Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2018

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2018 [1].

---

Guy Burgess

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

When I first thought of expanding the Burgess article a few years ago, the lack of up-to-date sources deterred me. Since then there has been something of a deluge: three biographies, another of Kim Philby, another of Maclean, a monumental new study of the Cambridge Five, and more besides. I've done my best to absorb much of this material, to provide a neutral account of this enigmatic figure. The article had a more than usually active peer review, with eight participants, and also benefited from a robust discussion on its talkpage with one of its source's authors. My thanks to all these, whose help has been significant. Further comment here would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support My detailed comments may be found at the peer review, and were addressed there. Outstanding work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for that. For the benefit of any other reviewer, this is the link to the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:SSburgess.jpg: is anything more known of the provenance of this image?

• It's a much used image, appearing in various newspapers, websites etc, especially in reviews of the recent spate of Burgess books. It is the dust-cover illustration for the Purvis & Hulbert book. Unfortunately, none of these indicate its original provenence. I don't believe that there are any available free images of Burgess, although there are some online which have provenance (date, photographer's name etc). It would be possible to change to one of these, but I see little benefit in doing so. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• File:Molotov_with_Ribbentrop.jpg: which of the rationales from the tag is believed to apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I imagine no. 5. This is a marginal image for this article, and if there are doubts about its usage I'll simply drop it. Thank you for your review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Support – from another peer reviewer, very happy with the current text. I agree with Wehwalt that this is outstanding work. Tim riley talk 16:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you as always. Brianboulton (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

This is of course excellent and it is seriously to be doubted if I can make a constructive, prose-based criticism. I wondered about images, slightly, although not particularly critically. It has plenty of them, nicely placed, but, of course only one of Burgess himself. Understandable enough—I assume there's very few of them extant?—but I did see on commons, File:Burgess-maclean.JPG which in a small way might fit nicely somewhere in the 'Departure' section. Just a thought.

The one you suggest might well be added appropriately – thank you for pointing it out. I'd like to be sure that it its licencing meets US-PD criteria. Nikkimaria can you confirm? Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Need more information. The image is tagged as lacking author information, and while the source is an FBI link, looking at what it actually contains it appears to be a collection of newspaper clippings, which wouldn't fall under the US PDGov provisions, and I can't see enough detail in the poster itself to tell who put it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That being so, I think that rather than instigate an investigation which may prove fruitless, I'll leave it for the moment. If other information comes to light we can always reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I also saw your discussion with M. Holzman—very, very interesting. I wonder if I should ask them to look over Percy Glading—and prepare for a 50% content-removal!  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly worth asking Holzman to look at Glading, though as a professional writer he may be reluctant to give it much time. But I'd recommend you give it a try. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• • • Belatedly supporting this great article. Apologies for absence, but in order to try and fulfil my own request, I got completely bogged down in an attempt to trace the photo's provenance. Originally, I assumed it would be automatically OK to use it here since it's hosted on Commons (which I thought had much stricter criteria for inclusion than we do). However: I stand corrected, said the man in the orthopaedic shoes. I didn't achieve anything in any case, except to get distracted from everything else! Happy to support this piece though. (And apologies again for spamming your FAC with my stuff, Brianboulton.) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. I'm afraid a lot of stuff gets loaded to Commons that fails to meet Wikipedia's rather strict interpretation of the copyright laws. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Support – Having looked at this when it was peer reviewed, I give my full support to this one.--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Midnightblueowl

Lede:

• "and Soviet agent" - I'm wondering if this should be rephrased to "and agent for the Soviet Union". "Soviet agent" could easily be misunderstood as referring to possession of Soviet nationality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• As his British nationality is stated in the same sentence, I can't really see any confusion here. Brianboulton (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Born into a wealthy middle-class family, Burgess " - we could add "in Devon" or something like that after "family". Not essential, but might be of interest to some. I have always put place of birth into biography articles here at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's in the adjacent i/box, and of course in the main text, so I don't think we need a further repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• "joined the Communist Party" - "joined the Communist Party of Great Britain", perhaps, to make it clearer that we are not referring to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• "on the recommendation of Kim Philby." - I think that we have space to include a little about who Philby was. A word or two should suffice. "Double-agent" perhaps. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• "the critical post-1945 period" - not sure about "critical" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• It was a pretty critical period – the start of the Cold War and all that. Worth emphasising, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• " the British Embassy in Washington" - perhaps a Wikilink to the embassy? And might be worth stipulating "Washington D.C.", lest someone think we are referring to Washington state. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• "to his Soviet masters." - Really think we should use different wording here. "his Soviet masters" feels a little like something from a pulp novel or sensationalist tabloid! "to the Soviets" should suffice, or "to the Soviet intelligence services". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• "controllers", perhaps a little less pulpy?

• Better, certainly, but I still wonder if there is an even better option out there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why is "Soviet Union" linked in the fourth paragraph, but not at its first mention in paragraph one? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've done the minor fixes, otherwise as noted. Most grateful for your attention - I'm continuing to work through. Brianboulton (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Life:

• "Malcolm made a generally unremarkable career" - perhaps "Malcolm had a generally unremarkable career"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Perhaps align the first image, of Eton College, to the right? It feels a little squished in its current location. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is a matter of personal preference. In my view, shifting to the right brings it too close to the Trinity image in the next section, and I'd prefer to leave things as they are. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• "as a boarder" - I'd Wikilink this; I can imagine quite a few readers not being particularly familiar with the concept of a boarding school. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• In the note, it states that "At this time, Dartmouth was run as a public school," but I think that the use of "public school" here is likely to cause confusion, given that for American readers it will be interpreted as "state school". "Private school", although not really part of the British lingo at the time, would at least be more easily understood by all English speakers, and not just the British. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is a tricky one that I've encountered before – the perverse British habit of referring to elite private schools as "public schools" against all logic. But in Britain, the term "public school" has a very distinct meaning from "private school", and refers to the particular ethos of these establishments, not to the fact that they are private institutions. There are hosts of British "private" schools which aren't public schools. I've amended the note to read "British public school", and introduced a link, which I hope will clarify the position for most readers. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Here, on 15 September 1924, Malcolm died suddenly, of a heart attack." - Do we need that third comma? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• "frequent use of the cane" - again, let's Wikilink this. Lots of readers, particularly younger ones, may well be unfamiliar with caning. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• "In this harsh atmosphere the young Burgess thrived, in the classroom and on the sports fields." - "harsh" might be a little subjective, so I would scrap it. I'd also scrap "the young"; it's superfluous. How about "In this environment Burgess thrived both academically and at sports". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• "the elite society known as "Pop"," - I'm pretty sure we have a link to this, I think I used it when filling out the Boris Johnson article a few years back. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• You're right – although it involves a rather complicated pipe via the Eton College article. But it will do. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• "with further prizes ln history" - "ln" should be "in". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• "according to his biographers Purvis and Hulbert" - definitely provide forenames here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Again, I've adopted your suggestions except as noted, and again, thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• "involved himself in every aspect of student life" - "every"? I think that that might be stretching it a little, even if it was the language of the original source. How about "many different aspects"? And I think it would be best to have a citation at the end of this sentence as the next sentence moves on to a somewhat different subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've amended the text. The present citation adequately covers both sentences. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "from the brightest" - perhaps "from the most accomplished"? I appreciate that this may again derive from the original source, but statements like this do seem to be making assumptions which may not be objectively correct. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• "brightest" more accurately represents the source, I think – the source uses "promising", which is not quite the same thing as "accomplished". Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "stage set" could link to Set construction? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "the rise of Hitler" - I know that the vast majority of readers will be familiar with Hitler, but the same might not be true in the future as he recedes further and further into the past. We should give his forename, or perhaps be content simply to mention the rise of Nazism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure that Hitler will remain in human awareness for rather longer than this Wikipedia article will! Nor do I see the need for a forename – there aren't other Hitlers with whom he might be confused. But on the other hand, simplifying to "the rise of Nazism" is perhaps the better solution. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wikilink Marxism at its first appearance there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Communism: a political and historical theory" - does the use of lower case here accord with the RS? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Lenin and Marx". Again, forenames would be best; as might a very brief statement of who they are, i.e. "Marxist theorists". Also, best to put Marx before Lenin perhaps, for chronological reasons? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree the chronology should be adjusted. I don't think we need forenames, and the links avoid the need for cumbersome explanations as to who these figures were. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• This paragraph seems unduly lengthy. Perhaps we could break off into a new paragraph that would start with "Amid these political distractions..."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "The examiners awarded him an aegrotat, (an unclassified degree awarded to students considered worthy of honours but prevented through illness from completing their examinations)" - definitely get rid of "(" and ")" here, they seem very unnecessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "formally joined the Communist Party " - again, "Communist Party of Great Britain" was the party's official name. Best to use that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "a member of the cell " - perhaps "a member of its cell". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "On his return, Burgess had little to report, beyond praising the lack of unemployment in the Soviet Union while declaring that housing conditions there were "appalling"." I think that this could be made a little more succinct. How about something like "On his return, Burgess had little to report, beyond commenting on the "appalling" housing conditions while praising the country's lack of unemployment." Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "the Dollfuss government." - "Engelbert Dolfuss' government"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's usual to refer to governments in this way, e.g. "the Reagan administration" rather than "the Ronald Reagan administration", or in the UK, "the Thatcher government", not "the Margaret Thatcher government". The forename is irrelevant, but the link provides the information if anyone needs to know. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "fight Fascism by working for the Russians" - this is the first appearance of "fascism" so best to go for a hyperlink; at the same time, switch to a lower-case "f", which is more standard here. Moreover, I would replace "Russians" with the more accurate "Soviets". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "the recently elected Conservative MP for Chelmsford." - this is the first appearance of "MP", so probably best to switch to "Member of Parliament" and put in a hyperlink. I'd also recommend expanding "Conservative" to "Conservative Party" here, but that's not really a big deal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "more circumspect[70]" - full stop needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• In the image caption, it states "as depicted on a Soviet Union stamp"; would it not be best to state "as depicted on a Soviet stamp"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "picked up" is a bit colloquial. It might be an idea to add a Wikilink to either Casual sex or Hookup culture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• "picked up" now = "met". I don't fancy the suggested links. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "homosexual bar" could be linked to Gay bar. Readers in many parts of the English-speaking world may not be familiar with such establishments (I'm thinking in particular of parts of Sub-Saharan Africa). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• " applied twice to the BBC without success" - best to be clear that he "applied for employment twice" here, lest someone think he was applying for something else (to star in a reality TV show, for instance!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "went to Chartwell " - perhaps "went to the latter's home at Chartwell"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Throughout the article I'm noticing an inconsistency in the grammar of "British Intelligence" - sometimes the latter term is in upper case, sometimes lower. Ensure that this is standardised; I'd recommend using lower case, but I don't really mind either way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "current Whitehall thinking" - I'd generally avoid using place-names as references to governments (same goes for "Washington" in place of the U.S. government, or "Moscow" in place of the Soviet/Russian government). I know it's common form in much journalism and other writing, but I think that on Wikipedia it's best to be more precise as we are going to be reaching out to many non-native speakers. I would suggest "current government thinking" in its place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "reinforced Stalin's suspicions" - this is the first mention of Stalin in the article. Add a link, give the forename, and mention who he is (briefly). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "After the outbreak of war in September 1939," - Which war is this? I jest, of course, but some readers may genuinely have no idea what war we are referring to. Best to be precise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "lines in Occupied Europe" - no need for the capital O here. Also, best be clear what we mean; so perhaps go with "German-occupied Europe". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "found himself at the end of the year out of a job". We can do better than this wording. How about "found himself unemployed at the end of the year"? Cleaner and shorter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, marginally longer (by one character). And not really clearer. The choice of words is a matter of personal preference – is a change really necessary? Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Burgess was tasked by the BBC with selecting speakers who would show" - quite a few editors have called me up on the use of passive voice over years, so it might be best here to switch to active voice, thus "the BBC tasked Burgess with selecting speakers". Might also be an idea to replace "show" with "depict". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "whose talk in the recollections of listeners was pure Soviet propaganda (no transcript survives)" - I don't understand what is being described here, could it be reworded to give greater clarity? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Rephrased for clarity. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "was invaluable to the NKVD" - another first mention. We need a Wikilink and an explanation of who or what they were. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "that they should murder Rees" - "kill Rees" might be a slightly more neutral term, lacking the legalistic connotations of "murder". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "the citadels of power" - perhaps a bit too dramatic or poetic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we have to remove all vestiges of colour from the language, but I'll see if I can think of an equally appropriate phrase.

• Re above: I've gone with your suggested minor fixes, except where noted. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Support for your excellent work, Brian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and support, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

From a peer reviewer. Outstanding work. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Source review and Support by KJP1

Shall begin this today, but it is likely to take a few days, given the extent of the sourcing and my inexperience. I'll also have to do it in batches, having just lost the first set of comments. KJP1 (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Online sources

I'll list all of these, as part of reviewing, but I'll embolden any that I may have a query about.

• Source 7 - should we not give the author? She's named and we do in other cases.

• The author is the college's PR officer. Not sure it's worth adding, but for consistency's sake I will. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Source 45 - I wonder if we should record it was the "Tyneside" contingent, rather than just "a contingent" that took this route?

• It was in fact the Tyneside and the Tees-side contingents (see end of source). I've adjusted the text. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Source 203 - supports the content. The story of the tape's filing under Edith Sitwell is so good, I might have made it into a footnote!
• Source 207 - slightly surprisingly, I can't access it as it's ProQuest. Do we need to indicate it's inaccessible, as we do with the ODNB?

• You are right - subscription template added Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Source 227 - my query here is about the source within the source. Given that you give Annan in full, would it not be clearer just to put him whole into the published Sources section? But you'll know what MoS says better than I.

• At the time, I hadn't directly checked the Annan source & was relying on Holzman's quote. I've checked it since, so Holzman can disappear. I'll readjust accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Source 238 - I'm not quite sure about this. I'm assuming the Dobbs is fictionalised, in that it builds speculatively on the meeting between WSC and GB. The Telegraph reviewer seems to have his doubts about whether the meeting took place at all, hence his qualifying Driberg's "verification". It clearly did, and you mention it. Turning to the monument that is Sir Martin Gilbert, I find a full account on pages 990-992 of Volume 5. The meeting took place on 1 October 1938. As an aside, the earlier mention here says "September 1938". I wonder if there's some way of making it clearer? Something like "which builds on the pre-war meeting between Burgess and Churchill in October 1938"? The reference is Gilbert, Volume 5 1922-1939, pp=990-992, 1976, Heinemann. As a further aside, YouTube also has this, [2] which may be an interesting External link. Burgess also places the meeting in September 1938. It is fascinating to hear him speak, or rather drawl!

• I don't think we need add Gilbert. The DT source merely confirms that Dobbs's play builds on the Burgess-Churchill meeting. I've clarified the 1 October date in the main text, confirmed by the existing sources. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sources 61, 64, 126, 180, 187, 204, 211 & 239 - all support the content.
• Sources 118, 196, 231, 235 & 237 - can't access them but no reason to doubt the ODNB.

Published Sources

The published sources are all of impeccable quality and the isbns all check out. Just a few queries, questions below.

• Bennett, Alan - the ISBN gives me 1994 as the UK publication date with 1995 as the US date. It was reissued in 1996, with a revised edition in 1998.

• The details are per my own copy of the book. The UK hardback was published in 1994 and the pb in 1995. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Card, Tim - the full title is Eton renewed : a history from 1860 to the present day. I'm not sure it really matters but you have given full titles elsewhere.

• Added. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Driberg, Tom - should we give the OCLC number, 560708673, in the absence of an ISBN?

• Added Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Macintyre, Ben - Oddly, the most recent version gives the authors as Macintyre and John le Carré. I don't have the book but I'm assuming le Carré wrote a forward?

• He wrote an "afterword", but I've not cited it and it seems unnecessary to add his name. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Modin, Yuri - while the 1994 edition lists Modin alone, every subsequent edition gives Jean-Charles Deniau and Aguieszka Ziarek as co-authors?

• I don't think that's quite the case – the ABE listing here has several of the 1995 Headline edition, isbn 978-0-747-24775-3, which don't bear the additional names. I used a library copy which I no longer have, but I don't remember seeing those names. The point doesn't seem to be key, and I'm inclined to leave this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Spot-checks of offline sources

This isn't necessary, given the experience of the author and the fact that all the online sources do check out, but as I have access to some of the sourced books, I shall do a few for completeness. I'll look to complete Monday. KJP1 (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton - First, apologies for the delay. Second, despite my university library continuing apace with their policy of replacing the books with computer terminals, I have been able to spot-check the following:

• Holzman, Michael, Guy Burgess: Revolutionary in an Old School Tie;
• Lownie, Andrew, Stalin's Englishman: The lives of Guy Burgess;
• Purvis, Stewart & Hulbert, Jeff, Guy Burgess: The Spy Who Knew Everyone.

They are, of course, all fine.

FAC source criteria

• 1c - well-researched

The sources are all of high quality, the article is thoroughly researched and covers the relevant literature, including the recent additions to the study of Burgess. The article is very well supported by a wealth of inline citations.

• 2c - Consistent citations

The citing is consistent throughout.

Brian - the above comments are all absolutely fine. I'll wrap up with the offline source checks but shall need to drop by the university library so it'll be Tuesday/Wednesday before I finish. Hope that's ok. KJP1 (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

On the basis of the above, I'm pleased to wrap up the Source Review. Also, having read it through carefully on a number of occasions, I think I'm also entitled to Support the article, which I do as it's a very fine piece of work. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your meticulous review and the trouble you took. That, and the support, is much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The above rigorous source review put me in mind of Kings 12:11. Tim riley talk 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton, Tim riley - Brian, my apologies for the time taken and my laborious approach. As you know, I'm new to source reviewing. Tim - you can take your biblical allusions and....! KJP1 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I retreat, tail between legs. Tim riley talk 20:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hello Brian, just a few gnomish observations...

• played for the school's football team - do sources say which code ie wlink association or rugby? (for readers outside UK)
• the Set construction| stage sets for - broken wlink
• a fruitful sources of high-level gossip - singular/plural
• a young Fellow of All Souls' College - no apostrophe needed?
• Rees - first name Goronwy is given three times
• Burgess had previously promised Philby that he would not go with Maclean – a double defection would, Philby said, spell the end for him. - maybe ambiguous, spell the end for Burgess or Philby?
• given a safe-conduct to visit - wlink safe conduct?
• of Imperial General Staff meetings. [217] - remove space
• the diplomatic service suffered what Lownie calls - Lownie not introduced, insert researcher and author Andrew?
• Granada TV's 1987 drama Philby, Burgess and Maclean (1977), - 1987 a typo?
• 'sad' there is nothing relevant re his brother - eg Nigel flew to Moscow to attend funeral (maybe to escort ashes back?)

Thanks for your work, JennyOz (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

And thank you, Jenny, for these useful catches, all remedied now. The sources don't specify that Nigel went to Moscow to bring the ashes back, and I think this doubtful, given that the interment in Britain didn't take place until October. I have added a note of Nigel's presence at the funeral - this is covered by the Lownie ref. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, pleased to see his brother acknowledged. (Poor fellow must have had much to cope with!) Maybe now need to insert 'Nigel' at "A second son was born" to identify? I am very happy to support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Done re Nigel, and thanks for thwe support. Brianboulton (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2018 [3].

---

Red warbler

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a cute little bird from Central America - so far birds from outside anglophone areas are a tad underrepresented, so here goes. It is comprehensive (as far as we know) and prose is ok (I think). In any case, we'll try and fix any issues pronto. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Sure looks cute, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• We don't have much diversity in images for this bird, but I wonder if this photo[4] could be added? It shows the grey patch of C. r. melanauris better than the taxobox image, and is sharper, so it isn't wholly redundant.

I have replaced the taxobox image with it. Agree it is better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder why the name of the supposedly nominate subspecies ruber is not spelled the same way as the specific name (rubra)?

A hangover from when it was in its old genus, which was masculine. Changed now (IOC has subspecific rubra as well) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Good, seems you missed the taxobox image caption. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• What's the meaning of the other subspecies names?

melanauris means with dark ears and is half greek half latin. Will get pages and add later added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

added info on rowleyi MeegsC (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• "soon after its independence" add date for context?

Added date of independence MeegsC (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• "which was assigned to the genus Setophaga" You could write the full binomial here, otherwise the specific name isn't mentioned until far down.

Done. MeegsC (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• "and pink-headed warblers" Link at first mention.

Move wikilink to first mention. MeegsC (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• "and their common ancestor diverged from a lineage" When?

No idea; the study doesn't give a date, or even a date range. MeegsC (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Where the subspecies originally described as species? If so, should be mentioned, also when they were lumped.

C. r. melanauris and C. r. rowleyi were described as subspecies, so weren't lumped. Clarified in article. MeegsC (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Its legs are flesh-colored, and its flesh-colored bill" What exactly is meant by "flesh coloured"? Can a more precise description be found?

changed former to red-brown and later to pinkish-gray, with ref.

• You give scientific names for some other species mentioned under description, but nowhere else. Should be consistent.

Removed scientific names for other species; no need for them here, particularly as species are wikilinked. I've left the names that would apply if various subspecies were to be split. MeegsC (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• "its slightly darker wings and tail" Darker red? They look grey or brown in photos, so could be more specific.

