for cinema and not for money". A quote like this adds nothing new to the article.
Done: I too find neither much significance of the quote, nor the distinct reason why Mani and Murali were cast. I've removed this. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the 'Casting' section supposed to explain why those people were chose for their roles? And doesn't that quote serve that exact purpose? -- Sriram speak up 15:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the technical team mentioned in the casting section?
Krimuk90, where should they fit then? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the development section. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: As asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because procurement of cast and crew members should go together. Changed the section heading from 'Casting' to 'Cast and crew'. -- Sriram speak up 04:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Filming
  • "Since Mani was a mimicry artist, Saran asked him to exhibit his talents and chose which among them were added to the film". Not clear who was asked to chose what. Please rephrase.
I think it means that because Mani was a mimicry artist, Saran wanted to showcase his mimicry talent in the film. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Done:" Written as "Since Mani was a mimicry artist, Saran asked him to exhibit his talents; Mani aped the behaviour of a few animals and Saran chose among them, which were added to the film". Please check now. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in the scenic locales". Too much fluff.
Done: written as "Part of the song sequence was filmed on a sledge in Switzerland". Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film's release was brought forward by two days, apparently to capitalise on weekend collections". Shouldn't this information be in the release section?
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2006, Saran revealed in a conversation with director S. P. Jananathan that his nervousness rendered him sleepless for four days until the film was released". Not the kind of information you would see in a FA.
But will it fit in the release section? It seems useful. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inspiration
  • Another sudden change in tense in the first sentence.
Done: By Sriram. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Ravi sometimes referred to as 'Vellai' Ravi and sometimes just Vellai Ravi.
Done: written "Vellai" Ravi to maintain consistency. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the Goondas Act, and why is wikilinked to goonda?
Because the page reads, "Goonda is a term in Indian English, Pakistani English, and Bangladeshi English for a hired thug. It is both a colloquial term and defined and used in laws, generally referred to as Goonda Acts." Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article at 'Goonda' has a sub-section called 'India' which explains the Goondas Act. -- Sriram speak up 04:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word rowdy was not in quotes before, why is it in quotes now all of a sudden?
Because it sounds colloquial, and it needs to be in quotes whenever it appears as a quoted material, which I think it is. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack
  • "..in Saran's directorial debut Kadhal Mannan" ==> "..with Saran's..."
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is "O Podu" the title track?
Krimuk90, this source explains how the song originated: "Sharan was keen to have a song that will be catchy and Vairamuthu said that we have to use a common expression and build on it. Then Sharan wanted it to be mixed with the title song and we incorporated "O Podu" into it. And all of us are happy that it worked." Also, the song repeatedly says "Gemini Gemini" at times, making it look like the title track. So how would you suggest rewriting this? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sify is a web source, so should not be in italics.
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for Rediff.
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Thairadapam a WP:RS. It looks like IMDB, which is not used as a source on FAs.
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""O Podu" was mentioned in a discussion on viral hits of South Indian cinema following the internet phenomenon of "Why This Kolaveri Di" in 2011." And that's important, because?