See I would assume that "slightly darker" meant same colour. Anyway, I found another ref that describes it as "dusky" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The feathers of this species contain alkaloids" Seems this would be relevant under behaviour? Is this to protect from predators? In which case, not only humans would avoid eating them...

the info is pretty redimentary. I dug around and found some more details, but any other assumptions would be OR. Will see if any conclusions or covering statements can be found. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• "the red warbler has three disjunct populations" Do these correspond to the subspecies? if so, could be stated.

Well, they are indicated as such in the taxonomy section, but we can repeat them lower down in the habitat and distribution section too if you think we should. Or say it there instead. MeegsC (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you could add something like "corresponding to the three subspecies" for clarity, I imagined it was the case, but it might be harder for people skimming the article. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now, as has been pointed out below also, could be nice to add anything on predators if possible. FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

• Could you check the Escalante and Daly citation?

added title

• I'd love some more pictures, but if that's all we have, that'll have to do!

Do you think this one is worth adding? It does show some habitat, and has an appropriate license.

I do- I like it! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

uploaded and added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• "the red and pink-headed warblers were each others' closest relative" Why past tense?

Changed to present tense.

• Are "trills" and "warbles" jargon, I wonder?

the first is a high pitched vibration call and the second a series of soft notes. I had just known them but then again I am a birdwatcher. We only have a general article on birdcalls (Bird vocalization - already linked just before) and wiktionary isn't much help either. Not sure the best way to go about it for laypeople Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm probably worrying about nothing. I know what they mean, I was just thinking that others may not. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• "It is fairly common to common in the interior and on adjacent slopes" Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I'm struggling to follow this.

"fairly common" and "common" are used as distinct descriptors, with the former being less common than "common" but commoner than "uncommon". I can't see the source page though.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I was struggling to understand what "the interior and adjacent slopes" meant. Interior of what? Adjacent to what? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I've tried to clarify a bit; is it clearer now? MeegsC (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• "hover gleans" sounds like jargon

Modified slightly; is that better?

Yes, much better. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if we have any information about human interactions/uses or the bird's appearances in human culture?

nothing found to date Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• There's no mention of lifespan - I assume there's no information available?

That's correct; lifespan is unknown.

• There's some mention of predators, mixed flocks, and competitors with which it feeds; I wonder if we could be more specific about these things? I'd certainly be interested to know!

added a bit (see below for specifics) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That's about it! Looks very good to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Leaning support. A little light on some details, but I am happy to take your word for it that this reflects the literature. I do wonder whether there might be more out there in Spanish (or other local languages), but appreciate that this is a tricky question! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, my Spanish is pretty good. And I've looked for references in that language too! MeegsC (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That's good; thanks for the clarification! Josh Milburn (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Jens Lallensack

Happy to review this article. Its reads extremely well, great job with the prose. It could be more comprehensive, however. Comments below:

• Why was File:Ergaticus ruber.jpg removed? I think that one is still a valuable addition.

In two minds about this. I replaced the taxobox image with a more in-focus one. If I re-add this one, what am I implying it has that other photos don't have? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought it shows parts of the plumage not visible on the other images, including the back and the upper side of wings and tail. But the decision is yours, of course.

good point. readded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Lead: better to link Mexico.

I thought we generally didn't link to countries... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

My bad, these are the little differences between language versions.

• mitochondrial and nuclear DNA needs wiki links.

done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• A comprehensive 2010 paper by Irby Lovette and colleagues analysing mitochondrial and nuclear DNA of the wood-warblers – what is a "wood-warbler"? Term should be shortly explained if you want to keep it.

Actually they are New World warblers - linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• The adult red warbler is hard to confuse with any other bird species – really with all bird species, or only with those present in its range?

the latter - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• the scarlet tanager and summer tanager have similar mostly-red plumage but are larger with thick conical bills – You describe the bill shape of similar species, but not for the red warbler itself. Should be added to the description if possible.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is no information on how males and females differ from each other in both color and size. If they are identical, this needs to be mentioned also.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Unlike other species in the same habitat zone, it tends to sing only during bright morning hours during the breeding season; regardless of season, it does not sing – and even its calling frequency decreases – in cloudy weather. – A bit difficult to read; I would suggest splitting the sentence in two. Also, I would not have "in cloudy weather" at the end of the second sentence, as this is the most important information, and you cannot understand what the sentence is all about until you read it. I would suggest "Regardless of season, it does not sing in cloudy weather, when even its calling frequency decreases" or something similar.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• It is fairly common to common in the interior and on adjacent slopes – is this referring to the Sierra Madre del Sur? Maybe add "In the latter," to make this clear?

can't see all the source - @MeegsC: can you shed some light.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• In the 16th century, Friar Bernardino de Sahagún had reported that a … – This paragraph appears under "Behavior", but it is not about behavior at all but interaction with humans, maybe move it to its own section?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• While it seldom associates with mixed-species flocks – earlier you mentioned that it "sometimes joins mixed-species flocks". Is seldom the same as sometimes? Maybe use the same word.

"sometimes" can be highly ambiguous in English, covering everything from "often" to "seldom". changed to "occasionally" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• When describing the nest in detail, you mention the important fact that it is not a typical bird nest but a roofed nest only at the very end. I would mention this fact right before or after the section starts with "The femail alone builds the nest". It would make it much easier to follow the detailed description of how the female builds it.

The mention "over-shaped" implies a roofed structure, so not at end. moved up a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• it feeds alongside other birds with no signs of conflict, displaying no hostility towards other species with which it competes – this is somehow conflicting with an observation by Elliott cited in the neotropical.birds.cornell.edu web page: Elliott once observed a pair forage alongside a pair of Slate-throated Redstarts (Myioborus miniatus) during March, yet on another occasion he also saw one male and two female Red Warblers chase off an Empidonax flycatcher that entered their territory. I suggest to add this observation for balance.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• A follow up question: You describe its behavior against competing species, but what about members of the same species that cross its territory?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• In general, I feel that the article is not as comprehensive as it could be. All of the points below are covered by the https://neotropical.birds.cornell.edu web page, so it should not be a problem to expand accordingly.
  • When does the species mould?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Anything about predation?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Courtship display behavior?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Territory size, and how territorial are they?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• • When, after hatching, are the young fully grown?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Iris color, also important. Maybe even bill, tail, wing chord, tarsus lengths, as these are standard measurements (although I understand if you prefer to keep them out for readability reasons).

iris colour added. I have never added the bill, tail, wing chord or tarsus lengths as I feel these are too specialised for (and of little interest to) a lay reader Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Not sure here, but something to thing about: Add what we don't know about this species, to show why further research is needed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

that is generally hard to add unless stated somewhere...and could hold true for the majority of bird species I suspect... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

All resolved, many thanks. Supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

Corrected issues

Returning to FAC work. As was long my typical habit here, I'm primarily focusing on references and reference formatting. But I have a couple other questions on this one. Poor little bird had a rough taxonomic history. If it spent time assigned to Basileuterus, Sylvia, and Parus, should those be reflected in its taxobox synonym list? added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Is it worth changing the range map to color-code the disjunct ranges to the three subspecies? yes it would be good - annoyingly I am having some trouble downloading the image to edit. Not sure why.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC) have sorted map out Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC) No C. r. rowleyi photo available, as we have the other two illustrated, and a bunch of space without images? added one more image... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Now the thankless stuff... Capitalization systems should be consistent. Generally, that means sentence case for journal article titles and title case for the journals themselves and for book titles. That appears to be the standard set here, so I'll treat exceptions as errors. If you've opted to standardize to a different format, then a correspondingly different set of references have capitalization issues. Some of these sources treat "Red Warbler" as a proper noun. Some don't. I've opted to follow the lead of the source text when applying capitalization rules to each title. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) That probably means the journal title for Swainson 1827 should be given in title case, although I seem to recall that exceptions have sometimes been granted for the very long titles of these 19th century natural science periodicals. I won't oppose on this one, although MOS:COLON does suggest that the leading space be removed before the colon (as that hasn't been considered standard for a century or so). done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Moore 1937 should have the article title given in sentence case. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Orr and Webster 1968 should have the article title given in sentence case. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Lanning, Marshall, and Shiflett 1990 should have the article title given in sentence case. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Stone 1919 should have the article title given in sentence case. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Escalante and Daly 1994 should have the journal title given in title case. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Debboun, Frances, and Strickman 2007 should have the book title given in title case. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Smith 1909 should have the article title given in sentence case. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Remsen and Robinson 1990 should have the article title given in sentence case. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Ridgway and Friedmann should ideally have an OCLC number, as it predates the ISBN system. I believed the linked scan is of OCLC 663445305. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Ideally, all ISBNs should be presented as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. The only ones I see that are a problem are Liddel and Scott 1980 and Simpson 1979, both of which need to be converted from ISBN-10. both of these books predate 2007, which is when isbn went from 10 to 13 digits...unless one just sticks the same 3 digits in front?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC) All ISBN-10s fit in the 978- prefix of ISBN-13 space, although conversion does require adjusting the last digit (which is a checksum). No one wants to do math by hand, though, which is why there's a helpful converter (for most ISBNs, anyway). Best practice, and the recommendation of the International ISBN Agency, is to up-convert all ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s (for, among other things, compatibility with the EAN/IAN system). Also, it makes everything match and look pretty. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC) cool/stil learning new things/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Providing the publication location for book-format sources is optional, but longstanding consensus is that it is all-or-nothing. Most such sources cited here provide a publisher location, so I'll be treating exceptions as errors. Books published in London do not have that publication location presented consistently ("London" versus "London, UK"). The APA eliminated the "well-known city" rule in its 6th edition, but I wouldn't fault you for retaining it and just going with "London" here. If you apply the APA 6th edition guidance, then US states can be abbreviated to two-letter codes, but countries should not be; complicating this issue, they recommend "London, England" rather than any use of "United Kingdom". Whatever you decide regarding country format should be consistently applied to Liddell and Scott 1980 and to Stattersfield et al. 1998. removed country from well-known cities.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Howell and Webb 1995 lacks a publisher location. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Peterson and Chalif 1999 lacks a publisher location. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Cramp 1977 lacks a publisher location. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) The publisher location for Dreelin 2014 is given as "Ithaca, NY, USA". The USA is unnecessary. I can't find this now....so done (I think) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC) If you opt to follow APA 6th edition policy, then Beletsky 2007 will need to be updated to show "San Francisco, CA". If you cite London simply as "London", then this one is fine as is. followed latter option Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Mayfield 1968 is missing a comma from "Oaxaca, Mexico". I even checked the article because journal titles are sometimes special snowflakes with punctuation, but it's there in the original. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC) No prose analysis, at least at the moment. This does feel a little... thin, but I'm well aware of the difficulties of working on a narrow subject that has garnered comparatively little attention. Still, I'm curious if there's more available on its involvement with mixed-species flocks (what species?) and if there's any information on predation. Given it's alkaloid defense, I'm curious if there's been any discussion of what does eat it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC) expanding a bit - see previous reviewer's comments, which we're working through Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving to support. It's a little sad that the rowleyi subspecies doesn't have an available photo, but that's surely not a reason to oppose promotion of the article in its current state. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Very good, can you check other notes--Anass (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Anass Badou

Hello, I am a contributor from Arabic Wikipedia and I am working on translating this article. I think the size of the artic le is small. Can you add other information if it is? I also advise you to add images photos, so can you upload this one here?--Anass (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

we have expanded the article. Sadly that photo does not have a suitable licence (oops/my bad). It is not bad but the bird is partly obscured by a twig. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually Cas, I suggested we upload the same picture, which appears to be appropriately licensed. It says it can be used for any purpose, even commercially. MeegsC (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

uploaded and added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Other note: Can you create this article [5]-Anass (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you add some informations from this article hère [6]-Anass (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

material from that article has already been included. Have you seen something else specific that is not in the article? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, i find here that Scarlet flycatcher, and Orange piranga are Nearby species to Red warbler-Anass (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't mention them unless a source mentions them together for some reason. The scarlet flycatcher is also red but occurs far to the south Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok i think that you can add more images, because there are a lot of pictures about this bird in his Commons Category, also, can you add more categories if its possible, also in found some informations here so what do you think?--Anass (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Here some references about Cardellina rubra--Anass (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: I think that you can also create this template--Anass (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The EOL page has little in it, and many of the biodiversity library pages are lists or mere mentions. Have had a bit of a look..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

i found this informations :

This species has a very large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size is very large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern.

--Anass (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Some of that is in the conservation section. How would you add the relevant bits? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand--Anass (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I added the fraction decline bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's good, look now at others notes--Anass (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

can you add Commons Category and Wikispecies Templates?--Anass (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@MeegsC:I would recommend that you add other information about history, can you read this article and try to add important points or a suitable summary if possible here--Anass (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anass: we've already included the information from that article! What do you think is missing? MeegsC (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@MeegsC: In my opinion there is a lot of informations that can be added to make the article more comprehensive. Read also what is here. Have you added all this?--Anass (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anass: Well, I guess I respectfully disagree. We've included all of that information already! Have you read the article? MeegsC (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@MeegsC and Casliber: Yes, I read the article and translated it to the Arabic and nominated it as a featured article, but the colleagues rejected it because it is small in size and the information is low. Can you develop it further by adding more references and more explanations?--Anass (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anass:, in English wikipedia, we can't invent information. If it's not out there already in other sources, we can't add it to the article. As with many species in Central America (and many other places in the world), there's a lot about this bird that isn't known. We can't add what isn't known! We've scoured the available sources to put in everything we could find. If that's not enough for Arabian wikipedia — or English wikipedia, for that matter — so be it! MeegsC (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@MeegsC: In my opinion, keeping the article good is better than being nominated as a featured article due to the lack of references and information--Anass (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Anass, can you provide the diffs where you nominated the Arabic version? I'd like to compare it to what you were working from (in terms of the English article) at the time. We've added material since you first brought it up, so I presume you've enlarged it over there during their FA process too? This article is of a comparable size and depth to some other biology FAs. We can't add information that does not exist in spurces. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anass: Just out of curiosity, what information do you feel is missing? What do you want to know about this bird that you can't learn from the article? MeegsC (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@MeegsC: i want to know for exemple the relationship with humans and natural threats and detailed description and related species and vocalizations, Please clarify these things better with the addition of the history paragraph in detail from the previous article--Anass (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anass:, these things are all in the article. I'm really confused; you say you've read it, but it doesn't appear you have! MeegsC (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@MeegsC: I have read them. Say these things in separate paragraphs and add pictures, videos and sounds--Anass (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anass:: Do you have access to videos or recording for this species? I don't see any in Wikipedia Commons. I can't add what isn't available! As for "saying these things in separate paragraphs", there is a section entitled "Description" that presents a detailed description of the bird, with the adult, immature and juvenile plumages each described in separate paragraphs. There is a section entitled "Voice" that talks about vocalizations. The "Taxonomy" section talks about related species, and there's a separate paragraph in the "Description" section that talks about other species you might confuse it with. The "Parasites and predators" section talks about natural threats, and the "Conservation and threats" talks about human interactions. Each of the things you say is missing is already in the article. As I said, I'm mystified that you still maintain they aren't! MeegsC (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@MeegsC: ::Search Google for free photos and videos--Anass (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

Just a couple of nitpicks

• Like all New World warblers, the red warbler is an insectivore. appears in the lead but I can't see it in the body text it is supposedly summarising, nor can I see a source. Furthermore, although US sources often give the impression that breeding wood warblers are exclusively insectivorous, some at least take seeds or fruit in their winter quarters, and pine warbler certainly eats seeds even in the US

I removed Like all New World warblers as not in body and not germane to article really Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps link iris?

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source review

• Not sure if anybody reviewed the references above, but I had a look regardless. All of the citations are to what I would consider high-quality reliable sources. The vast majority of them are journal articles and books, with a few to websites; all of them appear reliable. In addition, they are all formatted well and the online references show up as working properly on the link-checker tool. In short, I found no issues with the sourcing of the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird's comments support

A few comments, nitpicks mostly:

• endemic to the highlands of Mexico, north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Does this apply when the range of one subspecies is to the south and west of the narrowest point of the isthmus?

@Sabine's Sunbird: Hmm. That's directly from the source, which says "Endemic to highlands N of Isthmus. What do you suggest? MeegsC (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• English jeweller and naturalist William Bullock and his son spent time in Mexico soon after its independence in 1821, do we know when they were in Mexico with any more precision?

According to this journal article, he was there in 1823. I'll add the link to our article. MeegsC (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• The structure of taxonomy jumps from genus-level relationships to subspecies and back to genus again? Maybe move the bit about its closest relative up above subspecies?

I've moved this information up a few paragraphs; is this better? MeegsC (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• y isolated two alkaloids in preliminary investigations of the feathers.[31] These render the bird unpalatable; humans find it inedible I wonder if this could be elaborated a bit - humans as a rule don't eat anything with feathers still on!

The alkaloids make the birds unpalatable, not the feathers. I've tried to clarify that; did I succeed? MeegsC (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The nestlings, which make a rapid, high-pitched peeping call as an adult approaches carrying food,[24] fledge within 10–11 days of hatching this sentence covers very different ideas and should be separated.

done MeegsC (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There are a few odd word choices, such as 11 days may transpire between... transpire? Sure something simpler can be found? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

changed to the wordier "there may be a gap of as many as 11 days between..." MeegsC (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support The bit about the isthmus still bothers me a touch but I can't think of a way around, otherwise good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2018 [7].

---

Antiochus X Eusebes

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Many ambiguous characters appeared during history, and I think that king Antiochus X is one of the most intriguing ones. All we have of him are few coins and short passages in the works of ancient historians; the earliest is the Jewish historian Josephus who lived a 150 years after Antiochus X. Yet, the works of modern historians, linguists and numismatists have greatly expanded our knowledge about this ruler who, at the age of 20 (max) was able to avenge his killed father, face four of his cousins who tried to destroy him, and still have energy and a good judgment to leave the petty dynastic feuds behind to stand against one of the most powerful empires of his time, Parthia. I think I have gathered 98% of all the academic works about this king and it took two months to complete this short but very comprehensive article (taking into account the very little we know about the king). I hope this will be a good and enjoyable read for everyone.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

• Seven instances of p/pp error e.g., Bouché-Leclercq 1913, p. 641, 643, 416
• Houghton 1987, p. 79. Harv error: link from CITEREFHoughton1987 doesn't point to any citation.
• Dobiáš, Josef (1931). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFDobiáš1931.
• Dumitru, Adrian (2016). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Goodman, Martin (2005) [2002]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Hoover, Oliver D. (2011). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Houghton, Arthur (1989). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Kelly, Douglas (2016). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Llewellyn Jones, Lloyd (2013) [2012]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Olbrycht, Marek Jan (2009). "Mithridates VI Eupator and Iran". Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Scott, Roger (2017) [1989]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
•  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • All is fixed. As for the pagenums of chapters, I intentionally dont add them because I make sure to mention the page in the shortened citations. But since you mentioned it as a problem, I added pages numbers.
    • i didn't know we had a "green" template. that'll be handy in some circumstances. :-) As for page numbers, I very, very seriously doubt anyone would consider failing a FAC over it, but best practice would be to put the page number that the cite refers to in the sfn, and the entire page range of the article or chapter in the cite book/citejournal/whatever. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, it is more professional to go your way tbh :) I had a prof who would deduct a full point (out of ten in an assignment) for not adding those numbers in the bibliography

Comments Support by Constantine

Late Seleucid history is a confusing mess, and I got a headache every time I tried to read about it (one can only keep track of so many people named Antiochus...). User:Attar-Aram syria has a real talent in writing articles about these guys that are both comprehensive and comprehensible, and this is another example of it. I've gone through it making various minor changes for style (feel free to revert if you disagree), but otherwise the article looks fine to me. All significant aspects of the reign, and scholarly debates, are covered, the tone is neutral, high-quality sources have been used throughout (WP:AGF on comprehensive coverage, but from the text it certainly looks that way), the article is well structured. The article reads well, but I recommend making a request at WP:GOCE to polish it further as befits a Featured Article. Other than that, the only missing thing I can see is the lack of WP:ALTTEXT, which should be rectified. Well done once again, I will be glad to support once these couple of things have been done. Constantine ✍ 19:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your words! I added the ALTTEXT and asked the guild for help. I noticed that you corrected the Greek writing of the king's name and I was wondering if you could do the same for the page Philip I Philadelphus (who should be in Greek Philip Epiphanes Philadelphus) and the page Seleucus VI Epiphanes (who sould be Seleucus Epiphanes Nikator). I have re-written Philip but wont nominate it because its too short (though I collected all the info there is about him). I will re-write Seleucus soon but also wont nominate as it will also be short (same reason as Philip's). I do not know Greek so my attempts at writing the names of kings mostly results in mistakes (ofcourse other Greek names throught the article (the names of the people of Laodice for example) are directly copied from the sources themselves so no worries there) Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The file Antioco X Eusebes Filopator, tetradracma.jpg is still missing alt text. Names int he articles you mentioned have been done. IMO, Philip is definitely of a size and quality as to be a viable FA candidate, but that is your choice, of course. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Constantine. The file have an alt now. The copy edit is over as well. And now thatyou have said so, Im encouraged to nominate Philip after Antiochus. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look at the changes, looks good. Moving to support. Well done, once again :). Constantine ✍ 18:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Your opinion always matter to me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Not affecting my support vote, but could you perhaps add a map? At least a geographical one with the main cities etc. mentioned in the article? It would help the average reader a lot. Constantine ✍ 18:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes sure, I was thinking about creating a map showing the limits of Antiochus, Philip and Demetrius' domains, so it will depict the situation in 92 BC.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great! Constantine ✍ 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Constantine, the map is added. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• The "The manner" section could be renamed "manner of death", it makes little sense in itself now.
• On this note, single sentence sections are discouraged, so I wonder whether the year and manner sections can be merged into one. "Year and manner of death"? "Circumstances of death"?

The year is the topic of its own debate between shcolars. The manner is the same. Thats why I made them seperate. I eleminated the sub-section of the manner section (which I renamed). Now it doesnt look like a one sentence section.

Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• "None of those assertions is based on evidence" Are.
• The infobox image could need a caption?
• "According to Josephus", "According to Appian", you could add that they were historians.
• "prostitute in love with Antiochus who saved him" How?
• "showed the king bearded" Why?
• "expelled him from of the city." From of?

Typos corrected. I introduced the historians in the lede and added a caption for the image. As for how the prostitute saved him, Appian does not mention. We also dont know why they appeared bearded, its a observation but we have no clue about their internal motives. According to the source used (Lorber & Iossif 2009), it seems that a bearded Seleucid king meant that he wants to take revenge or defeat a usurper. So probably that was a sign that he wont take care of himself until he take his revenge.

• "two epithets: Philadelphos and Philometor." Shouldn't these words be in italics here?

Done

• Any reason why the "Children" comes before the "End and succession" section? It kind of disrupts the flow; you read about Antiochus life, then suddenly about his children, and then back to his life again. Furthermore, you list the children last in Cleopatra Selene of Syria.

I always wondered why do I have to put the children in an article about a historic figure after the death section. You have your children while alive, they are part of your life not end. In this particular article however, the children came before the death because his son Antiochus XIII will be mentioned a lot in the end section considring the scholarly debate about the mixing between father and son. I saw that its better to introduce the children first before mentioning one of them in practically every paragraph; thus I could avoid introducing Antiochus XIII as the son of Antiochus X twice.

That's a good point with the name confusions. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• "This date is hard to accept" To who?

to Hoover. The sentence starts with this: According to Hoover, the dating of Newell is hard to accept.

Ok, but the way it is written now, it reads like Hoover has proposed a date, and that others find it hard to accept: "Hoover proposed the year 89/88 BC for the end of Antiochus X's reign.[note 7][62] This date is hard to accept". I think it could be made clearer that he himself finds it hard to accept. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In 2007, Hoover estimated the total die usage of Antiochus X and came up with 89 BC. But in 2011, he noted that the king had two series of coins, one when he first took the capital, and another when he took it a second time. Most the dies were used for the first period and a minority for the second period. Thats why Hoover himself raised the point then blamed Philip I's recoinage for the few dies left to us from Antiochus X second series. I made this clear by adding the years in which Hoover made his suggestions.

• Perhaps the significance of the name Antiochus and whether it related to Antioch could be stated in this and other Antiochus articles? You give a nice explanation of names in the Cleopatra Selene article.

Done

• Support - there wasn't much to nitpick to begin with, as it is also a pretty short article, but nice that an article this comprehensive can be written about what appears to be an obscure historical figure. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "This new status seems to have been a privilege bestwood upon the city by Antiochus X, who, as a sign of gratitude for the city's role in eliminating Seleucus VI, would not have only rebuilt it, but also compinsated it for the damage it suffered at the hands of Seleucus' brothers." This paragraph seems to have escaped copy editing - bestwood > bestowed? "would not have only rebuilt it" > "not only rebuilt it"? compinsated?
  • I added this sentence while in a hurry, and it happened after the copy editing. my mistake. All corrected

• It is not all corrected You still have "a privilege bestwood upon the city" and "perhapse" and "would not only rebuilt it". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The city's coinage included pieces bearing a royal portrait that seems to depict Antiochus X according to Hans von Aulock" This sounds a bit awkward and is more definite than the note. Maybe "In the view of Hans von Aulock, some coins minted in the city may carry a portrait of Antiochus X." perhapse?
  • Done
• I would move the children section to the end as it mostly covers events after his death.
  • The issue was raised by funkmonk, but since the son of Antiochus will be mentioned in practically every paragraph of the end and succesion section, I saw its better to introduce the children first.
• twenty first is usually hyphenated.
  • Done
• "Such a scenario is complicated; more likely, Antiochus XIII bore two epithets: Philadelphos and Philometor" This sounds POV. As you have cited the names of historians taking the opposite view, you should name those you are citing here.
  • Done
• "hence, no evidence supports this identification, which remains a theory" This also sounds POV.
  • Im not sure here. There is no mention of Kybiosaktes' parents anywhere in ancient sources, so any identification of him witha son of Antiochus Eusebes will naturally be a theory. How do you suggest we can make it NPOV?

• As above, I suggest that you attribute the comment as the view of named historians rather than your personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• "the numismatist Oliver D. Hoover refuted Kritt's reading" "refute" is a bit strong as it generally means disprove. I think "reject" would be better.
  • Done
• "counting on the account of Appian" What does this mean?
  • Maybe I should write based on the account of Appian ?

• OK Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I found this article difficult to follow at times, no doubt due to the conflicting sources rather than the editor, but an interesting insight into a period I know very little about. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to do this review. It is really a problematic period in history. We dont have info but we have clues and with clues, the space opens for theorizing and every historian have a point.

• All is corrected I hope--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

It looks to me that between Lingzhi and Constantine the sources have been examined for reliability and formatting; I think we still need an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. Maybe User:Nikkimaria can help if she have time ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look below. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Image review - mostly looks good, a few comments. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• The two CC licenced coin images need additional PD old tags (for the artwork on them).
• What source was the map image itself taken from (not the text on it)?

Thanks for this !! I added the required tags and the source of the map which is: Near_East_topographic_map-blank.svg--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, looks ready to go now. The Cleopatra image was already reviewed and approved in another FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2018 [8].

---

Black Hours, Morgan MS 493

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Short article about an exceptionaly beautiful, uber-goth, 15th c illuminated book. I realise the article is slight, but after a few years of exhaustive searching, am confident it represents the totality of research. The article's further reading sect mentions the Facsimile Ausgabe von Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, M. 493, but this is a facsimile and costs about four grand. MS 493 is of a very rare type, very brittle, and not often on display. Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I love old books. With the caveat that I am no expert, some comments:

• consists of 121 leaves, the majority of which consist --> repetition

  Yes done Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• 14 lines, with fourteen --> inconsistent

  Not sure - the pages of text are arranged in rows of 14 lines, there are also 14 fully illuminated sides. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Oh I see what you mean. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• (folio 121v).[1] --> the lead only needs references for controversial statements, which I doubt is the case here

have reduced the lead refs. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "unequaled luxury" --> is this quote necessary? It just makes me wonder who said so. Would it not be better to rephrase?

  Yes wonder too. Its there to emphasise that whoever commissioned these works had deep pockets indeed. Will mull over. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Its codex are --> codices is the plural but not sure whether you want plural or singular

Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• presumably for high-ranking members of society, art historians assumed for the court of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold; --> this doesn't flow very well I think, and ending with a ; doesn't make it easy to improve. How about something like this: presumably for high-ranking members of society, most likely for the court of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold. Given their ..

  reprhased as "They were more highly regarded than more conventional illuminated books of hours, and today art historians assume commission from the courts of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold Ceoil (talk)

• if we have colour and colourisation, should we not also have favour

  Yes done Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• some of the figure's -- which figure are we talking about here? No figure has been introduced

  Clarified Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• The manuscript does not contain any family crest to identify the donor, who, given the expense of the book and its dating, art historians assume was a high-ranking member of court;[7] there has been speculation that it was commissioned by or for Charles the Bold.[1] --> this was already described above

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Edwinin for these, and also for your edits. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A few more:

• Borders decorations include --> or is it Border decorations?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• with multiple signature - with multiple signatures?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• which are probably modern, and found around the corners of the outer edges of the pages --> that comma doesn't sit well with me

Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• The lettering throughout is reminiscent of the Gothic style, with initials formed from gold leaf on emerald ground, and which typically extend across lines of text,[2] and are in gothic minuscule with silver ink, with gold leaf added for the rubrics --> needs a bit of tidying up, with all those 'and's

Now broken down. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• The miniatures are all depict scenes --> is the 'are' here a mistake?

• Yes Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• The most well known illustration --> I'm not a native speaker but I'd write 'The best-known illustration'

• Agree Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I found the font for the list of miniatures quite small

• Used the small template as I didn't want them to be obtrusive, but thats fair enough and now changed. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• It was acquired by Robert Hoe --> is it known when?

• Clarified Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if there should not be a little more about the text. As a reader all I get is a link to Hours of the Virgin. I think a brief description of the content is in order. Perhaps even a bit more about the language, the font even. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. The font (blackletter) is now mentioned in the lead and body, as is the material used for the lettering. Re the text; I dont have much, its in Latin and includes the mass of the virgin, the hours of the virgin, and the office of the dead, which are noted in the miniatures section as the opposite pages. Thinking this through. Ceoil (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Now expanded. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

More very good suggestions, mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice article. I support on prose.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things:

• Bruges is linked on second use in the lede.
• suggest the ownership of privileged and sophisticated members of the Burgundian court." I might consider starting this "suggest its ownership by ..."
• You mention an iron-copper solution, but this isn't sourced either there or in the body.
• "they depreciated quickly" I might say "deteriorated" as the verb.
• "It's codex are largely intact," needless apostrophe
• "colourisation" I might just say "colours".
• There is a "T" following the second paragraph of "Commission" without a good reason for being there.
• "worth more per kg than gold," I might spell out kilogram.
• "and there are no surviving tile or inventory records before the 19th century." do you mean "title" for "tile"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, got these now. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

A small but perfectly-formed article on a small but perfectly-formed book. A few thoughts below but nothing to stand in the way of Support.

Lead

• "a form of devotional book for lay-people" - link lay-people or will it be commonly understood?
• "The text is written for use of Rome" - it might be I've not had enough coffee but I'm not getting the meaning here.

Librarian speak for Roman Rite, as opposed to Paris, Sarum rite etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod - Many thanks. It's quite possible I'm the only liturgical idiot over whose head that might go! On the other hand, a link might help. KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• "and uniquely dark tone suggest its ownership ownership" - delete second "ownership".

Commission

• "MS M.493 was likely intended high nobility:" - "MS M.493 was likely intended for high nobility"?
• "the artwork is of a sophisticated and unusual taste, and the unusual colour of pages" - to avoid repetition, perhaps, "the artwork is of a sophisticated and unusual taste, and the uncommon colour of the pages"?
• "commissioned by the courts of Philip the Bold and Philip the Good" - plural "courts" assuming they weren't the same?
• "Kaiser Maximilian I observed of the Burgundian rulers" - your period not mine, but isn't Max more commonly known, at least in the English-speaking world, as the Emperor rather than Kaiser?

Attribution

• "while the angular and linear manner of the figure's clothes" - aren't we talking about more than one figure, i.e. "the figures' clothes (or clothing)"?
• "Most art historians date it as as after 1475 based on stylistically and paleographically similarities" - remove double "as" and, for it to agree, perhaps, "Most art historians date it as after 1475 based on stylistic and paleographic similarities"?

Contents

• "The blues were formed from a number of mixtures of ingredients, each allowing varying depths and varieties of colour" - perhaps, "The blues were formed from different mixtures of ingredients, each allowing varying depths and varieties of colour"?
• "the latter are similar in style to those found in the Viennese Hours" - do the Viennese hours need an introduction? We haven't heard of them before. There doesn't seem to be a bluelink, unfortunately.
• "It was rebound in the 19th century for the then owner Nicholas Yemenzi" - insert "the".
• "The book is stamped with multiple signatures around the corners of the outer edges of the pages, but these are probably modern". - Insert "these are"?
• "They mostly center around the the Mass of the Virgin" - insert "t".

Miniatures

• "Mary, wearing a wimpled veil, and St John stand to the left of the foot of the cross." - insert comma , and "to".
• "To their right are two gesturing mourners whose facial expressions convey a sense of deep sadness and loss" - plural "expressions".
• "as evidencing the "unusual, exquisite and precious overall effect of that is generated by using the technique of fixing an illumination on a piece of black dyed parchment"" - the quote doesn't read quite right to me. Is the "of that is" redundant?
• "Folio 50v: Nativity ("Hours of the Virgin: Prime")" - should this read "Folio 50v: Nativity (opposite "Hours of the Virgin: Prime")", as the others do?

Other

• Note 1 is a footnote, whereas the others are all citations. Should they be split out into two sections, Footnotes and References?
• Should the book page numbers not read, e.g. 9 Walther, p.363? Just ignore me if I'm wrong. MoS isn't my strongest suit.

A very nice article indeed. KJP1 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why thank you, and for the close reading and review. Agree with all the above obv, and re Note 1 I've removed for now but may reintroduce in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Johnbod

• "The Black Hours, MS M.493 (also known as the Morgan Black Hours) is an illuminated book of hours (a form of devotional book for lay-people), thought to have originated in Bruges c. 1475–80." - the right things to say, but 2 lots of () breaks the flow.

  Yes, now simplified.

• the "Roman Rite|use of Rome" - I doubt KJP1 will be the only reader unfamiliar with this form - maybe "Roman Rite|Roman version of the texts" or something.

  Your change is much better. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm also fiddling as I go - changed dates to "The books date from about 1455–80" (per the group article now) which better fits what follows. "Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany" (c. 1503–8)" - apart from the odd way of putting the date, this isn't a Black books of hours in the way described, nor listed at that article. You can see from the beautiful page by page online version that the text pages are normal, but the full-page miniatures have a plain black border outside a gold frame with lettering. They give the date as 1505-1510, I see. Are we confusing with another book of hers? From the article:"In all, four books of hours belonging to Anne survive, including the Très Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne (BnF Ms nouv. acq. 3120) of about 1498, another with the same name in the Morgan Library in New York (M. 50), and the Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne (BnF Ms nouv. acq. 3027) of around 1503." Mind you, she was only born in 1477, but perhaps Morgan M. 50 was 2nd-hand?

  It seems to be the correct book, with the designation based on "borders with black paint". I'm looking into this for the last half hour, and the parent article, yes needs work. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• "The book is stamped with multiple signatures around the corners of the outer edges of the pages, but these are probably modern." What's this about - can't see it in the ref given, although the PDF typed notes mention the monogram of Yemenzi, who had the rebinding done. According to the top of p.2, the Latin shows the book was written for a man, btw, which should be mentioned.

• Yes, most of the other black books were written for women. Presumably "pro me peccatore" contains a gender indication. Will check with Liz when she is back home later. Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Apparently not, but the claim re a man is in the article now. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• "stamped with multiple signatures" now "The corners of the outer edges of the pages contain a number of modern signatures of previous owners, including the monogram of Yemenzi" (who is mentioned above). Ceoil (talk)

What's the ref for the other "modern signatures"? Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Has been cut. Ceoil (talk)

The confusion was between drop caps and monographs. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• The stuff about the expense of blue paint, no doubt true, goes rather beyond what the ref actually says - not too certain this blog is RS either.

The blue paint stuff is covered in a number of the sources; will re-establish. The guy behind "A Scholarly Skater" claims to be an art historian, but I suppose that just means he has a degree or something. The article has been incredibly difficult to write and source; the book is unusually understudied. You mention below the $500 price tag in 1912. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done yet. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Now cited to Maryan Ainsworth and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• ""Das Schwarze Stundenbuch". New York: Old Manuscripts & Incunabula. Retrieved 11 October 2015" - page number please! It's 50-odd pages, & they are numbered. Whatever this says, it's clear from the images that "formed from gold leaf on emerald ground" only applies to the initials, not the "multi-lined blocks of text", which are silver on black. Where space allows, the green background has floral or geometric decoration, which you might mention.

• Ok done (the page number and claim re initials). Ceoil (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• "They mostly center around the Mass of the Virgin, the Hours of the Virgin, and the Office of the Dead" - true, but sounds a bit vague. The Morgan notes have a full list.

Ok, full list now included. Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Let me know if you don't like any of the changes

  They are all very good; much clearer and tighter. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• The Morgan PDF also lists a rather more complicated list of owners after Firmin-Didot. Even in 1912, $500 seems amazingly cheap, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Article now establishes sales from the collections of Yemeniz in 1867, Didot in 1871 and Hoe in 1909. Thats it before J. P. Morgan Jr. as far as I can see tonight, will look more next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

These all seem to be resolved now Johnbod. Re the parent article, am finding it hard to find sources that discusses the black books as a grouping, but am considering adding a "list of" type section, maybe in the style of the Catalonian article on Rogier. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• The M Library has "Provenance: Nicolas Yemeniz (his sale, Paris, 1867, no. 71) to Ambroise Firmin-Didot; his sale (Paris, 1879, no. 27) to Labitte; Robert Hoe Collection (catalogue, 1909, p. 105); his sale (New York, Anderson Galleries, 1912, II, no. 2465) to Quaritch; purchased by J. Pierpont Morgan (1837-1913) from Léon Gruel in 1912; J.P. Morgan (1867-1943)." The article says: "MS 493 was acquired by Robert Hoe by 1909, prior to its sale to J. P. Morgan in January 1912 for the unusually low sum of $500." The Lotus places the Hoe sale in November 1911, and comments on the high prices that have been achieved. The SDBM ref dates the sale by Hoe on January 8th 1912. Between that sale and the Morgan purchase there were two intervening dealers - Quaritch and Gruel. No one says Morgan bought it in January, though both ML sources agree "1912". With 2 intervening dealers, we can bet the price Morgan paid was not $500. Needs fixing. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• OK, article teases all this out now, except for the eventual price paid by the Morgan. There is another hint at prices on JSTOR, also Lotus. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Article now says that the $500 was paid by Hoe, whose estate in turn had a very high margin sale, and that there were two dealers before it got to the Morgan. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. All fixed - now supporting. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage

Resolved issues

I hate to buck the trend of support here. But I have some important concerns about internal consistency and accuracy with regard to the source material, as well as a list of niggardly little reference-formatting concerns that I'm really only including because I made notes about them first. The lead tells me that this book is in its original binding. The Description section (and the sources) tell me that it was rebound by Trautz-Bauzonnet int he 19th century. Its in the Trautz-Bauzonnet binding. Claim in the lead now cut. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) The lead tells me that it is "often attributed, on stylistic grounds, to the circle of Willem Vrelant", a claim repeated in the Attribution section. The source tell me that the "anonymous painter" of the Black Hours "depended mainly upon" Vrelant for his style, but doesn't explicitly state that the illustrator was a member of Vrelant's circle. Have more cautiously restated this, per your suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) The list of black books of hours in the Commission section is disordered; obviously, there's some debate about the exact dates of these, but the cited sources agree that the Hispanic Society manuscript is the earliest of them. Meanwhile, "Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany" is unquestionably the most recent, but I'm struggling to see why that would be considered the same sort of black book. I don't have access to the Harthan source; does he actually call it that? From memory yes! The designition may be in part because of the black borders visable on that book's page. Hold on - looking. Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC) ok, have reordered this, and for clarity on this article, removed the Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC) The Description section gives a 1460–75 date for this work. But the curatorial description cited elsewhere as a source establishes a date later than 1475: "...in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. St. Bernardino of Siena, who was canonized in 1475, is in the Litany." The sources seem to disagree, so "after 1475" seems like the safest claim. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) The typed Morgan notes in fact wrongly date the canonization to a date in the 1450s (I forget which), presumably just a mistake, as the actual date is not in question. I wonder how much influence this has had over the dating of the MS in the past. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC) That's actually an interesting point. Not being familiar with the saint in question, I took the typed document's 1475 canonization date at face value. But our reasonably-crafted article on Bernardino of Siena clearly informs us that the canonization was 24 May 1450. Not 1475. Which means that the original date range cited might in fact be the more plausible? It would be nice to point this at something other than the Morgan's internally-produced document; does Walther give us a date (range)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Walther gives between 1460 and 1475. Ceoil (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC) I have a concern about the pigment-cost section. Not so much the value of ultramarine at the time, which is adequately sourced, but rather confirmation that the illustrations in this manuscript actually used ultramarine. If that claim is confirmed in Walther, some rearrangement of citation tags may be in order. Otherwise, perhaps I overlooked it in Blue? There's certainly no explicit mention of ultramarine in the curatorial description. Now linked to Walther, but the ultramarine is one of its foundation characteristics? Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC) The source cited for the influence of Liévin van Lathem doesn't mention him. Instead, the text quoted in this article begins with "As in the work of Vrelant..." rather than any reference to van Lathem. Walther to the rescue again. Added. Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC) A duplicate link to Black Hours of Galeazzo Maria Sforza appears in Description (duplicating the link in the Commission section). Ok, removed Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) The list of miniatures is referenced to the Morgan Library's thumbnail gallery of images from the manuscript; this page does not identify the miniatures. The list of miniatures is available from the curatorial description, and the individual entries (with their facing page) can be referenced to the Morgan Library's speficic pages for each manuscript page. That's clearly a lot more work, but right now, an important part of this article is technically unsupported by its reference. Good call. Now referenced to the curatorial description (for the chronological list) and the Morgan (for images leading titled sub-pages). Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) The Schoenberg Institute's transaction record does nothing to justify the description of the $500 sale price as "unusually low". It was that, but the cited source doesn't support the claim. Frustratingly so! I suppose it should be obvious so removed. I think wiki has a "in today's money" so will find and try that. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Done - about $12,700 to you and me. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Citation templates are by no means required, and editors are welcome, as you've done here, to roll your own, as it were. However, FA criteria still require consistent formatting, which means it's nitpicking time. When multiple sources are used to cite a single claim or sentence, convention is that they should be referenced such that they appear in numerical order. For example, at the end of Description as of this writing, a sentence is cited to [9][4], which should be reversed. Ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) There's still a few of these. Last sentence in Description, list of the illuminations, sale to Ambroise Firmin-Didot. For what its worth, this is my least favorite nit to pick, but I don't make the MOS guidelines. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Guidelines being the operative word. The world has serious problems besides the numerical ordering of citations. Ceoil (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Done however. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC) The Old Manuscripts & Incunabula reference is incorrectly formatted in several ways. In particular, the title of the work is not Old Manuscripts & Incunabula; rather, that is the publisher (specifically, the name of the company responsible for the facsimile editions being discussed in this work). The title is Book of Hours. I wouldn't consider this a book-format work, and so wouldn't give it a publication location, but your mileage may vary, and I won't consider that an objectionable detail. Done Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC) There's some formatting issues there now, including some errant italicization. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Fixed Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC) The Penn Libraries source isn't directly published by Penn Libraries. Rather, it is from Penn Libraries Manuscripts, a tumblr blog. That said, this particular blog is managed by the Schoenberg Institute for Manuscript Studies at the University of Pennsylvania Libraries, and has some stated editorial control. Even if it were considered self-published, it clearly meets the exceptions of WP:SPS. That said, the name still needs to be adjusted. Also, it has a listed publication date: 5 October 2016. Finally, there's an extraneous comma in the retrieval date. Both now sorted. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC) If you're going to give publisher locations for sources like the Faksimile Verlag web source (which I don't think are particularly well-supported by general practice), then you need to ensure the formatting matches the formatting you use elsewhere. Here, that would be: Simbach am Inn, Germany: Faksimile Verlag. Regardless, this needs to indicate that the reference is in German. Ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) The first Morgan Library source is a curatorial description, to be certain, but it isn't in any way titled "Curatorial Description" and so shouldn't be presented that way in the notes. Based on reviewing the source, I'd suggest "House of the Virgin. Rome. XV cent. M.493" as the title. Done Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC) The Brinkmann source is not formatted in a way consistent with anything else. Grove Art Online is the website, and should probably be italicized. Oxford University Press, if included, is the publisher. Grove italicised. Oxford University Press should be and is included as publisher. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Your footnote to Ainsworth is not formatted like the others. Ok, have changed the others to be more like Ainsworth. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) The Ainsworth note lacks "p. " Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC) The Bousmanne and Wieck sources do not appear to be used in the article. If that's the case, they should be removed. Separetaly, I have no idea what that Bousmanne source is; if it is a book, it is missing an ISBN. In any case, I'm not immediately able to locate or identify it. Ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) As far as I can tell, the Jenni and Thoss book's publisher is Insel Verlag, not Kommentar zur Faksimile-Ausgabe. The reference needs to indicate the work is in German. Ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC) The ISBN for the Walther book appears to be for an edition (the only edition?) in German, although Amazon shows me a very English-language front cover photo. Can you confirm both the ISBN and the language of this source? ISBN now leading to the edition I bought a few years ago. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) In any case, I think there are some substantial problems with this article as it stands. I'm not foreclosed on the idea that they can be corrected as part of the FA candidacy process, but there are more serious issues here than the reference formatting quibbles I normally focus on, and so I feel I have no choice other than to directly oppose promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Squeamish Ossifrage, this a very detailed and informed review, and thanks. Working through point by point. I think about 78% of the way. Indeed Citation templates are by no means required. Only 1 support so far. Do you want to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Details about why it is interesting that the book was produced for a man would be valuable, along with how the text indicates that (the answer there is that the "pro me peccatore" inscription uses the masculine form of the Latin noun; there's probably enough in the curatorial description to support this claim).