I think it was a viral hit in TN in 2002, as compared to Kolaveri and Gangnam Style today, despite the lack of YouTube then. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, the song was a hit. Agreed. Why mention viral? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Written as "O Podu" belongs to only a small collection of South Indian songs that are considered a "national rage" in India, such as "Appadi Podu", "Naaka Mukka", "Why This Kolaveri Di" and "Ringa Ringa". Please check this source for proofing. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • The same comment on Sify and Rediff.
Done: I've removed the italics here. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rajnikanth predicted the film would be a hit. Why is that an important information?
I too do not find it so important, considering that his quotation does not appear in the source. Let Sriram handle this. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rajinikanth is a contemporary in the sense that he belongs to the film industry and his views qualifies as 'Contemporary review'. But since there isn't a lot of reviews by neither critics nor contemporaries, they don't have a separate section. -- Sriram speak up 04:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in an obvious reference to Gemini" So he did not mention the film at all in his article?
He actually did, when he stated in that article, "Nowadays the Geminis and Nandas of Tamil cinema indulge in crime for the heck of it." Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he mentioned it, then why say "obvious reference" to the film? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: written as "film journalist Sreedhar Pillai wrote in a reference to Gemini". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the films released on Diwali and Pongal were not successful, Gemini helped the industry recover." Poor prose. Please rephrase.
Krimuk90, I have rewritten it as "Because most films that released on Diwali and Pongal were unsuccessful, Gemini helped the industry recover" How is that? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Ref No. 6 is not a reliable source, and has no publisher information.
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for ref no. 7.
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IndiaGlitz does not satisfy the WP:RS criteria.
Done: All IndiaGlitz ref's have been removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said earlier, Thiraipadam.com does not seem reliable to me.
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 88 and 89 are not reliable, and have no publisher information.
I agree that ref 88 is not reliable, and that shall be removed. But ref 89 is The Times of India! So that will stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the ref number changed after I posted my comments. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IndiaGlitz or 88db.com (or both) must have been ref 88 and 89, but both have been replaced with more reliable sources (MSN and Ayngaran International), so I can consider this done. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 93 does not seem reliable.
Eh? Ref 93 is MSN! That will stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's ref. no. 82 now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 99 does not seem reliable.
Eh? Ref 99 is The Hindustan Times! I do agree that ref 98 is not reliable though. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's ref. no. 85 now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the ref number changed after I posted the comments. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 101 uses a blog source. Unreliable.
I agree, it shall be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's ref no. 97 now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No publisher information for ref. 103.
There is no ref 103 at the moment. But the last two refs ([35] and [36]) have publisher information now. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I am not going to oppose this, because I know a lot of hard work has been put into it. But I really feel that it needs a lot of more polishing before it can be "one of the best articles in Wikipedia". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, my comments have been addressed, and the article has improved considerably. But I do feel that it needs much more work on the prose to be considered one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Hence, I won't be specifically supporting or objecting to the nomination. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff[edit]