• The audience for similar works were usually female, as can be inferred from the book titles. Thanks and will incorporate your observation of the curatorial description. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if it is worth saying anything more here, such as mentioning the Latin inscription, perhaps in a footnote? I'm not sure this is a hill I'm interested in dying on. At your discretion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think its worth dying on certainly. Johnbod brought it up above, and it raises interesting questions. Unfortunately am off to sleep now, but for sure will revisit this...will ping you when have figured out. Ceoil (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Clarity added Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think that addition is good. However, the start of the second paragraph in Attribution doesn't flow very well right now from a prose standpoint. I might begin with the sentence "The artists ... circumstances of its commission." Then the bit about the Latin suggestion a male owner, followed with the bit about the Burgundian Dukes' workshop. That way the paragraph introduces the limitation of knowledge, then gives the exceptions of what we do know, which feels like it would be less disjointed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, agree and impemented. Much better. Ceoil (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Based again on the curatorial description, this manuscript was apparently exhibited at the Exposition internationale coloniale, maritime et d'art flamand in Antwerp in 1930 (often, and with reason, shortened to Exposition Anvers 1930), which could probably be mentioned in the manuscript's provenance (and which might suggest further sources?— I'm not sure how comprehensive records were from that exposition). Several other exhibitions appear to list this manuscript in their catalogs based on the bibliography provided in that source: the Morgan Library's 50th anniversary exhibition in 1957, an exhibition in Brussels in 1959, and one in Bruges in 1981, for example. I suspect that it would take a bit of legwork to scrounge up these exhibition catalogs, but with such a narrow topic, with limited sources available, I'm tempted to view that as a comprehensiveness concern. Others may take a different stance on the topic.

• I dont particularly care so much about exhibition history unless it connects with provenance or accelerates the works "acclaim"; it didn't here. the danger is a list, and I am fine with adding these mentions, but not not going deeper into the specifics of when and where. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • My thought here is that exhibition history—or, at least, a history of significant exhibitions—seems to be commonplace in FA-level painting articles (e.g. After the Deluge (painting), The Raft of the Medusa). I'm not aware of any current FA manuscript articles, but I can only assume that the same would apply, to the extent that sources support doing so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Well you did say that "I'm tempted to view that as a comprehensiveness concern" and I did say fine (grudgingly to be honest), although as I said this is often used as a pretext for padding in art articles, unless the the shows were an excellerant, which is not the case here. Ceoil (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Other FA MS articles: St_Cuthbert_Gospel#Exhibitions has a long & I think full list (mostly in fact BM/BL internal exhibitions), the Book of Kells doesn't. I think they are preferable but not always essential. The curatorial notes are sufficient sourcing; in practice most early catalogues have super-brief entries. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• When you're using a title as an external link, the quotation marks around the title need to be interior to the link brackets so that the pdf format symbol or external link arrow doesn't appear inside the quotation marks (as it isn't part of the title).

Hmmm. Have puzzeled over this one, but maybe missing something. Do yopu mean there is a problem with <ref name="OMI">"Das Schwarze Stundenbuch"

It's the difference between "Das Schwarze Stundenbuch" (which is not correct) and "Das Schwarze Stundenbuch" (which is correct). The latter markup makes the external link (or pdf format) icon appear outside the quotes, which is considered preferable (because the icon is not part of the title). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, done Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not done quite right, I don't think. Note that there were quite a few of these, also. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Done right now :) Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Morgan Library source given as "Book of hours (MS M.493)" (note 11 as of this writing) links to the CORSAIR collection catalog entry for this manuscript. I'm not really sure that's where you meant to link, or that the catalog record is itself a reliable source; it certainly doesn't seem to support everything that is cited to it.

  See here CORSAIR: "amed after Pierpont Morgan's yacht, CORSAIR is a single database providing unified access to over 250,000 records for medieval and Renaissance manuscripts, rare and reference books, literary and historical manuscripts". Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Removed one statement. Ref supports re Clasps, interlocking "Y"s and sale to Ambroise Firmin-Didot. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blue: Cobalt to Cerulean in Art and Culture is a book-format exhibition catalog, and should be treated like any other book as far as formatting goes. Which means it probably belongs in the Sources section, with a footnote reference in notes. The book credits the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston as its author, so that needs to be honored. This is also a 176-page work, so a page number for the cited material would be welcome. Based on my reading of the formatting convention used in the Sources section, I believe the correct format for use there would be:

• Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Blue: Cobalt to Cerulean in Art and Culture. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books, 2015. ISBN 978-1-4521-2940-2

• Done, but this one was retrieved from Google books, and no page numbers are given. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, so I've tracked this one down. It turns out that the chapters in this book have cited authors, so that'll need to be included. The information you're after is in Rhona MacBeth's "The Rise of Blue in Europe", pp. 100–113, with the specific fact cited appearing on p.102. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Fixed ref and added page number. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• The title of the Harthan book is not capitalized properly. Also, I believe this is a reprint edition of a 1977 original. Can you confirm the ISBN for the 2008 copy? Is there an edition indicated?

  Capitalisation sorted at least. Dunno yet about the edition; will crawl through. Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  Have refed to the original edition. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Note all done except for "exhibition history" section which I am considering. I will certainly add the mentions noted above, but no so sure that there is a valid comprehensiveness concern. Art historical research tends to be cumulative, and i'm not seeing these once off's referenced often in the literature available to me, outside of mentions of their occurrence (ie their is little evidence that they lead to significant scholarship that was not then reiterated in the later, covered, sources). Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

All done now Squeamish Ossifrage if you could revisit. Ceoil (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for slogging through my concerns. Officially moving to support. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Great :) The hard won supports are the most valued, and have generally followed the most productive set of comments. Thank you so much! Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

John

• What are "iron-copper solutions of black ink"? Are they like iron gall ink? I'd like to see more on this. --John (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  John, will look into this, and thanks for the copy-edits. Ceoil (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  Have found some material to add, but thinking through. Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, iron gall ink, and have added to the explanation of the process, far as I can without going against the available sources. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Black books were more highly regarded than more conventional illuminated books of hours, and today art historians assume they were commissioned by the courts of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold.[7] The Burgundian court were known to have had a preference for dark, sombre colours, and the black books can be assumed to have been designed specifically for their taste." I would suggest swapping these sentences. It would be more logical to state which court before which members of it. Also is it the case that black books were widely more highly regarded than conventional ones? If so, why did only the Burgundians commission them?
• "There-after". I have never seen it with a hyphen before and OED has it as one word.
• The discussion of dating is confused. You say that it was previously suggested that Charles the Bold d. 1477 commissioned the ms, but it is now thought to be later, and then that it is dated c.1475.

• I am still confused about the dating. You said before it was later than Charles the Bold - now you say it is earlier. As he died 1477 and it is dated around 1475, isn't it the same? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've taken this confusion out. There was earlier speculation it was for Philip or Charles; more recent research indicates that it was for Philip, as he was the leading proponent of this dark style. He was dead by 1475, so the completed work may have been presented to Charles. Note it may have taken a long period to produce and the range is 'between 1460 and 1475'. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• An interesting article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Hi Dudley Miles, these are all taken care of now. The 1st suggestion was very good indeed with much improved flow. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from Victoria

I last read this months and months ago. It's come a long way and looks very nice now. I've tweaked a bit, copyedited a bit, added a couple of links, i.e the easter egg to the Assassination of John the Fearless (terrible article but gives context), shoved a bit of text around, etc. In other words, taken a few liberties, (and feel free to undo anything you don't like), but there was very little to do and it was a quick and enjoyable read. Happy to support. Nice job. Victoriaearle (tk) 12:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Victoria. Your edits were as usual spot on. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support

I don't know how this nomination has escaped my attention until now, since it's the type of article I generally look for ar FAC and am pleased to read – especially when they are as concise as this. It was indeed a pleasure, and I have just a few suggestions that you may want to consider:

• In the lead, "full-page" should be hyphenated. I'd also put a comma after "miniatures", and another after "New York" at the end of the first paragraph.

  ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the Commission section refers to seven extant manuscripts, but you only mention three in this paragraph, apart from MS493. The black book of hours link additionally lists MS 836, Bibliothèque de Valenciennes, but what about the other two? Might it be worth mentioning them?

  Johnbod might correct me, but there are two problems; the manuscripts are understudied both individually (with the exception of the "Hours of Mary of Burgundy" and as a grouping. Also, only three of them carry the dark style through out, meaning that there are differences of openion as to weather or not some books properly should be in the designation. Therefore, have hedged as "The black books of hours are a grouping of four to five (some books so defined contain only a few pages in this style) extant Flemish illuminated manuscripts so named for their dark appearance.[3]". Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Description: Could this section include a brief summary of how the book is organised? There is information to that effect in the lead, and some further direction in the list of miniatures, but it's hard to picture if you haven't knowledge of Roman Catholic liturgy and are unfamiliar with the Books of Hours and the nature of their texts.

  Article says "The texts consist of the Hours of the Cross, the Hours of the Holy Spirit, the Mass of the Virgin, the Hours of the Virgin, the Penitential Psalms, and the Office of the Dead", and the miniatures follow the text. I hope the linkage is clear, and that's as far as I have. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The initials are formed from gold leaf..." Does this refer to the initial letters of the texts?

• Excellent spot. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• "It was rebound" → "The book was rebound..."

ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Miniatures: Art historian Ingo Walter is "Walther" in the sources

  Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Provenance: Earlier: "Yemenzi's monogram of two interlocking "Y"'s is stamped on the central panel of the binding and on the clasps." Here: "Yemeniz's monogram is stamped on one of the pages". Apart from the apparent discrepancy, do we need to have the information on the monogram twice?

Have cut this repetition Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No problems otherwise that I can see and I look forward to moving to a full support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, very useful and insightful, am working through. Re "concise", yes think that too. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

All there now, I think Brianboulton Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support: my concerns addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2018 [9].

---

Lazarus (comics)

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a dystopian comic book series with heavy political and economic themes. It began in 2012 and is still being published. It will probably continue for another 5-7 years and a television adaptation is in the works. The article is up-to-date with recent plot developments and series announcements. I believe it is as thorough and complete as it can be at this time. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• If you are going to include information about the television show in the lead, then I would include information from the role-playing subsection as well.
• I would include information from the “Political themes” subsection in the lead as well.
• For this sentence (Image provided David Brothers to serve as the series' editor.), I think it should either be “An image” or “Images” depending on the context. Starting the sentence with just “Image” does not seem correct to me.
• I have also been told to keep usage of non-free media to a minimal. In that respect, why do you think the promotional artwork in the “Production” subsection is absolutely needed to further illustrate a point to the reader beyond text? I do not readily see how it ties into critical commentary, and it appears to be there for more aesthetic reasons than informative ones. If you are going to use a non-free media, then it may be more helpful to include an image from the comic that is being discussed in the prose of the subsection.

• I included the promotional image for two reasons. First, it is promotional artwork that shows how the design developed. More importantly, it was colored by an American colorist. The prose discusses Lark's interest in a European color style, and this image helps show the difference to readers unfamiliar with how the styles are different.

• This needs to be clearer than in the article and the image caption. As an unfamiliar reader, I did not see the image as being used in this way in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

1. I expanded the caption.

• Specify that The Fifth Element is a film and include the year in which it was released.
• Something about the first paragraph in the “Production” subsection reads a little strange to me. It bounces around a lot between different ideas (i.e. influences from the Occupy movement and politics, creation of the character, and the planned ending for the story). I would try to make these ideas transition more organically either by reworking the paragraph or repositioning the information in other parts of the same subsection.

• I have reworked the paragraph.

• Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would change this sentence (When Lark received the first script, he was disappointed.) to (Lark was disappointed by the first script) for more concise language.
• I admit that I have not check either of the sources provided, but I do not really understand this part (and based the opening scene on the birth sequence in The Fifth Element.). I do not remember a birth scene in that film at all.

• I've only seen snippets of the film, so I can't help much here. That phrase came from Lark in an interview.

• I looked at the interview, and I assuming you pulled that sentence from this part (I'd gone through a couple of different drafts of that particular scene and I just happened to be watching TV late at night and The Fifth Element was on. And I thought about the scene where she was being birthed in that and I thought to myself that Forever is kind of being born again here, and it's going to be yucky and painful.). He references the scene as a "birth", but your paraphrase does not make sense as it is never referenced as a "birth" to the best of my knowledge in the context of the film or by critics afterwards. The movie frames it more as a "reconstruction" sequence. See this part from the "Plot" section of the Wikipedia article on the film for further reference (The Mondoshawans' spacecraft is destroyed, and the only "survivor" is a severed hand in a metal glove from the Fifth Element's sarcophagus that still contains some living cells. Scientists take it to a New York City laboratory and use it to reconstruct a powerful humanoid woman who takes the name Leeloo.). I still think that this section needs to be better phrased to more accurately reflect the film as it is rather misleading. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• I changed "birth" to "reconstruction" to match the film's article.

• Specify that Necromancer is a novel and include the year in which it was released.
• I have a question about this sentence (Lark questions Rucka about characterization and the direction of the story, resulting in rewrites and a better final product.). Who is saying this part “a better final product”? I was a little lost as without attribution, it reads more like the writer of the Wikipedia article is saying this.
• I am not certain about the use of small paragraphs in the article, specifically “Lark will return when Lazarus resumes in April 2018 with issue #27.” in the “Publication” subsection as it destroys the flow of the article in my opinion.
• Change the link for “2016 Presidential Election" to the article on the US presidential election and specify you mean the United States election in the prose.
• This sentence (Collections of the X+66miniseries and the sourcebooks have been announced, but not yet released.) needs a citation.

• I removed that part. I'll add the date of release to the table once they're published.

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Does the “Synopsis” subsection need to be completely sourced?

• It can be. Some of it is taken from commentary about the series, and some of it is from the story itself. Right now, I've only sourced the commentary. I can cite the other plot elements to specific issues if you'd like.

• I think that it is better to cite back to the specific issues if possible. I have never worked on a comic book article so I am unclear on how sourcing in summary/plot sections work. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• My preference varies depending on the comic. I cite plot elements in articles like Infinity Gauntlet, which had important developments take place in a tie-in or crossover issue. In a case like The Fade Out, which is entirely self-contained, I treat it as single entity and do not cite plot elements to individual issues. I'm flexible though, and have added them before when asked. It may take me a day or two to research them and make sure I'm citing the right issue at the right place.

• I understand. I think it is fine as it currently stands, and I will leave this up for future reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• I am not certain about the usage of the battle image in the “Critical reception” section. The caption does not make it clear how it illustrates a point to the reader beyond its aesthetic value.

• This excerpt is from the choreographed battle discussed in Production. It is also the only image on the page colored by Arcas, which is commented on a few times throughout.

• Then, I do not understand its placement in the "Critical reception" section. If the choreography is discussed in the "Production" section, it should be there. Also, the caption for the image does not make it clear how the reader, particularly an uninformed reader like myself, should approach this image and understand it in the larger context of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have expanded the caption. I put that image in the reception section so it would be closer to the critic's comments on the coloring and so the images would be better spaced through the article. If you don't think that would be an issue, I'll relocate it. I was also thinking of adding images of Rucka and Lark to the article, but I think they'd fit best near the top as well.

• Could you expand on this point (Since the series debut, the pace has been a frequent point of criticism.)? What is the common complaint about the pace? Too fast? Too slow?

• I clarified that it is described as slow. Unfortunately, reviewers haven't elaborated on that in a meaningful way.

• Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• For this part (Rucka specifically addressed fan-drawn parallels to Game of Thrones,), specify that Game of Thrones is a television show.
• I would include information about the negative criticism in the lead. The article seems a little tilted towards the positive reception of this, and could be objective by including that in the lead and expanding on the critique of the pace.
• Any more news on the development of the role-playing campaign. You say that it had been delayed until January 2018 so has there been any follow-up since then?

• Amazon is showing a release date of May 2018 now, but I've been unable to locate any reliable confirmation of that.

• Then, I would wait to add anything further. Just wanted to ask to clarify this point. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• What makes comicbook.com a reliable source?

• I'll have to get back to you on this one. It's a news site with editorial oversight, but a content filter on my workstation prevents me from verifying that at the moment.

• No worries. If it has editorial oversight, then it would seem fine by me. I was just curious about it. I will leave this up to a much more experienced editor who does the source review for this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this article. I will support this for promotion once my comments are complete. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate your help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed most of your points. Others I've responded to in red. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am unhappy with 1-2 sentence paras (3rd para in lead). Not sure how it could be rearranged - maybe most of the out-of-universe and in-universe paras could be swapped and this then tacked onto the out-of-universe material in the lead.

• Identifying who/what people are helps give context, hence something like. "American writer Greg Rucka and artist Michael Lark had previously collaborated..." - ditto putting Santi's nationality at his first mention.

• ... by the Hock family, a Carlisle rival and rulers of Eastern North America.. - a misprint for "Carlyle",right?

• Many critics compared and contrasted Lazarus with other genre works - are both verbs necessary here?

• Bezner warned that the political elements of Lazarus will not be for everyone - past to present looks odd here, I'd go with "Bezner warned that the political elements of Lazarus would not be for everyone"

NB: I made these changes, let me know if they are ok. Overall I think it reads pretty well and seems comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe this edit addresses your concerns. I added an additional sentence to the short one in the lead instead of combining it with another. Please let me know if that is not satisfactory. Thanks for looking this over. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I think it looks ok from a prose and comprehensiveness POV. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• The license of this image does not match what the source field says:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I removed Rucka's photo.

It can be kept, you just need to put in another licence, PD self if that exists or a similar one, as seems to have been the original one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The original uploader is still active on occasion. I've left a message on his talk page to see if he'd like to do it himself. If there's no response, I'll take the initiative. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I revised this. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the promotional poster falls under fair use here. Its caption mainly discusses the colouring of the actual comic book, not the poster, and it isn't really discussed itself, only mentioned.
  • I revised the caption to relate more to the promotional artwork. While the it is not discussed in detail, I think its inclusion is important to give readers a baseline for comparison when Arcas' work is discussed. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Freikorp

• "ongoing dystopian science fiction comic book" - four wikilinks in a row is a bit of an eyesore in my opinion. I'd unwikilink 'comic book' since it's a pretty common term, but up to you
• You should wikilink nature versus nurture in the lead, and also Worldbuilding
• 'and "waste"' - I can guess that 'waste' refers to everyone else, but maybe convey this to the reader somehow?
• "to grow old without suffering the consequences of age" - so just clarifying, does this make them immortal? Or just look and feel younger? Some more detail would be good here
• At one point the Lift arc is referred to in inverted commas ("Lift") and in another just in regular single commas ('Lift'). Should this be consistent?

That's all I found. Hope this helps. Freikorp (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed everything except the consequences of age point. I'll have to give that one some additional thought. At the time of the story, they're all definitely showing signs of extreme longevity. I think Malcolm is supposed to be ~120, his kids are ~80, and they all appear half their ages. They're definitely not immortal, but story hasn't stated how long their lifespan is expected to be. I'm not sure how to say all that succinctly. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I understand the issue hasn't been made clear to the reader yet. Happy to support this now. Don't feel obligated but I'm looking for comments on my current Wikicup featured nomination if you've got the time. Freikorp (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

This looks to be long overdue. Ideally, someone with a better knowledge than mine of the comics publishing world should review these sources, but in the apparent absence of such an expert, I'll do my best. It will take me a little while but I'll get it done this weekend. That might encourage the nomination towards promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton and Argento Surfer, I'll do a source review if you want me to. JOEBRO64 19:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead – if you've got the subject expertise it will be a better review than I could do. Ping me if you need help. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good from a glance. First comments:

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works, "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized".
  • I believe I fixed all of these.
• Reference 56: what makes Pop Mythology, Comic Bastards, and Comic Book Herald high quality reliable sources?
  • I removed these - they were redundant refs for the point being made. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Reference 57: what makes Graphic Policy and Comic Crusaders high quality reliable sources? Both are volunteer-contributed ("Are you a fan of independent comic books? Do you read comics other than Marvel and DC? Have you ever wanted to be a comic book reviewer and write news articles about your favorite titles and issues? Now is YOUR opportunity! Comic Crusaders is looking for new reporters to write articles and get published" and "the site is open to anyone to contribute. We want to provide a safe place for people to add their voice to the comics community and a platform to do so".)
  • I removed both of these - they were redundant references for the point being made. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Reference 60: what makes Behind the Panels a high-quality reliable source?
  • I removed this source and the opinion cited. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Reference 62: what makes Comics Grinder a reliable source? It's powered by WordPress, which usually means it's user-generated.
  • I removed this, and the opinion connected to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

More to come. JOEBRO64 20:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A few more:

• Just a general note, but some websites are linked to their respective articles, but others are not. I'd be consistent in linking them.
  • I'm not sure which ones you're referring to here. Could you be specific? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• References 13 and 15: just a nitpick, but you refer to the site as ComicBook.com and Comicbook.com, respectively. I'd pick one or the other.
  • The site stylizes it with a capital B, so I have as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Reference 27: what makes TMStash a high-quality reliable source?
  • I've replaced this with a citation to ComicBook.com and Comichron.org. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Reference 65: what makes The Book Smugglers a high-quality reliable source?
  • I removed this source and the opinion cited. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That's it. A few questionable references and some formatting nitpicks, but nothing oppose-worthy. Once my questions have been cleared up I will support promotion. JOEBRO64 12:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• • @TheJoebro64: Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed all of your points except for the general note under "a few more". I need some clarification on that one. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Argento Surfer: I just meant that some citations link to the source's Wikipedia article (such as IGN and The A.V. Club), while others (like Image Comics and Green Ronin Publishing) don't. That's all. Other than that, you've addressed all my points here so I'm going to give a support. Well done! JOEBRO64 20:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Looking back at it, that's obviously what you meant. For some reason I read that as some of the references not linking to the cited article...
      • Thanks for the support! Argento Surfer (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I find the red links among the citations a bit distracting and would suggest only linking to sites that do have WP articles; won't hold up promotion over it though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2018 [11].

---

Tutupaca

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Peru, which is notable as the site of one of the major historical mega-landslides on active volcanoes during a major eruption in 1802 or so and still potentially a threat. This is the first time I've nominated an article for FA status (I've reviewed images in other people's FACs); Ceranthor and Mike Christie should be credited as well if it passes as they did thorough copyedit work on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I did a review pass, but not enough to get a conomination credit, I don't think. I will read through again in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. My comments weren't thorough enough to be a conominator, though I appreciate the consideration. I will also read through again before I !vote. ceranthor 23:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Few More Comments from Ceranthor

• "bears traces of former glaciation." - seems a little flowery
• "One of these volcanoes collapsed in historical time, probably in 1802, generating a large debris avalanche with a volume probably exceeding 0.6–0.8 cubic kilometres (0.14–0.19 cu mi), and a pyroclastic flow." - no comma necessary before "and a pyroclastic"
• "The whole volcano rises from an elevation of 4,400–4,600 metres (14,400–15,100 ft)." - the way you've written this, it sounds as though the volcano is only 200 meters tall
• Should mention that Shiveluch is in Russia
• "The collapse apparently started from the hydrothermal system of the volcano and progressed to involve a growing lava dome,[21] " - awkward phrasing
• Still think the Samaniego thing needs to be changed - perhaps you could list the names of the main researchers? or maybe just adding et al. will be sufficient

Otherwise, I think the prose is good. Support per 1a. ceranthor 00:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I got these; does it merit a dedicated source for the location of Shiveluch? Added the et al. as well~since it's a large number of researchers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Does the source itself not clarify that Shiveluch is in Russia? ceranthor 21:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No, for volcanologists that is probably common knowledge. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine not to cite that then, as general knowledge. It may not hurt to add one citation for its location if you want to be safe. ceranthor 20:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, but suggest editing lead caption for grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Got that one, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

A couple more things I spotted this read-through:

• Some lava domes form small hills on the southern part of the older complex, and the older complex was: repeats "older complex". I thought about "...on the southern part of the older complex, which was..." but then "which" sounds like it refers to the southern part only. How about "The older complex, which includes small hills formed from lava domes on its southern part, was the source of..."?
• The occurrence of trachyandesite and trachyte has also been described: how about "Trachyandesite and trachyte also occur", or "have also been identified"?
• In the "Sector collapse" section, is the source of the two units relevant to the fact that one of them formed a granular flow? If so it's fine as is, but if not I'd move that information up so the information about the flow is more compact:

  The two units of the debris avalanche are distinguished by their appearance. One, which appears to have been formed from the basal part of Tutupaca, features 100–200-metre (330–660 ft) long hummock-like hills, as is typical for volcanic debris avalanches. The other, which appears to come from the more recent lava domes of the eastern peak, has ridges which vary in length from 100 to 150 metres (330 to 490 ft). The ridges range from only a few meters to more than 0.5 metres (1 ft 8 in) in height, and from 10 to 30 metres (33 to 98 ft) in height. The second unit probably formed a granular flow, which is known to cause sorting of the materials within it; similar ridges have been observed in other collapse deposits such as at Shiveluch volcano in Russia.

• Such monitoring would entail surveilling earthquake activity, changes in the composition of fumarole gases and deformation of the volcanoes, and real time video surveillance: needs a tweak: the first item in the list is a verb, "surveilling", as if we are going to get a list of activities, but then we get two nouns. Changing all three to nouns would probably be the simplest way out.
• This project, which costed 18,500,000 Peruvian sols: "costed" is wrong, but this is a future project, so I'm not sure if "cost" would be right. Should it be "budgeted to cost" or something like that?

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Did the first two points (with a slight modification on the first) and the last one; regarding the third I'd think so seeing as the source says The ridged deposit sub-unit 2a is composed of this rock from the active dome and the hydrothermal system. This material collapsed and efficiently fragmented while propagating downslope, leading to a granular mass flow that fed the ridged unit. Regarding the fourth point would "the recording" be better? It does sound like an odd sentence thus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

For the second point I meant to suggest replacing the whole sentence with one of the shortened versions -- we don't need to say the occurrence has been described, do we? We can just say either that those forms occur or that they have been described.

OK on the third point. For the fourth, how about "This would entail surveillance of earthquake activity, changes in the composition of fumarole gases and deformation of the volcanoes, and real time video"? I think "surveillance" is implied by "real time video". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That works (regarding surveillance). Rewrote the trachyte thing to one of the shorter versions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. I went ahead and made the last change. The article meets all the FA criteria, except that I haven't checked 2c and 3. Note to the co-ordinators: I take it from the recent WT:FAC discussion that a "support" should be assumed to cover everything but 2c and 3, since those have the specialist reviews. I'm going to assume that's taken as read from now on; specifically, I'll be checking 1c unless I say I am not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• INGEMMET is only mentioned once, why not spell it out?
• There are a lot of duplicate links, perhaps try this script:[12]

Removed duplicate links and spelled out name in the first instance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is the article written in UK or US English? I see "metres" used, but also "destabilized", though I know "ize" can also be used in UK English.
• "such as at Shiveluch volcano" At the?
• "a pyroclastic flow was erupted from the volcano" Is "was" needed here?
• What does the name of the volcano mean?
• Any kind of folklore or other history associated with the volcano?

The English that I've learned, which I suspect is in part a mixture between two styles. I am not sure if it's correct to say "the foo volcano", my impression was that one does not put an article before a proper name. I think that past is correct for the "pyroclastic flow" since it was erupted in the past, it is not currently being erupted. The only folklore I can find is that the people of Candarave consider Yucamane the "good" volcano and Tutupaca the "bad" one; is that worth mentioning? Unlike say Coropuna or Tacora Tutupaca isn't really that important in religion, seems like, but that little contrast to Yucamane may be still worth adding. Regarding etymology, I cannot find a reliable source for the name - closest thing is this blog and even then it only gives an explanation for "tutu" and "paca". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As I'm not a native English speaker either, I won't press those issue. But I do think the part about it being "bad" is worth mentioning, and I think it would also be worth to go the extra mile to translate the name, perhaps even looking at a dictionary or consulting someone. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I shall handle these two things tomorrow if nobody comes ahead. Bookmarking Pacocahua (Puno) since its source may be useful for etymology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Added the oral section; I cannot find a dictionary that mentions the word "tutu". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - everything nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Maunus

Terrible Tutupaca!
Whose snowy peak I do adore..
The sun itself made by your visage darker:
The stars, the sea, the planet evermore
must tremble at the fierceness of your core!

Mateo Paz Soldán, "Ode to Tutupaca", 1832

Terrible Tutupaca!
cuya nevada cima yo venero.
al verte el sol se opaca:
Y los os astros, y el mar y el orbe entero
tiemblan al tu mirar sañudo y fiero!
-
Terrible Tutupaca!
whose snowclad peak I venerate,
seeing you the sun is overshadowed:
And the stars, and the sea and the entire world,
trembles at your fierce and angry look!

Mateo Paz Soldán, "Ode to Tutupaca", 1832

Just a comment on the etymology section for now. I don't think it is a good idea to mention that means eagle unless there is a source for that specifically being the case in the name of the volcano - there may well be other meanings of /paka/ in Aymara - and it could mean something else in the combination with tutu (this dictionary gives tutuka as "duststorm"[13]). <paca> in Spanish orthography may for example also represent the Aymaraword /paqa/. So what we need is to find a good source for the meaning of the name itself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am also finding sources seemingly suggesting that it is not from Aymara but from Quechua - but I am uncertain if they are reliable enough to trust them to distingiush adequately between Quechua and Aymara. One source says that the word tutu means "udder" (presumably of llama or alpaca) because the mountain resembles an udder, and paka is from the verb pakay "to hide" - giving a meaning of hidden udder[14]. Another source[15] that I can only access in snippet view mentions the "hidden udder" etymology but seems to be arguing that this is likely a folk etymology, but unfortunately I cannot see the entire discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• I would suggest removing the Aymara etymology as OR and adding the Quechua etymology "hidden udder" with the note that this has been attributed to the shape of the mountain. I am not sure how to cite the two texts though since it is not possible to find even the authors name in snippet view. It seems only the page number and journal name can be found: Revista peruana de Andinismo y glaciologia (1971) p. 54, Revista andina, Volume 15, Issue 1 1997 p 501.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• This source from 1862 by Mateo Paz Soldán describes Tutupaca as a very poetic volcano and includes a small ode to the volcano in French and Spanish.Géographie du Péron, corrigée et augmentée par M.F. Paz Soldan, tr. par P.A. Mouqueron, avec la collaboration de M. Rouaud y Paz Soldan. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Anoher good reason to consider a quechua etymology, Father Jorge Lira publishjed a Quechua folk tale titled "Tutupaka llakta - el mancebo que venció el diablo (Tutupaka LLakta the youth who defeated the devil)". Here Tutupaka llakta apparently is the name of a Quechua youth who bets with the devil and wins.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  To be honest, I was extremely dubious about the whole etymology thing ... in fact I'll remove it. I am somewhat wary of sourcing anything to a Google Books snippet view for the reasons you mention, but maybe there are complete text versions elsewhere ... I'll check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  I think you're right to be cautious; it might be best to pull it all out, make a request at WP:RX, and re-add it if when you get a copy. I don't think it's necessary for promotion to FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  The good thing is that the "Revista andina" has a website, the bad thing however is that I can't find any mention of Tutupaca in the relevant pages. The Mateo Paz Soldán story is also here and seems potentially worthy of inclusion. I'll ask on WP:RX about Revista peruana de Andinismo y glaciologia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be expected that the meaning (or proposed meanings) of the name of an article's subject should be mentioned somewhere, whether in a section of its own or not, and it seems there are some reliable sources about it that could be hunted down (WP:RX?) before we give it up. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, we can't really expect it in cases where that information is not included in sources. I have written to an acquaintance who is a Quechua specialist to see if he can help.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think the ode might even be able to bear being cited in full if you dare using one of the much-discussed "decorative" quote boxes - or maybe just as a block quote. I'd volunteer to translate it if you decide to. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  I don't mind the quoteboxes, so as long as there are no undue weight concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a lyric translation respectoing the original rhyme Below the original spanish text with a literal non-rhyming translation. This is of course just a suggestion, if you (or other reviewers) don't find that it will improve the article you are free to leave it out.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Good. I'll wait for some comments though, since it's one person's ode and not a very well known one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say it is probably entirely unknown. But then part of our job here is to inform the readers of that which they don't know. ;) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The author seems to be Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán; if that's right we should link him, of course. I found this on Google books, which as far as I can tell (my Spanish is limited to restaurant terms) is an edited selection of poetry. It includes this ode on p. 415. I'd say that means a third party has found the ode worthy of mention, so we can include it -- if it were just Paz Soldán giving it, it would be harder to justify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not completely clear to me whether the ode is by Mateo Paz Soldán (who has an article in the spanish wiki), since his brother Mariano Felipe corrected and prepared his brothers it for publication. The text just says "I wrote this when I was twenty years old", but it is not clear whether this "I" is the original autor or the editor and annotator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I cannot access that (https://books.google.com/books?id=yI1NAQAAMAAJ) so I'll pass on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Researching the etymology a bit more I think the Aymara etymology is better - the "hidden udder" etymology of Quechua seems less reasonable than the possible Aymara etymology of tutu "great" + either paka "eagle" or paqa which seems to mean something related to royalty or leadership. This is OR based on this dictionary[16], of course.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  In that case I would not include it. If there is more than one possible meaning, I would wait until a definitive source comes up rather than engaging in OR. Is there any consensus on including the ode? I personally think that whether we include it or not is not really relevant to FA status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with etymology, particularly in indigenous languages, is that there is usually no definitive source but often several conflicting ones. Here I think, that the only etymology we have a source for seems unlikely to be correct given the evidence (this judgment, though based on my professional experience of working with etymology in indigenous languages in aother context, is of course also a form of OR- but I think when excluding information we have some more leeway on making editorial decisions). So basically my recommendation is to either exclude the etymology entirely, or to include the Quechua etymology with a hedging wording that demonstrates that this is a suggestion and not a definitive etymology. I agree that including the Ode really has little importance for the assessment of FA status. The Ode and the eetymology is a kind of cultural information that I think is highly interesting and serves to make an article more engaging for the reader - but which in the end is more an item of curiosity than of necessity.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Maunus and Jo-Jo Eumerus:, can I just check if either of you have anything to add here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I for one am happy to support. The depth of research seems good, my literature search has not been able to find anything that seemed like it should be cited but wasn't. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  Ian Rose Well, I see that someone has added a new image to the article after Nikkimaria's review. Also, I am not sure if we've had a source review yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  Licensing on the new image is fine, but captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Seems in pretty good shape. Just a few things.

• "Some lava domes form small hills on the southern part of the older complex,[11] and the older complex was the source of an ignimbrite that covers the western and southern parts of the volcano.[3]" I might delete "and the older complex", and thus begin "which was the source of an ..."
• You refer to a "Lake Suches" and a "Laguna Suches", both red-linked. Are these the same?
• "During historical time," I might say "times" for "time".
• "Today fumaroles occur on the summit of Tutupaca.[30]" I would expect you need a comma after "Today".
• If you deem INGEMMET worthy of five red links, you could say what it is.
• "The Peruvian INGEMMET has published a volcano hazard map for Tutupaca,[36] but the volcano was not monitored itself since it is not active.[37]" I would move "itself" to after "the volcano" or possibly to after "was".
• "This project, which costed 18,500,000 Peruvian sols" I'm not sure you can use "costed" alone like that. Possibly "which was costed at" or similar. Also, I thought the currency was the nuevo sol. In any event, a dollar or other major currency equivalent would be nice.
• "Hot springs on the foot of the Tutupaca volcano[41] discharge water into the rivers.[5]"--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

First two are already done? As is the "costed" one - since 2015 the name is simply "sol" per Peruvian sols and used {{To USD}} for currency conversion. Added a note to explain INGEMMET. Remedied the other issues - is there a problem with the "hot springs" sentence? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, on the last, would say "at the foot".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Looks quite good.00Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

As you noted above, Jo-Jo, we still need a source review for formatting and reliability, and as it's your first nom I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. You can post requests for these at the top of WT:FAC (unless any of the reviewers above would like to have a go). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've posted the request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage

I haven't really done a prose review here in any sense, but I'm concerned that this just isn't very comprehensive.

• This is a 19,000'+ peak in one of the Great Ranges. Is there any information about climbing it? There may not be much, but it's something to look for.
• Botany or zoology?
• Economic resources? I see some indication that Tutupaca has at least been considered as a potential source of geothermal power. As far as mineral extraction goes, you don't normally expect a lot of that from a dormant volcano, but there's at least one source suggesting an economically-significant sulfur deposit at Tutupaca: Perales-Pérez, Óscar J. (1992). "General overview and prospects of the mining and metallurgical industry in Peru". Resources Processing. 41 (2): 72–78.

• And while we're on the topic, there's a terrible Google snippet view of a US Bureau of Mines monthly periodical that Google mis-processes like it was a book (a frequent problem!), suggesting that there was at one point a "Tutupaca Mining Company" mining... something at the base of the volcano. It would be obnoxious to figure out how to get access to that text correctly (and then source it correctly!), but might be worth the trouble, as might sources in Peruvian material I lack access to.

• There appears to be some more detailed discussion of the mountain's geology and geochemistry also. See: Steinmüller, Klaus (2001). "Modern hot springs in the southern volcanic Cordillera of Peru and their relationship to Neogene epithermal precious-metal deposits" (PDF). Journal of South American Earth Sciences (21): 377–385.

But I mostly dropped by for the source formatting check. Because everyone loves source formatting!

• The La República source doesn't have a byline, and so shouldn't include an author field. "Redacción LR" isn't a name. Redacción is literally "drafting" (in the sense of a written work), and "LR" is shorthand for the name of the publication.
• The title of the Soldán work is Géographie du Pérou. With a u, not an n, despite the typo in the Internet Archive's description. The rest of that longish bit of elided text is just the title page telling you who wrote it, who corrected it (since it was published posthumously), and who translated it to French. All of which is nice to know, but none of which actually needs to be part of the title here. In any case, this is a book and needs to be referenced like one. The publisher was Firmin Didot Frères, Fils et Cie. The scanned version appears to be of OCLC 253927093.
• You (red)link to INGEMMET in the body. I probably wouldn't link it in the references, although others may vary (because they like publisher links more than I do...). Whether or not you retain a link in what is currently reference 5, you definitely don't also need one from reference 14.

• Same thing goes for the Smithsonian links, now that I think about it.

• In the title of the Amstutz source, penitentes is italicized in the original and should be here as well. That said, the article title should probably be written in sentence case for consistency with your other journal article references.
• The Begazo source wasn't published in "volume 0"; rather, there's just no volume number.
• In the Hancco source, I'm pretty sure I'd stick Diario Correo as the |work (italicizing it) rather than |agency (not).
• Reference 46 uses a different field for "La República" than reference 3 does, which makes the latter in normal face, and the former italicized. You probably want to match the former here.
• I really have no idea what works you put in the Sources section versus placing in the References. Typically, I'm accustomed to book-form sources getting the separate treatment. But really, you can do this however you want, as long as there's a consistently-applied rule. Is there a consistenly applied rule?
• The Pauccara and Matsuda source should basically be formatted like a journal article rather than like a book. Its title should be in sentence case. The journal should be given as Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2015, which you probably think looks ungrammatical, and so do I, but that's what the source insists is correct. The publisher (of the proceedings themselves, rather than the sponsor of the research) is actually Stanford University rather than INGEMMET, but publishers are generally omitted for journal articles anyway.
• Why are your external links included? Are they reliable sources that add information not already covered by the article? If so, why aren't they references? If not, how do they benefit readers?