Support - All of my comments below have been addressed now (I made a couple tweaks myself). There are no dead links, and most citations are of high quality. BollyJeff | talk 19:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your comments :) Kailash29792 (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Despite receiving mixed critical reviews upon release, the film was highly successful and was the biggest hit of the year in Tamil; its success was attributed to the popularity of the song "O Podu"." 'Upon release' is not needed. Its success was 'partly' or 'mostly' attributed, not completely, right?
I believe it was mostly attributed to only, let Sriram check it. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "largely attributed" works. Sources supporting the claim does not say the extent to which the song impacted the film's success.
  • "and Vikram was cast in the lead role opposite Kiran Rathod." Duplicate info; already mentioned in first paragraph. Maybe say 'cast the new leads'.
Done check it now. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need there names again, either. BollyJeff | talk 17:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done removed as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previously scheduled release date does not matter for the lead.
Done written as "The film was released on 12 April 2002—two days before the date of the Tamil New Year". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could say a little less about the remakes (espacially the stars), and include more about song popularity from the pop culture section.
Removed the remake's actors. Check it now. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but add more about the song. BollyJeff | talk 17:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • "would mark his third collaboration with Ajith after the successful films Kaadhal Mannan (1998) and Amarkalam (1999), both of which had Ajith in the lead roles." can be shortened to "would mark his third collaboration with Ajith as the lead, after the successful films Kaadhal Mannan (1998) and Amarkalam (1999).
Done as suggested. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't read well. How about "During the making of the film Alli Arjuna (2002) in early 2001, its director Saran announced his next. The film would mark his third collaboration with Ajith following the success of Kaadhal Mannan (1998) and Amarkalam (1999)"?
  • "it was the production house's 162nd film.[14] It was AVM's first film after a gap of five years; their last production before the hiatus was the 1997 hit Minsara Kanavu, the release of which marked fifty years since its first production Naam Iruvar in 1947.[b] By producing Gemini, AVM became one of the four film studios that had been producing films for over fifty years." Is all of this relevant?
Let Sriram Vikram handle this. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do accept that it doesn't fit in the 'Development' section. But it got to be said somewhere.
Casting
  • "Saran had known of Murali through his role in Dumm Dumm Dumm, a performance which he felt was dignified and persuaded him to cast Murali as the DGP." Confusing; Who persuaded who? Also, no year on DDD.
I think Saran persuaded Murali to join Gemini as a DGP. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the wording makes it seem as though the 'performance' persuaded him. Needs tweaking. BollyJeff | talk 17:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It was his "dignified" performance which convinced Saran into casting Murali. Can be rewritten if it is misleading as such.
Filming
  • "Vikram shot for the film alongside Samurai" could be "Vikram was shooting for this film and Samurai (2002) simultaneously" Added year and changed wording a bit because 'shot alongside' usually means two actors.
Done Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack
  • "virat hits" Is this supposed to be viral?
Let Sriram Vikram handle this. I don't think YouTube existed in 2002 (excuse 3 Idiots) then there is no way "O Podu" could have been an internet/viral phenomenon. Maybe it was played often on TV and radio... But "virat" was a typo that I fixed to "viral". Kailash29792 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay as is now. BollyJeff | talk
  • Overwhelmed by the response" Small 'o' please. Also sounds like a comma is needed after response.
Done Kailash29792 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the audience were not satisfied with the short footage provided and forced the theatre owners to rewind the song and replay it, the song was later re-recorded to match with the original length." Confusing grammar.
How about "Dissatisfied with the small footage provided initially, the audience resorted to violence, forcing theatre owners to rewind the song and play it again. After receiving calls from distributors and theatre owners, the makers eventually sent the entire song."?
Critical Response
  • "the Department of Journalism and Communication, the University of Madras and the Mass Communication Alumni Association, University of Madras (MCAUM)" has some duplication. Can you put: "the Department of Journalism and Communication, and the Mass Communication Alumni Association, of the University of Madras"?
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...met Vikram and praised his performance, and predicted that the film would be a big hit." May be better as two sentences? "He predicted..."
Done Kailash29792 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Box Office
  • Source 3 should be used as well as source 2 at the end of second sentence for gross, since 3 was used in the infobox for gross.
Done.
  • It should say biggest hit in Tamil (not whole of India), as in the infobox.
Done Kailash29792 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is USP?
Unique Selling Proposition. "USP" appears in a quote without the expansion, and we faithfully reproduce quotes, regardless of mistakes in the source. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • "Since "O Podu" was a hit—especially among children—AVM invited them to write reviews and gave away prizes." Invited who, children? The structure of the sentence makes it not clear. Try: Since "O Podu" was such a hit among children, AVM invited young children to write reviews, and gave away prizes.
Done written as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remakes
  • Were either of the remakes successful?
There was only one remake, and I don't think it was as successful as the original. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Popular culture
  • Who is Gerald? Not in source given.
Done removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shifted source to support claim.