At this point, I'm leaning oppose. There's nothing wrong with short articles about narrow subjects reaching FA status when they reflect a comprehensive summary of the topic, but I'm somewhat dubious that this is all there is to say about this mountain. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: I'll action these issues later (I don't think they should be difficult to resolve, so as long as botany and zoology stuff can be sourced to general Andes sources as there is no Tutupaca-specific info that I can find), but answering a few questions:

• You won't see any climbing history - I've looked around and I can't find any reliable sources claiming anything beyond "this person climbed Tutupaca under a certain weather condition", and no claims of being "first" or anything.
• That Google Books link indicates to me that this "Tutupaca Mining Co." does not necessarily share anything with this mountain other than the name. I also notice that nowhere else does such a "Tutupaca Mining" seem to exist, not even when translating or slighly modifying the name. I'd thus leave it off.
• The references section is for the citations proper. If I use more than one page from a source - such as the lengthy journal articles - I list them in the sources section, with the references section merely showing the brief harv reference.
• For the external links, they aren't used as sources because in the first link I am not sure how reliable it is and most of the information they have that isn't in the article is pedantic small details that don't belong even in a featured article.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Actioned the citation issues. I've left the journal titles in the same case as the actual journals use, unless sentence case is preferred even then. The GVP link is autoformatted by the citation template so I left it. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Subsequently: Added some material on vegetation. Can't find anything specific for zoology, makes sense since animal life is less conspicuous and unlikely to be discussed in the context of a specific mountain. I see that https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895981101000335 is now used in the article. Some more time needed for good geothermal power sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Added some more geothermal information, unlike El Tatio there is little even in local news media. I have refrained from using http://siar.regiontacna.gob.pe/ponencias/pdfs/Exposicion%20%20Tacna_Junio.pdf since their math is off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Most of this looks taken care of. As a couple quick add-ons:

• The first appearance of Candarave is now in §Oral tradition, but it's not linked there; that should be, and the corresponding appearance in §Geology and geomorphology delinked. Likewise Yucamane. Is this oral tradition associated with a specific ethnic group (such as, perhaps, the Aymara people)? Basically, anything to make "the people" less vague here, if possible.
• There are a few hyphens used incorrectly in place of en dashes ("2003-2012" in §Vegetation; "Ilo-Desaguadero" and "Tacna-Tarata-Candarave" in §Hazards).
• "Predates" in Note f doesn't need to be hyphenated.

I'm sad that there really doesn't appear to be any RS climbing history or significant zoology discussion, but after trying to do better myself, I'm willing to concede that you're right and there just aren't sources to go to. It's not a comprehensiveness failure when topics are elided by our sources. Accordingly, moving to conditional support (assuming the last few issues are addressed, which I'm sure they will be). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Got all the issues fixed, there. The source does not specify "Aymara" or "Quechua", simply "Candarave", probably because it's a location-bound myth rather than an ethnic one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

I verified the text against the sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing just before the nomination, and I've been watching the changes since then, so I can testify that the article passes these checks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2018 [17].

---

Australian Air Corps

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Presenting a neglected formation of the Australian military (so neglected it didn't even have an article on WP till recently)... The Australian Air Corps has always been the poorer relation of the Australian Flying Corps of World War I and the Royal Australian Air Force formed in 1921, but between the disbandment of the AFC and the establishment of the RAAF, Australia's military air personnel needed a home, and that was provided by the short-lived AAC. Though always a stop-gap, it turned out to be a pretty successful venture -- rather than simply remain in a holding pattern, its personnel undertook some pioneering flights, one of which has been credited as marking the birth of aviation medicine in Australia. Most importantly, the corps laid the foundations for a permanent Australian air force. Not a long article but I think comprehensive given the subject's brief existence -- have at it! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review from Factotem

A few minor observations

• For Newton's Australian Air Aces", the full title appears to be "Australian Air Aces : Australian Fighter Pilots in Combat".
  • Done.
• The edition of Stephens's The Royal Australian Air Force: A History appears to have been published by the Melbourne branch of the OUP.
  • Done.
• There is a mix of ISBN-13 and ISBN-10; I understand that it's preferred at FAC to have all ISBNs consistently formatted.
  • Done.
• Refs #10, #22 & #33 are sourced to The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History. Although you've used {{cite web}}, and this source does not appear in the References section, it appears to be a 634-page book. Is there any reason why it's not formatted as a book ref? More importantly, given the apparent size of the source, do the links you provide in the refs take us to the relevant pages? They're behind a paywall, so can't check myself.
  • It's a slightly anomalous situation: yes it's a book, but the online version is not a straight scan of the print book -- there are individual entries and no page numbers, thus cite web is more appropriate for the version I used (yes, the links take you to the individual entries if you have access).
• Based on the version of the article at 00:58, 5 April 2018

• I did a random check of refs #3, #9, #17, #21, #30 & #32, and the statements in the article are supported by the sources (though in the case of #21, you could probably reduce the page range to 69-71; minor niggle).
• Ref #14 does not appear to support the statements that Cole and Wrigley joined the AAC. Page 36 mentions both, but this is in a section that appears to be discussing recruitment into the RAAF, and p. 191 doesn't really say anything in support of the statement that I can see.

• Page 20 is the one: Legge did telegram Colonel Watt seeking his views on the officer proposed for appointment as the AAC's first flight commander and the other candidates being considered for subordinate posts as lieutenants. It was seemingly as a result of Watt's response on 9 December that Cole was selected for the senior job ... On 19 February Major Brown relinquished the command at Point Cook to Major Anderson, who now became the corps' senior officer.90 In February, too, Captain Wrigley took over as the adjutant of CFS, vice Kilby who departed to become aide-de-camp to the Governor-General. Further appointments in the AAC appear to have been made purely as the need arose. I think those are fairly clear but page 18 also states explicitly that Cole and Wrigley joined the AAC if we need more.

I missed that. I'm not sure why you need to include pp. 36 and 191 in that ref when p. 20 supports the statement made. But that all seems fine now. Factotem (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Googling "Australian Air Corps" did not reveal anything to suggest to me that the article is not comprehensive or a full survey of the available sources.

Factotem (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Tks for taking the time to make such a thorough check -- much appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome. Forgot to add, I saw nothing to suggest that the sources are not of sufficient quality and reliability for FAC. Factotem (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And a few minor observations on prose

• ...because it had not then offered a commission to Frank McNamara, VC. Stumbled a little at this. I read "then" as a consequential statement, when in fact I think you're using it to mean "at that time".
  • Done.
• ...Australia began receiving 128 aircraft and associated spares and other equipment... Maybe "...Australia began receiving 128 aircraft with associated spares and other equipment..."?
  • Done.
• ...which operated in the waters off New Guinea and Australia's north,... Feels like the end of this clause is missing the word "coast".
  • Tweaked.
• The AAC performed several tasks in connection with the Prince of Wales' tour of Australia in 1920. Should be "Prince of Wales's" per MOS:POSS.
  • Hmm, "Wales's" seems to me a bit like the unpleasant-sounding exceptions POSS notes...

Understand what you mean, but I'm not sure that Wales is any different from boss, which explicitly takes the apostrophe s according to MOS:POSS. Also, the exception seems to be based on difficulties in pronunciation caused by the word following the possessive beginning with 's', and anyway the solution given is to reword to avoid, rather than allow as an exception. Factotem (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for belated response... I think "Wales's" is more akin to the "z" sound you get with "Jesus's", which is offered as an exception. Much as I value the MOS, it is a guideline after all and I think occasionally we have to ask ourselves if following it religiously actually produces a better article. I mean for the sake of a quiet life I suppose we could go with "the 1920 tour of Australia by the Prince of Wales", though I still think the way it is now is preferable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right, and I missed that bit. Personally I do not have a problem with the way you have written this, but I note that MOS suggests re-writing to avoid it rather than allowing as an exception. Up to you. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Factotem (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Tks for those comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Image licensing counfounds me still, but by all the other FAC criteria I see no reason not to support. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Just what such an article should be, it seems to me as a layman. Clear, readable, and – I confidently assume – comprehensive. Well and widely sourced and cited and appropriately illustrated. All I can dredge up by way of queries are whether Captain Roy Phillipps had quite that many consonants, and whether "program" is now the accepted Australian spelling of "programme". Very happy to sign up as a supporter. – Tim riley talk 17:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and kind words, Tim. Yes, according to his personnel file (and other sources) "Phillipps" is correct despite looking somewhat odd. As for "program", that does seem common Australian usage, even though we still follow BritEng norms for the most part. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

• Consider breaking into two paragraphs, the second starting with "The AAC's primary purpose".
  • Not averse to this but let's see how we go with the next few points.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• "maintain assets ... pioneering flights" — a bit unclear what you mean by these two terms, particularly the second (does the first basically mean keep the planes in good condition?).
  • "Assets" seems a good umbrella term as I understand the AAC was to maintain not only aircraft but other equipment and the Point Cook base. "Pioneering" is deliberate -- flights not made before.
• Having read the lead (but not yet the body), I don't have a good sense of how the AAC was different from the AFC and the RAAF, and thus what the point of changing from AFC to AAC to RAAF was.
  • Heh, you may be labouring under the misapprehension that things always happen for a reason in the military. Of course they do, but it's often hard to fathom just what the reason is... ;-)
• In general (final point, after reading the rest of the article), you could also expand the lead a bit: how many members, how many died, how many planes, maybe some details about some notable flights, and perhaps something about the legacy of the AAC (the final sentence in "Disbandment and legacy" does a good job of this).
  • Given the size of the article I think we want to guard against too much detail in the lead but I'll think on these last two points.
    • I've added a bit more about the point of the AAC as an interim force pending the formation of what became the RAAF, as well as some detail on key activities. I'd rather leave out the number of members because although we have what appear to be figures for other ranks at their peak, the same can't be said for the officers; partly because of that I think I'd rather leave the fatalities to the main body, and the total number of planes operated is also not clear because no source I have states just how many of the Imperial Gift planes were assembled and flown by the AAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

• Anything that would work as a picture? Did they have a symbol/emblem?
  • Doesn't appear to have been a crest or emblem; as a temporary formation it'd be surprising if there were. Even units conceived as more-or-less permanent can wait years for a crest.
    • Maybe the B.E.2 in the Australian War Museum?
      • That's a thought, except that the flight for which it's remembered took place before the AAC was formed. I do normally like to put images in infoboxes but in this case I haven't seen one that's directly related to the AAC, representative of the entity as whole, and in good condition.

Establishment and control

• "were disbanded, and replaced" — again, why?
  • Sources don't go into special reasons for the disbandment of the AFC, it seems to have happened as part of the general demobilisation of wartime units. The purpose in raising the AAC is mentioned.
• "sole unit" — is unit a specific military term, and if so, could it be linked?
  • Hmm, I don't think I've ever been asked to link "unit" but there is a redirect so I don't mind using it.
• "The decision for such a service had been taken" — suggest "The decision to create such a service had been made"
  • Okay.
• "maintained, but he later" — suggest "maintained; Legge later"
  • Okay.

Personnel

• "to Frank McNamara, VC" — how about his rank instead of the post-nominal, and/or turn "VC" into a few words explaining his being awarded the Victoria Cross.
  • I liked the shorthand of "Frank McNamara, VC" but I can spell it out.
    • If you want it that way the VC should separately link to Victoria Cross, but I think your rephrasing is better.
• "in favor (sic)" — no chance he was just using American English?
  • Well even if he was using AmEng deliberately, it's not AusEng and therefore I expect readers will believe it's wrong and try to correct it if we don't sic it.
• "McNamara received a commission in the AAC that April" — why the reversal? Did Roy King thereafter join?
  • Sorry, I don't understand the issue. King refused a commission because McNamara had not at that time been offered one; in his January 1920 letter he in effect said "take McNamara instead of me"; the AAC did so that April.
    • Got it. I read it differently the first time (as Roy King saying 'I can't join something for which McNamara was refused'), but see now that King was ceding his spot in favor (or favour) of McNamara.
• "Hippolyte "Kanga" De La Rue ... was offered a commission" — if he accepted the offer, say "accepted a commission" instead.
  • Okay.
• "approval was given ..., to cope with ..." — minor suggestion to flip clauses, to "to cope with ..., approval was given..."
  • Okay.
• "According to The Age" — according to the newspaper (e.g., in an article), or according to an ad in it? I would clarify, and also add that The Age is a newspaper.
  • Although it reads a bit like an ad, it's a brief article, which is why I felt it was fine to express it as I did. I'm not used to having to spell out that newspapers are newspapers but I don't mind adding it.
    • Got it. I would actually prefer According to the newspaper The Age" or ever just your original "According to The Age" over "According to The Age newspaper".
      • I think I'd like to revert to "According to The Age..." then.
• "returned soldiers" — returned, or returning?
  • Returned is correct.
• "some compensation" — any word on how much?
  • Yes, can add.
• "they had been on duty" — technically this says that the families had been on duty.
  • Quite right -- tks for picking that up.
• "Wreckage that may have belonged" — just a point of curiosity, but what happened to the wreckage? Why couldn't they definitively determine whether it was from the plane in question? Was it just a few washed up pieces?
  • The source offers no further detail.

Equipment

• "The AAC's initial complement of aircraft included twenty" — suggest "The AAC's initial complement of aircraft included thirty-give airplanes: twenty ..."
  • The source doesn't explicitly state a grand total so I'd prefer to just mention the numbers of each type that the source does spell out.
• "their historic flight" — what historic flight?
  • Sorry, that probably was a bit esoteric -- it was the first flight from Melbourne to Darwin, so will clarify.
• "The aircraft included..." — any word on how many of each, since you gave the itemized count above?
  • The source I've used doesn't break it down; another may do, I'll have a look and itemise if feasible.
    • Thinking about this further, even if I could source the numbers for each aircraft type in this sentence I don't think it would be necessary in this article because only a few of each type were assembled and flown by the AAC (if I had exact number for these I'd include them but the key source, The Third Brother, doesn't specify). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Notable flights

• "Williams and Wackett flew" — perhaps "had flown".
  • Yes, of course.
• "New Guinea" — suggest linking to New Guinea.
  • Okay.
• "demonstrated that the Avro was not suited to tropical conditions" — any reason why?
  • Can add some specifics.
• "Second Peace Loan" — this is a but confusing, what is it exactly?
  • It's in the next few words: "for the sale of government bonds".
    • That says what it's related to, but not necessarily what it is. E.g., it could have been a promotion, that was intended to facilitate the sale of bonds.
      • I think I could safely say "to promote the sale of government bonds" if that works for you.
• "what may have been Australia's first aerial derby—at Serpentine," — you could probably use a comma instead of an em dash.
  • Could do but I felt we'd have a few too many commas around there.

Disbandment and legacy

• "achieve high rank" — should "rank" be plural?
  • As a general term I think it's currently expressed correctly.
• "According the RAAF's" — missing "to".
  • Yes, tks for picking that up!

Notes

• Any chance of sfn footnotes that link to "References"?
  • I do prefer the style I've employed as I believe it provides useful detail and find it more foolproof than the sfn format.
• Notes 4, 17, 27, 32: I don't think you really need the retrieval dates. The references are to newspapers/bulletins, which will forever remain stable; you don't have the risk of a continually updating source, since even if the links you provide ever go down, whatever was in The Age on 22 March 1920 will always be the same.
  • While I agree that a newspaper always exists, I think it's still common practice to add retrieval dates in such citations.
• Note 27: "lecture" should be capitalized.
  • I think article titles, whether in newspapers or elsewhere, generally use sentence case -- but you've still pointed out an inconsistency in "Imperial Gift Aircraft", which should use "aircraft".

References

• Stephens 2006/2001: Why two years? If you're using a particular edition, which can be labelled (e.g., "2nd ed), you should clarify.
  • It was first published (in hardback) in 2001; the edition I've used (in paperback) was published in 2006.
    • If you like, and if the edition was named in some way, you could do something like with Meadows 2004 in Pioneer Helmet#Bibliography, where it specifies "2010 digital ed."
      • I don't mind saying "2006 paperback ed." if you like, as that seems to be the only distinguishing feature of the one I used vs. the original.
• Consider adding {{free access}} or {{open access}} tags as appropriate.
  • Tks for pointing those out but I'd prefer to just stick to pointing out where access is restricted.

Looks great, Ian Rose. Comments/suggestions are above. Most are quite minor; probably the most important is the suggestion to expand the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, as I've indicated earlier I'll probably tackle the points re. the main body before looking at the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose, responded to a few specific comments above. I'll hold off on support until I see what changes (if any) you make to the lead, but looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Usernameunique, I think I've now acknowledged and/or actioned pretty well everything in some way/shape/form so pls see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good Ian Rose, particular the changes to the lead. Happy to support. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Ian, I've read this a few times and only have a few minor queries...

• "...that both DH.9As may not have had adequate preparation time..." - sounds awkward to me, perhaps 'that neither DH.9A may have had adequate' or just replace "both" with 'the'
  • Fair enough -- I think replacing "both" with "the" might work best.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• "...that the Avro was not suited to tropical conditions as its engine lacked the necessary power..." - I don't understand the connection. Guessing humidity? heat?
  • I don't think the source went into more detail than that but will check.
    • No further info in source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• "...to deliver the Prince's mail, which had arrived by ship in Fremantle..." Did they collect and then deliver? Did they fly from Point Cook to WA then back to Sydney? Over many legs?
  • Will check.
    • Actually the mail was transported from WA to South Australia by rail, and flown from there to Sydney by the AAC. The implication is the AAC flew from Point Cook to South Australia to pick it up, but not explicitly mentioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• References - Newton...Fyshwyck - Fyshwick?
  • Oops.
    • Fixed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for filling this gap in our aviation history. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for stopping by, Jenny. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for those Ian. Happy to sign support, JennyOz (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This one is looking about ready for promotion. Nikkimaria would you have some time to do an image review? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Checked images at the ACR, no changes since then. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2018 [18].

---

Construction of Rockefeller Center

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the construction of New York City's Rockefeller Center. It's a very complicated story: the original complex was only constructed because the Metropolitan Opera declined to build a new opera house on a plot in Midtown Manhattan, and the last few buildings were added several decades after the first buildings were completed. This article was created from scratch last November, so I took great pains to make sure the text was as clear as possible when writing it. I took some inspiration from the Construction of the World Trade Center article, which is an FA. The "Construction of Rockefeller Center" page received a GA review from Ed! and a GOCE copy-edit from Dhtwiki. I look forward to everyone's comments. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

An interesting read, but I'm finding a fair number of relatively minor issues:

• "The project was initially envisioned as a new opera-house complex for the Metropolitan Opera." To avoid the repetition of opera, I might change "opera-house complex" to "home"

• Done.

• "Excavation of the site started in April 1931, and construction of the first buildings started in September of the same year." I think one of the "started"'s should be changed to "began". Close repetition of words is something I found a fair number of in this article, suggest reading over with an eye for this in case I don't catch them all.

• Done.

• "Building" is the subject for the second, third and fourth sentences in the last paragraph of the lede. I'd try to mix it up a bit with different words.

• Done.

• "purchased a patch of land" "Patch" generally connotes a small amount, but this is several city blocks. Suggest "parcel". Also, before the reader wonders too much at how low real estate prices were, it might be worth mentioning that Midtown was mostly woods and farmland then.

• I changed "patch" to "parcel". I also mentioned that the specific parcel was a woodland. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• "The gardens would operate" But you use "garden" both in the name and in "botanical garden". I'd change to the singular, there and later, might be in order.

• Done.

• Some of the present day equivalent amounts are in 2016 dollars, some in 2017.

• Fixed, as some of the equivalents used the US microeconomic index rather than the US GDP index. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• "when the St. Patrick's Cathedral was built nearby," It is usually referred to without the "the". I would also remove the "the" before St. Nicholas Church.

• Done.

• "John Tonnele, the university's real estate adviser, was hired to find suitable tenants for the land, since the leases on the Upper Estate rowhouses were being allowed to expire without renewal." I imagine this was in anticipation of some more profitable development than the rowhouses, and should probably be stated.

• Done.

• I might at some point round out the search by the Met for new premises by mentioning they moved to Lincoln Center in the 1960s. You do mention Lincoln Center, that might be a convenient point.

• I included it where the Lincoln Center is mentioned. There may be a better place for it, but I have to consider it more. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• "as well as another property on Fifth Avenue between 48th and 49th Streets, " This is, I assume, St. Nicholas Church. As you mentioned it, I would simply so state.

• Done.

• I don't understand why there was a need to buy expired leases. Did the tenant still hold some rights even after the expiration?

• I changed to "expiring" since that is what I intended. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I just removed "expiring or" from that section, since it now seems redundant to "existing". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• "and tasked the noted Beaux-Arts architects John Russell Pope, Cass Gilbert, and Milton B. Medary to judge the proposals." "tasked ... to" I'm not sure works. I might change "tasked" to "hired" or "engaged". I would consider either a more usual usage than "tasked".

• I changed to "asked" since that is what I intended. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Can anything be said about the eventual renewal of the leases, including the taking up of optional terms?

• I noted that the lease was renewed in 1953 and 1973, and that the land was sold to Columbia in 1985. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Moreover, Rockefeller could avoid any rent increases for forty-five years, even when adjusted for inflation." I might strike "when adjusted".

• Does "adjusted for inflation" sound good? epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• "The Metropolitan Opera was dilatory toward the development, and they refused to take up the site's existing leases until they were certain that they had enough money to do so.[45][73]" It's the "dilatory". Odd and a bit POV. They would not take up obligations they might not be able to meet. Considering the Depression that followed, they were sensible. I might change "The Metropolitan Opera was reluctant to commit to the development, refusing to take up the ..." Also, you refer to "the Opera" several times. The shorter way of referring to the Metropolitan Opera is "the Met". Conflict with the term "the Old Met" can be avoided by referring to it as "its old building".

• Both done.

• "Since the Opera would not have any funds until after they sold the Old Met by April of that year," I might cut "by April of that year" as unnecessary detail and it makes the sentence read oddly. See also previous note.

• Done.

• "Otherwise, the facility could not be mortgaged, and Columbia would retake ownership of the land, which would be a disadvantage for both the Opera and Rockefeller.[75]" I would change "facility" to "new opera house" I think for "ownership" you mean "possession", and I would change "retake" to "regain". The final phrase, seems almost facetious. Of course if the owner of the land retakes possession, it's going to be a problem for the tenants.

All done.

• "plots" (used many times in article). I would expect "lots" to be much more common. Of course, New York real estate may have its own terminology.

• Done, though I did replace some with "parcels". epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• "The complex would contain the Metropolitan Opera facility as well as a retail area with two 25-story buildings; department stores; two apartment buildings; and two hotels, with one rising 37 stories and the other being 35 stories.[80][81]" shouldn't the semicolons be commas?

• No, this is correct usage. The semicolons separate complex list items with commas in them, and they are called serial semicolons. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• "in a layout similar to that of the English town of Chester.[45]" I imagine the shops there are meant, rather than the town itself. I might insert an image.

• Yes. Unfortunately, I can't find a good image of Chester's layout up close. And in any case, the comparison to Chester was drawn by the New York Times. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• " by buying leases" I'm really unclear on what is being said here. Are they intended to buy the unexpired term of existing leases from the existing tenants? Or is what is meant committing to a new lease, either from Rockefeller or Columbia?

• Clarified (it was from the existing tenants, for Columbia). epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• "invalidated" possibly "mooted"

• Done.

• "that Rockefeller pay for half for the old opera house and the land under it, an offer that Rockefeller refused." Maybe, if I understand the reasoning right, "that Rockefeller finance the move by purchasing a half-interest in the old opera house and the land under it, an offer that he refused."

• Done.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• "With the lease still running," suggest "With the lease term already running,"

• Changed to "With the lease still in effect," Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• When you say "site" in the first paragraph of "New Plans", do you mean the land set aside for the opera house, or the whole of Rockefeller Center?

• I fixed it to clarify that it was the entirety of Columbia's site (i.e. Rockefeller Center). epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• You mention, I think twice, that the Sixth Avenue El lowered property values. A brief explanation might be a help.

• I clarified in the first mention that the elevated caused visual obstructions and noise pollution. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "The delivery lane was eliminated in this plan because it was seen as unnecessary, what with the road facing the blank walls of the theaters instead of the windows of department stores.[106]" "what with" doesn't seem to me to be the best prose. And the way it is phrased, I am concerned the reader will miss the point as I understand it: that the delivery road was eliminated because theaters don't have heavy delivery needs, whereas department stores do. Whether or not there were windows is a bit beside the point.

• Done. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "the $200 million cost-projection" I might ditch the hyphen. You do when you use a similar phrase, " $350 million cost estimate" later in the section.

• Dropped the hyphen, as suggested. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "would be relocated to underground tunnels" maybe just "would be covered over"

• Done. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "while the streets surrounding the plot" maybe "development" or "complex" for "plot".

• It reads "while the streets surrounding the land" in my version. Changed "land" to "project", since that word is used earlier in the paragraph. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "by contemporary standards" to avoid ambiguity, suggest "by the standards of the times"

• Have so changed. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "which was the maximum distance that sunlight could permeate the interior of a building" I might say "penetrate" for "permeate". Interesting stat.

• Have changed "permeate" to "directly penetrate". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "since the skyscraper's proposed elevators would move faster." I might cut this. The reader understands, I hope, that a faster elevator will be more effective in moving people efficiently.

• Done. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "in response to Chase National bank's request for a single building." Bank should probably be capped.

• Have capitalized "bank". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "The sculptor Paul Manship was then hired to create a sculpture on top of the fountain; his bronze Prometheus statue was installed on the site in 1934.[150][152]" I would insert "to place" prior to "on top of the fountain".

• Have inserted those words. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "with the projected $250 million, 4,042-seat facility" that seems a very high cost for the times, almost as much as the cost estimates for Rockefeller Center as a whole.

• I found the mistake. The $250 million was for the entire complex, not for the opera itself. Thanks for the catch. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "but Junior wanted artworks that had meaningful purposes rather than purely aesthetic ones." Who is Junior?

• Have substituted "Rockefeller" for "Junior", meaning John D. Rockefeller Jr. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "his father began scrutinizing all of the following artworks commissioned for the center." I might sub "artworks thereafter" for "following artworks".

• Now reads "scrutinizing all of the artworks thereafter commissioned". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "it has been a tradition to display a large Christmas tree at the plaza between November and January of each year.[311]" As November and January are in different years, I might cut "of each year" or cut "of".

• I put "yearly tradition" and removed wording after "January". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "and the occasional hyperbole" Isn't it more usually "piece of hyperbole" or "bit of hyperbole"?

• Inserted "bit of", as well as inserted "amounts" after "massive" in previous phrase. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "the United States Postal Service" until 1971, the United States Post Office Department. So you might want to change that "post office" later in the sentence to "facility", if you change the name.

• Done. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• There's something of a gap in explanation between the managers wanting there to be subway service and the building of the 47th-50th Streets Station.

• I added a short "bridge" of sorts, explaining how the Independent Subway System was planning for a Sixth Avenue line in the long term. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Raymond Hood had died, Harvey Corbett had moved on to other projects, and the other three architects had little to do with Rockefeller Center's development in the first place." I might add "in their firm" after "other three architects". You could remove "in the first place" if you make "had little" into "had had little".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, this is pretty awkward. I was trying to avoid repeating words, but "they ... had had little" is concise. I reworded it differently. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "An updated plan, F-19, restored two smaller 6-story retail buildings to the site of the oval building, as well as proposed a new 40-story tower for a nearby site." I might change "as well as proposed" (a bit awkward) for "and also proposed"

• Done.

• "Hood thought this was the cheapest way to make the buildings look attractive, with a cost estimate of $250,000 to $500,000 (about 2.9 to 5.8 million in 2017[3]) that could pay for itself if the gardens were made into botanical gardens.[156][152] " You probably need a dollar sign or the word dollars in the parentheses. Also, refs are out of order, if that is how you are doing things.

• Fixed.

• " Hartley Burr Alexander, a noted mythology and symbology professor, was tasked with planning the complex's arts installations.[203][201][204][205]" again, refs out of order.
  • Fixed.
• Was anything of significance done with the schist removed from the building site?
  • Not really. This was basically the Manhattan schist that was underneath the ground. It's not technically accurate to say that dirt was excavated. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "Designs for the RCA Building and International Music Hall, to the north, were submitted to the New York City Department of Buildings in August 1931, with both buildings scheduled to open in 1932.[274] The contracts for the music hall and 66-story skyscraper were awarded two months later.[135][113] Ultimately, the project's managers would submit 1,860 contracts to the Department of Buildings.[275] Rockefeller Center's construction progressed quickly; and in September 1931, construction began on the International Music Hall.[276] By October 1931, sixty percent of the digging was complete and the first contracts for the buildings had been let.[135] " It seems to me there is duplicate information, about the contracts for the music hall being awarded in October 1931, you basically say it twice if I'm understanding correctly.
  • Thanks for that catch, I fixed it. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "The foundations had been dug up to 50 feet (15 m) below ground, with each of the area's eighty-six piers descending up to 86 feet (26 m). " maybe "structure" for "area". It might be useful to say how far the bedrock (which allowed the skyscrapers to be constructed in the first place) was beneath the construction.
  • Only the 30 Rockefeller Plaza site was underpinned by the piers, so I said that. Regarding the bedrock, there are studies, like this one that show that the depth of the bedrock is only a few meters below the surface in Midtown. However, the lack of skyscrapers from 23rd to around Chambers Streets is not due to the 50-meter depth of the bedrock there, but rather the lack of nearby development in the 19th century (source). In any case, I can't find a reliable source that directly mentions the bedrock depth under Rockefeller Center. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• " The failure of the vaudeville theater ended up ruining Roxy's enterprise, and he was forced to resign from the center's management in January 1934.[301][299][302]" Refs not in order, if that's how you are doing it. Also, "opened on April 1, 1937,[388][377]", " the opera plans were formally scrapped.[390][174] "

• Done. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, how did they propose to get trains from Bergen County to Rockefeller Center?
  • The source doesn't say, but I think they wanted to build a new tunnel under the Hudson River. After crossing the river to New Jersey, the trains would have probably surfaced around the Weehawken Terminal (approximately across the river from 48th-49th Streets), then turned north to the Bergen Subdivision or Northern Branch. Again, this isn't mentioned in the source, but that's the most likely route since it would have been really expensive to tunnel southward to the North River Tunnels. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "The complex's underground delivery ramps, located on 50th Street under the present-day Associated Press Building,[343] were installed in May." I might say "completed" for "installed".
  • Done.
• "Raymond Hood had died, Harvey Corbett had moved on to other projects, and the other three architects never had much to do with Rockefeller Center's development.[344]" I wonder if there's sufficient definition as to who the other three architects are.
  • Godley, Foulihoux, and MacMurray. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "when Italy's entry in the League of Nations was obstructed by American isolationists.[360][361]" Should this be the U.S.'s?
  • Yes. I've fixed it. I guess the League of Nations article knows what it's talking about, seeing as it's already a featured article. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "and after 29 working days, it was topped out by June.[393]" Since you give a definite figure for the number of working days, the indefiniteness of "by June" is a bit jarring.
  • I added June 17. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "In early 1937, the center's managers approached the Dutch government for a possible 16-story "Holland House" on the eastern part of the plot.[398][399] The Dutch government did not enter into the agreement because of troubles domestically, most notably Hitler's 1940 invasion of the Netherlands.[383][400] " First of all, the invasion is three years later, and the building was constructed in 1938; second it's hardly a domestic trouble. Also, the timeline for this whole paragraph appears a bit confused. Eastern signed in 1940 for a building that was surely finished, at the latest, by early 1939?
  • It was very complicated. The building itself wasn't completed until October 1940. The Dutch government had some social unrest at the time which made it infeasible to enter into a long-term commitment for 10 Rockefeller Plaza. There was a gap of two years between the Dutch government's refusal to take the agreement and the Eastern Air Lines' signature of the deal. During that time, 10 Rock was built anyway. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "until 1958, when he became the Governor of New York.[411]" elected or became?
  • Done.
• "1790 Broadway, in Columbus Circle, " wouldn't this be, more usually, "at Columbus Circle"?
  • Done.
• What is the timeframe you are using in calling things "Avenue of the Americas" vs. "Sixth Avenue"?
  • It's not a time frame. "Avenue of the Americas" is the name used on addresses. "Sixth Avenue" is the common name of the street. It would be wrong to say "1211 Sixth Avenue" since that's the title, but also confusing to use "Avenue of the Americas" throughout rather than "Sixth Avenue". epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "The complex was deemed complete by the end of October 1939.[417] John Rockefeller Jr. installed the building's ceremonial final rivet on November 1, 1939, marking the completion of the original complex.[64][418][419]" I might throw a "Rockefeller Center" before "complex".
  • Done.
• "The installation of the last rivet was accompanied by a celebratory speech by Rockefeller and many news accounts about the event.[420] The Eastern Air Lines Building, meanwhile, was not officially complete until its dedication in October 1940.[421][401]" I might change "meanwhile" to "though". Also note refs out of order.
  • Done.
• " The managers of the property originally wanted to built a 16-story, $2 million structure on that property, but Hugh Robertson, the original complex's sole remaining architect, said that the tower needed to be 36 floors high in order to be profitable.[426] " "built" should be "build". I might go with "stated" over "said".
  • Done.
• "as part of a negotiation" I might make the last two words "an agreement".
  • Done.
• "so that the new tower could conform with the Zoning Resolution of 1916." should "with" be "to"?
  • Fixed.
• "Time Inc. and Rockefeller Center formed a joint venture, Rock-Time Inc., which would share the tower's rent income between Time Inc. and Rockefeller Center.[386]" I might cut all after "between" and substitute "them".
  • Done.
• " (Incidentally, the Metropolitan Opera finally moved to a new opera house at Lincoln Center in 1966 after declining the opportunity to move to Rockefeller Center.[454]) I might shorten to "(by then the home of the Metropolitan Opera, whose need for a new building had helped spark the Rockefeller Center project)" or maybe just put it in a note.
  • It looks better as a note anyway, so I did that. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "Lower Plaza" You are inconsistent on whether you capitalize these words. Please look at all uses.
  • They are now all lowercase. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "Unlike the old complex, Harrison & Abramovitz's towers did not need to be excessively beautiful: there was no person who cared as much about the new towers' designs as John Rockefeller Jr. had about the original complex's.[457]" I might change "person" to "one". This has the feel of opinion. Perhaps" Unlike the old complex, which had to satisfy John D. Rockefeller Jr., these towers did not need to be excessively beautiful: the present executives of Rockefeller Center were more concerned with the buildings' functionality."
  • Done.
• "Complications arose with William A. Ruben, a resident at 48th Street" Maybe "of" for "at". I assume that he lived on one of the small pieces of property that were not included in Rockefeller Center because owners did not sell. It might be good to say which one, if so.
  • I mentioned the address
• Maybe change one of the uses of the word "difficult" in footnote b.
  • Done. @Wehwalt: I have responded to all of your comments above. If there are any other problems, I would be happy to resolve them. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:USA-NYC-Titan_Prometheus4.jpg: what is the copyright status of the artwork? Same with File:NYC-manhattan-rockefeller-eislauf.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: According to the SIRIS record, there is no visible copyright notice on Prometheus (Manship) (created in 1934 and the subject of both photos). The pictures are hosted at Commons, where according to the policy page, Publication requires placing the statue in a public location where people can make copies. A statue published prior to 1978 without a visible copyright registration notice loses its copyright protection and enters the public domain. Additionally, the statue does not physically have a copyright notice on it. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Both description pages should include a tag reflecting this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I put the t":Fifth and Sixth avenues ag on one of the images. I just replaced the second image with a view that excludes the statue. epicgenius (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: Pinging in case you did not see this. epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: All of the image issues that you brought up have been resolved. epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

Mostly minor

• Duplicate links: Prometheus, Paul Manship, RCA Building, Rockefeller family, Radio City Music Hall, St. Nicholas Church, Empire State Building, William Fox, Man at the Crossroads, Rockefeller Foundation, Wallace Harrison, International Building, David Sarnoff
  • Removed.
• Does fn 50 need to be in all caps?
  • Nope, and it's now lowercase. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Move fn 125, 214, 235 to the bibliography and replace with an {{sfn}} template like the other book references
  • Done, though on a side note, I didn't use SFN at first because these particular footnotes were only mentioned once. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Not all the New York Times references have ISSNs. Just an inconsistency.
  • Fixed.
• Why do the New York Times references have little red lock symbols but the New Yorker (fn 405) does not?
  • Fixed.
• "an mass-media" -> "a mass-media"
  • Already done by Edwininlondon. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Suggest linking "row house"
  • Done.
• You've used both "row house" and "rowhouse"; suggest standardising on the former
  • Fixed.
• "Fifth and Sixth avenues" -> "Fifth and Sixth Avenues"
  • In copy-editing, I changed a lot of that, putting all such instances in lower case, unless it was the rare instance of the plural being part of a title (I think there was a subway station where I decided I had to capitalize the street type). It's "Fifth Avenue" and "Sixth Avenue", but "Fifth and Sixth avenues", as "avenues" is a generic description. I did the same for "streets". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• "Esso was one of the tenants who wanted to expand, and the company signaled that it would build its own office tower if Rockefeller Center's managers did not construct a building for them" I like this bit, which is funny because Rockefeller owns Esso.

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the support. I have fixed all of these issues you raised. Regarding Esso, that... is like /r/accidentalcomedy, but for text. If your owner doesn't want to build you a new building, why not build it yourself? :P epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon

Although I'm not into construction, I am happy to review this. Just a few comments to get started:

• cost equivalent to $1,397,000,000 in 2016 --> $1.4 billion is a lot easier on the eye
  • I've fixed it. This has to do with {{inflation}}, though, so I guess my next three replies are based off this template. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• for $5,000,[2] equivalent to $91,000 in 2016 --> I'm not sure this is right. If I follow the link to the source I get back "In 2016, the relative value of $5,000.00 from 1801 ranges from $90,800.00 to $181,000,000.00." Further down it explains this wide range.
  • It was the wrong index. I had used the index for gross domestic product-related transactions (really large figures for macroeconomic scale) rather than for consumer price index transactions (smaller figures for microeconomic scale). epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• 2016 dollars --> if we're putting in all this effort to get the article great, why not make these numbers 2018 dollars?
  • The inflation indices for 2018 are not finalized yet. The most recent index for CPI transactions is 2017, and the most recent index for GDP is 2016. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• I must say I feel all these dollars numbers are a bit disruptive and repetitive. More rounding would help a bit: I do not like $64,779,000 but do like $33.8 million
  • Also fixed by manipulating inflation templates. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• In the 1620s, the Dutch Republic --> although Dutch myself I do think this is unnecessary. If we go that far back, then why not describe the tribes that lived here before colonial claim? I'd start with "in 1686, much of Manhattan, including the future Rockefeller "
  • I removed it. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• when Hosack put it -> what does "it" refer to? garden or whole parcel of land?
  • The land.
• In fact, Rockefeller's acquisition of the land might have been -> not sure if "in fact" is appropriate in combination with might
  • Fixed.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Thank you for the initial comments. I've addressed these, and look forward to any more comments that you have. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A bit more. My overall impression is that it has everything one could imagine being relevant. The flip side is that is very long. A bit of pruning would be good I think, but if other reviewers think it's fine, then I'm okay with that. Detailed comments:

• but he also had two of Rockefeller Center's best-known artworks --> should that "had" not be "made"?
  • Done.
• banned all sales of legal alcoholic beverages -> I would drop legal
  • Done.
• given the article as a whole seems quite lengthy, I question the need for all the detail in the land clearing section. The $250 million story is fine, as is a list of the holdout buildings, but I would just move the details to a footnote
  • Even as the main writer of this article, I do agree that it's long. I have moved some of the details about the tenants to footnotes as you suggested. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• and held meetings with 1,200 of them by the end of 1933 -> should that be "had held"?
  • Done.
• Twenty-two of the mall's 25 -> How about rephrasing the sentence such that it doesn't start with a number and thus 22 can be used?
  • Done.
• $1,397,000,000 in 2016 dollars -> rounding to $1.4 billion would be good
  • Done.
• after 29 working days, it was topped out on June 16 --> how many floors? I think you need to check the whole article if each building has information about number of floors
  • Fixed.
• impossible to build ... making it impossible to create a system of gardens without the use of impossibly -> that's 3 impossibles very close
  • Fixed.
• Columbus Circle, to -> don't think we need this comma
  • Removed.
• originally wanted to build ... Robertson, the original -> repetition of "original"
  • Fixed.
• $93,518,000 in 2016 dollars -> $93 million is easier on the eye
  • Done.
• Sixth Avenue Elevated --> in the Final Building section "elevated" is lowercase
  • Done.
• was long gone -> perhaps a bit too colloquial?
  • Reworded, although I think the previous wording of "long gone" emphasized that the elevated was demolished 20+ years ago. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• of over $22,000 --> which is how much in today's money?
  • Fixed.
• After the completion of the final building --> how many buildings total?
  • There are 19 buildings, which I have added.

Impressive article research-wise. Good prose. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The topic is really complex, hence its length. There is just a lot of literature about this topic, not all of which can fit into this one page. In any case, I have responded to all of your comments above. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Do I need to be concerned about this nomination? This article is pretty long, which can be a turn off to some people. Also, it will probably be a while before someone is willing to do a source review. Most of the sources that I used were either not available online (I accessed them at my college's library), or are paywalled (such as the New York Times). epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not worried right now. There is substantial review and support here, and we don't mind being patient for a source review. It won't be suddenly archived, if that's your concern. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Thanks for the response. That actually was my concern, I was afraid that it may be suddenly archived, since this is already an "older nomination". epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Brief sources commentSources review

The sight of 472 citations may daunt many prospective source reviewers, and I fear you've made the task look even more intimidating, by including such lengthy NYT headlines. Why are these necessary? Surely, all that's needed is a brief identifying line, e.g. (ref 257) "Radio City Hold-Out Won By Two Icemen", and not "Radio City Hold-Out Won By Two Icemen; Pop Was Only Runner-Up In Old Tenants' Endurance Test, Final Count Reveals. Abdication Is Complete Rockefeller Interests Settle With Cellar Merchants And Wreckers Move On Last Stronghold". I can't see any advantage in such clutter, and think it would be worthwhile to trim these turbo-headlines. On a small additional matter, I noticed (ref 152) "RRockefeller". I imagine this is an error, but I can't check because of the paywall. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the comment. I have trimmed all of the NY Times headlines past the first semicolon. And Ref 152 was a mistake that I've fixed. epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

A wise move. I'll do some format checking over the next few days. In the meantime, I notice inconsistency in the bibliography, over the inclusion of publisher locations. It should be either all or none. Personally, I think that the most professional-looking bibliographies will always include publisher location, but that's a matter for you rather than MoS. Brianboulton (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured the sources might have some inconsistency. I'll look at the publication places later. Most of these locations were excluded because they were based in NYC. epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

More sources checks I've looked in detail at the citations:

• Some inappropriate italicisations in 4, 14, 201 and 378: these are not print sources I think
  • I used {{cite web}}, which italicizes the website name. epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Citations 50, 200, 465 and 468: although these carry the paywall marker, the articles are readable at the link.
  • Fixed.
• 201: Untapped Cities: what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • It isn't. I replaced it. epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• 290: Links to the wrong page. Url error?
  • Fixed.
• 362: Returns error message: "invsalid url".
  • Fixed.
• 420: pp error
  • Fixed.