Comments from AB01[edit]

Lead
  • It should be "its narrative". Remove the apostrophe.
Done: although I hope this does not concern differences in English dialects. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was experiencing difficulties after a string of projects failed at the box office". It might sound better as "...after a string of box office failures"
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to also list South Filmfare awards first in your ordering, as they are the most prominent
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • "The project was planned to be a Diwali release". Change to "planned for a Diwali release"
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • "with 104 prints, the most to date for a Vikram film". Do you mean at the time of release? Or does the record still hold? From this statement, it sounds like Gemini is still Vikram's all-time biggest release
I don't know. The nominator Sriram Vikram may know, being a fan of Vikram. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, it isn't his biggest release anymore. So you might wanna change it to "at the time of release"
Done: written, "the most for a Vikram film at the time of release". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critical response
  • "positive to mixed reviews". Wouldn't it be better to write mixed reviews alone? It already says that in the lead anyway
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remakes
  • You could add whether the remakes were as successful
Working. However, there does not appear to be any reviews on the Hindi-dubbed version Angaar: The Deadly One. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the Hindi version, since it's only a dubbed version. Try and find whether the Telugu remake was successful in terms of box office results/critical reception. It's ok if you can't find anything though..

Regardless of whether you find information on the Telugu remake or not, I give my support for this article. It's well-written and comprehensive. Good luck, guys! :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 10:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much AB01 :) Kailash29792 (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kailash are you a reviewer or co author of this? Looking across it it seems you're basically functioning as a co author. It just looks odd that's all, you have also reviewed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blofeld, I now prefer to be called an inactive contributor. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask the same. You've already made around 130 edits to the article and shouldn't be reviewing this at all. Kindly refrain from doing that. —Vensatry (ping) 06:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Editor 2050[edit]

  • Well-researched, well deserved FA candidate.
Lead
  • Maybe a quick article for the work of Thennavan if notable, seems out of place warranting a mention in the lead, but no link.
Well, he doesn't have an article at the moment ("Thennavan" currently leads to a 2003 film, and not the actor, who is credited as "Kai" Thennavan in the film.) Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating an article on him, and linking him here. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • As with Thyagu - done enough notable work.
I don't know what you mean. And "Thyagu" currently leads to Thozhar Thiyagu, who is not an actor, hence no wikilink for him here. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating an article on the actor and linking him here. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manorama is in the infobox, but last in the credits - is this consistent? should she be removed from the infobox?
Done: Replaced her with Vinu Chakravarthy, who comes fourth in the intro credits. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • In paragraph 3 of cast and crew, some names are linked/some are not?
Do any of the unlinked members there have articles at the moment? If they have, we will add them. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems you took care of this, and thank you. However, some of the crew members are still not linked, though I don't think they may be that popular enough to have their own articles. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accolades
  • Order of links again, Anu Sriram linked on second instance rather than first?

Editor 2050 (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done: She is now linked in the first instance (in the Filmfare part). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well done - excited to see this reach FA status! Editor 2050 (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492[edit]

  • Image review:
  • File:Gemini DVD Cover.jpg - For such a recent film I'm very surprised you don't have the theatrical poster (which are preferred for film articles). Are you sure there's no copy available?
I'm afraid it may not be easily available online. I'll try contacting AVM Productions for the same. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gemini (2002 Tamil film) promotion.jpg - Fails NFCC#8, as we don't have to see the individuals to understand the text. We have free images of individual actors as well, so one or two of those could be used instead (thus this fails NFCC#1). I've nominated for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are okay, though here's hoping they'll send a copy of the poster. A DVD cover is a good interim measure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Request the delegates to not consider Kailash29792's support for this nomination as he certainly looks like a co-author of the article. (Though I perfectly understand that we run on consensus and not individual votes.) —Vensatry (ping) 02:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept my mistake, and my comments need not be accepted. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it was my mistake and apologies for that. Good luck with the nomination! —Vensatry (ping) 16:38, 4 July 2014 (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 08:20, 9 July 2014 [37].

Queen Elizabeth Way[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 23:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first intercity freeway in North America, and one of the most historical roads in Ontario and Canada - The Queen Elizabeth Way! This road, an addition to being Canada's first "freeway", has gone through decades of enhancements and upgrades for which I have managed to find reliable sources documenting every detail. This article was at WP:HWY/ACR, but since that venue is already into the dog days of summer, I decided to bring it here. It is one of my most recent works, and so I feel, with the experience of FAs on my belt, that it should be ready for the FA star... with a few tweaks most likely. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 23:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - As the sole reviewer at the ACR, I feel that this article is top quality and meets all FA criteria. Dough4872 00:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: no spotcheck done

  • I find the separation between the shortened footnotes (the "page notes") and the other source footnotes to be quite jarring. Many other FAs have successfully mixed the two in a single list.
  • PN6 should not have its quotation in italics. This both violates the MOS, and it is inconsistent with how quotations in the full citations below are done.
  • It would be nice if all of the shortened footnotes were to wikilink to their full citations in the Bibliography subsection.
  • Normally newspaper citations lack the volume and issue numbers. It looks odd to have "40 (14472). June 26, 1920. p. 7." for a newspaper when a journal would use "June 26, 1920. 40 (14472): 7." Usually the date is sufficient with a newspaper, so the exact issue number is overkill.
  • FN8, and similar, should have "Life" or "News" in plain (roman) text, not italics. |department=News would accomplish that.
  • FN31 uses "Queen Elizabeth Way - Oakville - Fort Erie", in quotes, for the title of a report, yet other reports lack the quotations. <insert grumbling about {{cite report}} here> but the bigger issue is that it looks like those spaced hyphens should be unspaced en dashes.
  • FN47 is a dead link now, but it was archived here.
  • FN48 and FN 49 are missing the PDF indications.
  • FN55 should have Daily Commercial News in italics, since that is the name of the news website.
  • I would suggest that all of the article titles should be harmonized to either all use Title Case or Sentence case. MOST:CT would seem to prefer Title Case. (APA style says to convert article titles one way, and CMOS says to convert them another, whenever citing sources, regardless of how the original source handled the case.)
  • I would also suggest that titles and subtitles should be separated by a colon, not a dash. Both this and the bullet point above are minor typographic changes, which are allowed.

Reliability check:

  • I'm curious about FN 22 and boatnerd.com. That would appear to be a fansite, and we've pretty consistently decided not to cite the roadgeek sites.
  • All of the other sources fall into one of a few categories, which meet our requirements:
    • Regional newspapers
    • Official government reports
    • Official government or reputable third-party maps
    • Books from reputable publishers.

Other than the one source, and some really minor formatting quibbles, the sources look good to go. Imzadi 1979 → 00:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok I believe I've made all the necessary changes, but take a look. Regarding the subtitles, those dashes are actually part of the titles themselves; none of them are actually subtitle. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 22:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I lived in Buffalo, we commonly referred to this highway for short not as the "QEW" (i.e., what you heard on Canadian radio and TV all the time, reflected in the lede) but as the "Queen E". By way of avoiding a pro-Canadian bias, could we find some sources for this? Here's one. Otherwise this is a fine article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stamp's book on the QEW also mentions this nickname, and I've certainly heard it up here in Toronto. I will add it in, and I will be responding to / acting upon Imzadi's comments this weekend now that I've got some spare time. It's a shame that tomorrow is the 75th anniversary of the highway being commemorated by the King and Queen consort, but there's August of next year for another 75th anniversary! Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 22:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979 and Daniel Case: Just pinging to see if they had further comments or if they are willing to support. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Count me as a support now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support—thanks for the ping, all looks good. BTW, you needed |ref=harv in the full citations so that the links from {{sfn}} would connect to the full citations. Also, you have to list each of the author's last names in sfn to get the links to work properly. I added them, so all is well. Imzadi 1979 → 04:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Is someone prepared to sign their life away on the image licensing? If not, Floydian pls list an image review request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—starting with copyright or license statuses:

Items above marked with a * have a different license template than the other items with expired Crown Copyrights; I'm not sure if they should be switched to match the others, but their license status is the same. Turning to the captions, the map in the infobox ideally should have a caption added using |map_notes= to indicate that the red line is the QEW, a trivial item. In every other case, the captions are appropriate to the photos and their usage in the article. Periods are present where needed on captions that are full sentences and absent on most of the others as appropriate. (The last photo about the HOV lanes though has a period that should be removed.)

The last item concerning the images is placement. Everything looks good except one thing. There is a bit of a conflict in the MOS. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Images says that the photos should be within the sections to which they pertain. Many images in this article are at the end of the preceding subsection, and not within the specific subsection to which they pertain. (In other words, they are above the L3 header.) Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images says that they only need to be in the proper L2 section. Viewing the article on the mobile site on a device with a narrower screen* shows why this is a problem as the images will appear at the end of the preceding section above the header and not next to the appropriate text. (If you visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_Way on a tablet or computer, the photos will appear in the same locations as the desktop site, but if you narrow the browser window on a computer or visit the site on a phone, the appear in the wrong locations.) Given this issue of conflict in the MOS, I would not hold up the promotion of the article over this. Instead, I'd wait until the MOS experts clarify which situation is proper. Imzadi 1979 → 15:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gathering no significant issues re. images but I still see a Harv error, and I would've expected a citation to finish the first para of Route description. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed up. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:10, 2 July 2014 (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 (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2014 (diff).

SS Arctic disaster[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of the sinking of SS Arctic until, quite recently, I saw in the window of a second-hand bookshop the intriguing title Women and Children Last. I bought the book; it's an appalling story of what can happen in circumstances where the instinct for self-preservation overwhelms all other considerations. Not one of the 100+ women and children on board SS Arctic when she sank was saved; the great majority of the 80-odd survivors from the ship's complement of 400 were members of the crew. It's a story of muddle, panic, cowardice and a few acts of heroism; there was no official enquiry, no compensation, no retribution—quite painful to write at times. I've done my best with AmEng spellings, and would like to thank the observant peer reviewers who checked out this and other aspects of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support had my say at the peer review. Excellent article that had me wearing my life jacket.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A wise precaution bearing in mind your present situation. Thanks for taking the time to review this, and for your past help. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I too was a satisfied reviewer at the peer review. This nautical nightmare is painfully sad but expertly written.Cassiantotalk 21:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed – and you in New York where it all began! Enjoy your holiday. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review

If I don't mention an image that means it has no issues.

  • I have adjusted the link so that it goes to the image. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:SS Arctic collision map1854.jpeg - According to our article on The Nautical Magazine, it was a British publication. If so, this needs a UK PD template as well. (Also, owing to the fact that reproductions attract new copyrights in the UK [for your immediate source] I'd recommend a PD art template).
  • I have amended the licemnces as you suggest, although I'd be pleased if you would check to ensure that I've done this correctly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited a little to reflect the fact that this was an anonymous publication. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have amended Buttersworth and included his dates in the image file. I have also used the PD-100 licence but again I'd be pleased if you'd check. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Edward Knight Collins.jpg - Really, really needs a crop. I'll do that. Best to use the creator template for Brady (which shows his year of death, supporting the PD-100 claim).
  • I'd be pleased if you would do the crop, & perhaps adjust the licence as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this image review. Please advise me if anything else needs doing. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a somewhat minor point, WP:BOLDTITLE states that "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead", meaning the link to the ship should go. Actually, I think the MOS recommends not even bolding here.04:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not certain that your interpretation of WP:BOLDTITLE is entirely correct here, since there is no reiteration of the article's title, only of the ship's name which forms a part of the title. I think the ship link is important – more important than the bolding – so I have debolded, and kept the link. Plase chastise if I've got that wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that is correct per BOLDTITLE ("In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear:). Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK – it seems that I have done the right thing, if not for the right reason. Thanks again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was another of the peer reviewers, and my few (and minor) quibbles were dealt with then. This is a top-flight article. May I add a single new quibble, so tiny as to be barely visible with the naked eye: as the page is written in AmEng, oughtn't "Mrs Edward Collins" get a full-stop after "Mrs"—obsolete usage in these islands, but still, I think, current in America. Tim riley talk 16:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in the American full stop – none of the American or Canadian readers picked this up, so huge kudos to the sharp-eyed Riley, and much thanks for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our North American compeers were assuredly just being kind to Anglo-Saxon fossils such as us. Tim riley talk 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another happy punter from PR, and a more enjoyable tragedy I haven't read for a while. Excellent stuff. - SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– and again, thanks for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • ODNB should be italicized
  • It's the online ODNB, which is not the same as the print version & shouldn't be italicised.
  • Use a consistent date format
  • The New York Times or New York Times?
  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except as noted, these points fixed. Thanks for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2014&oldid=619150500"