I notice that the bibliography is showing numerous template error mesages. These should be seen to. I'll look in more detail at the bibliography, and do a little spot-checking before signing the sources off. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I have fixed all the issues you brought up so far. Would it be possible to do the source spot-checking by next week, at the latest? The last day of my college semester is 7 days from now. After that I will have very limited access to the print sources that are involved (hopefully I can go to the New York Public Library Main Branch's research room to fix any problems with these sources, but that isn't a given just yet). epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll complete all my remaining checks at the weekend. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Spotchecks: I've tested a sample of sources and found just one issue:

• Ref 201: According to the article, concerning the 1931 proposal for the unbuilt Metropolitan Avenue: "The proposal, which would have involved the demolition of hundreds of buildings, was never acted upon.[201] The source article, titled "For Walkers, a Sixth-and-a-Half Ave. May Take Shape", not as you have it in the ref, doesn't appear to deal with the 1931 proposal at all, or its possible consequences, but with a more recent resurrection of the idea.

• It's pretty hard to find a source for something that does not exist. Luckily, I was able to re-use a source in the article, which mentions that the three-block-long Rockefeller Plaza was the only part of the avenue to be built. epicgenius (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Subject to the above, I believe the sourcing of the article adequately meets the FAC criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: pinging. epicgenius (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• OK all fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Am wondering about the lead - to me it jumps around a bit chronologically. It is almost as if the first para is an overview of the second and third. I need to think and maybe juggle it a bit - I will revert myself and you can digest at leisure. More to come. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'd either simply remove the 3 sentence second para as the material is largely covered elsewhere in the lead.
• Or I'd make the opening segment list the dimensions and coverage and mention building from 1931 to 1970 and move all the rest into chronological order.
  • @Casliber: I went with your second suggestion. Thanks for pointing this redundancy out. epicgenius (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'd make the (also known as Avenue of the Americas) - a footnote. It is a bit intrusive on flow
  • This was actually a solution to the even more awkward wording, "Sixth Avenue/Avenue of the Americas". In the prose, Sixth Ave is mentioned, but so are several buildings with "Avenue of the Americas" addresses. The parenthetical note is simply there to clarify that Sixth Ave and Ave of the Americas are the same thing, or else it will be confusing when a reader looks further. epicgenius (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'll look more later
• It is a monolithic article at 84 kB (13784 words) of prose, but despite this is an engaging read. I know the prose is ok when I unconsciously lapse into "reading" rather than "prose-checking" mode. If you can find any redundancies I recommend trimming or removing....but nothing sstruck me as redundant....which is a challenge. I did think the article ended rather abruptly. Has there been a conscious decision not to do any more building since 1971?
  • Yes, that is when the construction itself ended. Rockefeller Center bought the land from Columbia in 1985, and parts of the complex were renovated in the late 1990s. But I didn't really find that relevant to the article. --epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose, a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Right now, this article has 4 supports and an image and source review. Would that be an acceptable amount of supports, or do we wait a little longer? epicgenius (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2018 [19].

---

Lord Howe swamphen

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about yet another near-mythical, recently extinct bird. It has one of the most confusing taxonomic histories of any species I've written about, so I hope I've made it somewhat easy to understand... Most of what has ever been written about the bird is summarised in the article, and it includes the most important illustrations. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I added the blurb to the article's talk page prematurely, 20 days before adding the nomination to the FAC list, thinking my then current nomination was soon to be closed, but now it seems that this confuses the FAC bot, which will keep moving this nomination to the "older" nominations:[20] I didn't know I couldn't just renew the time stamp here, but that it goes by time of page creation. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Looks pretty comprehensive, just some first thoughts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Could its discovery be split from Taxonomy, given the amount of detail there?

They're very interwoven, though, the taxonomic details already begin in the second paragraph, so a split would only lead to a single paragraph discovery section. Or did you have something else in mind? The thing with this bird is that so many aspects are very interwoven, the provenance, the specimens, the plumage, the names, etc., that it is very hard to separate without "damaging" the overall narrative and chronology. It was often the sum of (usually inaccurate) assumptions about these things that made various authors conclude one thing or another. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I can see that might be problematic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• multiple refs should be in numerical order

Do you know if there is some kind of tool to do this? How would you normally do it? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If there is a tool, I don't know of it. I do it the hard way, moving the refs manually... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps add derivation of Fulica too? Fulica is Latin for "coot" Jobling, James A (2010). The Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names. London: Christopher Helm. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-4081-2501-4.. Albus, Latin for "white", is same source p. 40.

I haven't added it for the other genus names (none of them are unique to this species), not even to the genus it is currently placed in, so it may be a bit out of place? It has mainly ever been placed in existing genera. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Personlly, I always give the etymology of (current) genus and species names, but I know that's far from universal practice, so no big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so what if I put in the etymology for the current genus, Porphyrio instead? FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, after looking up Porphyrio, it seems to just means "purple swamphen", a term already mentioned several times, so not sure if there is anything to really add... FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things:

• "The bird was first mentioned by the master of HMS Supply, David Blackburn, in a 1788 letter to his friend." I would end with "... a friend" as more appropriate.

Changed "his" to "a". FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• " and George Raper, the midshipman of HMS Sirius." maybe "one of the midshipmen of ..." if more than one.

The source just says "was Midshipman on the Sirius", so I removed "the", better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Joseph Banks". He's pretty universally known as "Sir Joseph Banks" and I would so label him.

Done, though I wonder if he had yet been knighted... FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• "a contemporary illustration of the bird by captain John Hunter" not sure why "captain" is lower case.

Fixed, I think that was done during the copy-edit. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• The paragraph beginning "In 1875" might benefit from splitting.

Split. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• "He also pointed out that Australasian swamphens are prone to white feathering.[16][3]" if you are trying to keep refs numbers in order, these aren't.

Per request above, I ordered them all (I usually don't). FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• "and how they arrived in England. " it's not clear what this means. By ship, I'd assume.

Changed to "under which circumstances they arrived in England", better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems full and comprehensive, and otherwise to meet the FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, responded above. Good to have someone with a better grasp of naval lingo look over the article, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Your changes look fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

• I made these changes. Other than that, nothing else to complain about prose or comprehensiveness-wise. Nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, someone has to take care of the extinct Australian birds too, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Images licenced appropriately.

• Refs formatted consistenly apart from FN 7 and 21 (books) lacking a publisher location.

Should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• FN 9, cited thrice and faithful to source.

• FN 15, cited once and faithful to source.

• FN 24, cited once and faithful to source.

• Earwig's tool has a high score due to (properly attributed) quote of Phillip. So ok.

Overall, sourcing and images ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra reviews! FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I should add to nominators that yes the sources are reliable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

This one has been quiet for quiet a while so given the experience of the reviewers and the fact that all checks have been performed I don't think we need hold up promotion any longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2018 [21].

---

Royal Naval Division War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

After a bit of a delay, I'm back with another war memorial. This article is more substantial than most. The unique nature of the formation it commemorates seems to have generated considerable interest, with several very detailed accounts of its construction and history available independently of each other. The memorial itself has something of an unusual history—it took a long time and a lot of delicate negotiation to come to fruition, only to be dismantled at the start of the Second World War, after which it was reinstalled but in a different location. It wasn't finally reinstalled in its original location until the 21st century. Since then, it seems to have fallen into obscurity as the many colourful characters associated with it have faded into history.

I've been working on the article over the last few months, with help and advice from Another Believer and Ham II, and I'm indebted to Carcharoth for his help with research and general advice, as well as to the folks at MilHist for a successful A-class review. As ever, all feedback will be greatly appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed this article at A class and affirm that it is of Featured Article quality. (It also received image a source reviews.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for your help, Dan. How attached are you to this edit? I don't like to revert wholesale but you removed a bit of detail. It's a significant part of the story that the RND began planning a memorial early, even tough it took a long time to come to fruition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • There's a lot in that edit, covering some important FAC prose points. Which month or year did they begin planning? - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Not meaning any offence, Dan, but I'm not seeing any fundamental prose issues there and the edit introduced more problems than it solved. The source says "Immediately after the war"; it doesn't give a more precise date but the RND were ahead of the curve. A simple "after the war" doesn't cut it. Then you removed almost the entire sentence about the RND joining the navy's commemorations, which leaves the reader wondering why it's mentioned in the first place and leaves the mention of Trafalgar Square without context. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Do what you want with the bit about Trafalgar Square. If I understand correctly, you have one source saying "Immediately after the war", but you don't know when it happened and you have no other sources that talk about it. I don't think this is a case where people would object if you want to repeat "Immediately after the war", because that's all the information you have. I also don't think you would be faulted for saying "After the war", if in your judgment it's impossible to know what this particular writer meant by "immediately". It's harder, I think, to justify adding a lot of words to "Immediately after the war", at least at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Okay, I've restored the bit about Trafalgar Square; I'm open to distilling it if you feel it's too wordy but your version was too concise in my opinion. And I've gone with just "immediately"; my previous version was perhaps an abundance of caution on my part. Does that work for you? ​ HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Factotem

Source review

• Authors Online, the publisher of Quinlan's British War Memorials, looks to me like a self-publishing house.
  • I'm pretty sure it is, but I'm confident the book is reliable. Quinlan cites his sources and his narratives line up neatly with other sources. He's also cited or recommended by by several other authors (his account of the RND memorial is specifically recommended by Ward-Jackson).

Fair enough. Given that endorsement, and the fact that the source has been checked out OK on at least two successful FACs, I see no reason to make an issue out of this. Factotem (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• A random check of statements sourced to the Historic England source, the only one available to me online, did not reveal any concerns with accuracy of sourcing other than the fact that punctuation in the inscription of Rupert Brooke's The Dead is not consistent between article and sources. I would point out, though, that even the two sources available online (IWM and HE) are not consistent with each other.
• Googling royal naval division war memorial revealed only a page on the website of the architects who handled the memorial's last move missing from the sources used. I don't think that materially affects the article, and I found nothing to suggest that the article isn't a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.
  • I'd seen that (I think it's linked on the talk page) but decided not to use it; it's a nice glossy website but it doesn't contain a lot of information.

That Authors Online issue is a bit of a worry, but otherwise the sources check out OK. Factotem (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

image review

• File:Brigadier-General_Arthur_M_Asquith,_by_Ambrose_McEvoy.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks Nikki. I've added a PD-US-1923 tag. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review

Following the recent discussions about spreading the load, I am essaying my first source review. (I also do source spot-checks from time to time, and will happily go on doing so if asked.) If anyone sees any failings in my source review, please let me know. All the printed sources are properly and consistently cited, and I see no reason to think that any fail the WP:RS standards. The online sources could hardly be more authoritative, the links all work, and the sources say what the article says they say. This seems to me to meet all the sourcing criteria laid down for our guidance, and am I happy to endorse it. I am not aware that doing a source review disqualifies one from supporting or opposing an article's promotion to FAC, and I venture to add my support here. The article seems to me a model of its kind. – Tim riley talk 18:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• One overlink.
• The only things that I might change, and they're pretty trivial, would be to link obelisk and perhaps spell out the name of Churchill's grandson although that might cause some confusion between them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for looking, Sturm! I believe the only duplicate link is Whitehall, and I think that's worth keeping (it might not be clear from its name what Whitehall is, and it's quite important in the two places where it's discussed). Linking obelisk seems sensible. I linked the grandson the way I did because that seemed the least confusing way of doing it, but I'll happily look at alternatives if you think even that is confusing—perhaps Churchill's grandson, also called Winston Churchill or something like that? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  • You could move the brief explanation of Whitehall from the second usage to the first and then delink the second usage. "Also called Winston Churchill" would work fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

    • I'm not sure if that wouldn't just be messy, since we already have a brief explanation of the Cenotaph next to the first usage. I've added the "also called Winston". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

      • That's fine, but then what's the point of the second link to Whitehall? The article really isn't big enough so that a reader would forget what it means by the time he gets to the second use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I think it's potentially helpful for someone who isn't familiar with London and doesn't realise that Whitehall is a street. I'm not wedded to it, but I think it's more likely to be helpful than harmful to a reader. I'll take it out if you feel strongly because one link isn't worth a long debate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I think that your brief explanation suffices and that the second link is redundant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
            • OK, I've taken it out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Support, and a few comments, from KJP1

Another fine addition to the oeuvre. A few comments/queries/suggestions below but nothing to stand in the way of my support.

Lead

• "which was unveiled on 25 April 1925—ten years to the day" - I'm crap on hyphens but that doesn't look quite right. Too long and no spacing either side? Ignore if I'm wrong on MoS, which is entirely possible.

• It's an emdash, which is a acceptable way of breaking up a sentence (see MOS:DASH for an extremely detailed explanation of the different uses for nearly identical horizontal lines!)

• "produced a design for a fountain connected to an extension of the balustrade of the Admiralty Extension building" - to avoid two "extension"s in close proximity, perhaps something like, "continuing/linking with the balustrade of the AE building"?

• Done (sort of).

• "It was not re-erected until 1951, when it was moved to the grounds of the Royal Naval College in Greenwich" - this confused me a little. It sounds like there was a post-war reconstruction on Horseguards, followed by a move to Greenwich. Perhaps something like, "It was not re-erected until 1951, when it was rebuilt/reconstructed in the grounds of the Royal Naval College in Greenwich"?

• Done.

Background

• "This, along with his work for the Imperial War Graves Commission, led to commissions for war memorials across Britain and the empire" France, Belgium? Perhaps, "across Britain, Europe and the empire"?

• But the commissions in France and Belgium were all with the IWGC whereas this is talking about his other work

Commissioning

• "At this point, the Admiralty was considering plans for a large memorial to the Royal Navy in London's," - delete 's.

• Oops, that's a gremlin from a previous edit. Fixed.

• "Sir Reginald Blomfield—a government adviser on war memorials and a prominent designer of memorials in his own right—" - I think Sir Reginald's primary Notability is as an architect, rather than an adviser. Perhaps, "the architect Sir Reginald Blomfield—a government adviser on war memorials and a prominent designer of memorials in his own right.." - though Tim may damn this as a false title!

• That certainly is is primary notability, but he only appears in this story as an adviser (I suspect through the Royal Fine Arts Commission, of which more in my next article, but that's not spelt out). As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised if Lutyens rejected the advice purely because it came from Blomfield!

Design

• The Dead - a couple of points. I think the title is actually, The Dead III., or III. The Dead, as there is also The Dead IV. Also, the punctuation doesn't follow the punctuation in the poem, although it's confusing as it is in caps. Specifically, Line 1 has commas either side of you bugles, i.e. "Blow out, you bugles, over the rich Dead!, traces of which can, I think, be seen here [File:RND War memorial, London, Rupert Brooke - The Dead III.jpg].And an exclamation mark after Dead. Then, there are semicolons, rather than commas, after "These laid the world away;" and "Sweet wine of youth;". Thus, the whole thing reads, in my 1932 Complete Poems

Blow out, you bugles, over the rich Dead!

There's none of these so lonely and poor of old,

But, dying, has made us rarer gifts than gold.

These laid the world away; poured out the red

Sweet wine of youth; gave up the years to be

Of work and joy, and that unhoped serene,

That men call age; and those who would have been,

Their sons, they gave, their immortality.

Many thanks for another excellent read. KJP1 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The punctuation seems to vary from one source to the next, but we can go with yours (anything for a quiet life!). Glad you enjoyed it—I enjoyed writing it; it certainly has an interesting cast of characters! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

I do like these articles, and find them very moving. Have read from top to end in the last few hours. Support. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Thank you very much for your support. Very much obliged. And I'm glad you're enjoying the series (there aren't many left!). I went through your edits and tweaked a few things and I'm afraid I undid a couple of minor things. Happy to talk about those if there's anything you feel strongly about. Thanks again! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2018 [22].

---

Ficus macrophylla

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to balance up all the animal FACs with some plants. This is an important article in the public interest. These giant figs are too difficult to grow in most gardens but critically important to wildlife in eastern Australia and should be planted more widely. And they can be weedy elsewhere. Let me know what's wrong and I can fix pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Be consistent about whether locations are included for books and how those are formatted, and if locations are included they should be more specific than country level

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Date for FN2?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Language for FN3?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Edition statements shouldn't be italicized

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Formatting on FN14 doesn't match other sources

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Fn32, 37: check author formatting

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• FN39 doesn't need website

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Fn41 has inconsistent date formats

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Further reading should use same page range truncation as the references. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

With the usual caveat about not being an expert, a few comments on prose:

• as an epiphyte -> it would be good for the average reader to get a brief description of what this means

this is a tricky one - if I add meaning makes the sentence a little repetitive...need to think about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Its aggressive root system allows its use -> as a non-native speaker I would not use "allow" in this way. It seems unwise to put them in small gardens, but "allow" seems too strong. Feel free to ignore me :)

changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• although they are more abundant from February to May.[6] Although --> repetition although

changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• a native of most of the eastern coast -> of Australia

changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Moreton Bay fig trees are long lived -> is this long relative to us humans, trees in general or fig trees specifically?

it is fairly long compared with Acacia but not with many other trees. It is subjective so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• living for over 100 years. --> it sounds that there are a few that 150+ years old, would 150 here not be better than 100?

the source says 100 and is talking about natural trees not cultivated ones Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• but close enough so that their branches would eventually interlock -> and, did this happen? If so, any images available?

I drive around these areas alot - will try and take a photo. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• nineteenth century --> inconsistent with previous notation of 19th and 20th

changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• the 150 year-old "Tree of Knowledge", -> where is this?

Sydney - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Aoyama Tree -> where is this?

LA - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• No map?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Writers mentioned are not presented consistently (nationality, occupation).

I am at a loss how to describe Christiaan Hendrik Persoon.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedias call him Dutch, and his father's name Christiaan Daniel Persoon[23] seems Dutch (MWAK may be helpful here). "The Dutch/German biologist"? FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

He was born in South Africa, so can be called South African. His father, though born in Pommern, was a vrijburger, (free citizen) of the Cape Colony. His name may have been "dutchified" or reflect the fact that the written language of coastal Lower Saxon areas at the time was much closer to Dutch than to High German.--MWAK (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

umm..Cape Dutch..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In any case, I think at least a general occupation should be listed. Biologist/taxonomist? FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

On thinking about it, I went with South African, as if he was born in Australia to English parents we'd call him Australian. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Any diseases?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Although edible, the figs are unpalatable and dry." Perhaps more relevant under use than description?

good point - moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• "The type specimen has been lost but was possibly located in Florence." Did the describer know its provenance?

there is no record of that..other than "New Holland" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps add? FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Based on DNA sequences" When?

date added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• "in the new subsection Malvantherae" Is 2008 new? The problem is maybe that it is written in present tense, maybe something like "was moved to the new subsection" would convey it better.

dispensed with "new" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Basal could be linked and explained. Link evergreen tree?

tweaked, and linked x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• "and radiated from 35 million years ago" Radiated from what? Or is "since" meant?

changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Any reason why you use the scientific name in the caption under description, but in no other captions?

no/changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• "has a habit of dropping aerial roots from its branches" Is that what's shown in the adjacent photo? Could be mentioned in the caption then.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• "The Moreton Bay fig is a native of most of the eastern coast," Add "of Australia"?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• "estimated 50 metres tall" Convert?
• Does it use any specific trees as hosts?

nope, anything it can get its roots on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• "that a F. macrophylla trees" Singular or plural?

oops/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• "impressive specimen trees" Impressive tree specimens? "specimen tree" sounds like a specific term...

it means a feature tree in (say) a landscape/field/garden. Not sure how specific the term is. It's used alot in horticulture books. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• You don't state it specifically, but is there a "tallest specimen" in Australia?

someone had one in the article but I am suspicious it was a hoax as I could find zero collateral info online, which is unusual. It is more of a spreading lateral tree than a tall one. Will have a quick look... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is only one image showing a full tree, but many that just show the stem and branches from below. Perhaps the close up of the Balboa Park tree could be replaced with this full view of the same tree?[24] Or any tree, for that matter.

good point. switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Its aggressive root system renders it unsuitable for all but the largest private gardens." Only called aggressive in intro.

In the article body I have used " are highly invasive and can damage piping and disrupt footpaths and roadways" - i.e. these figs are something you never plant near these underground structures.....or you won't have them for long...I assumed "aggressive" and "highly invasive" were synonymous in this context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - that's all I had to say, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jackdude101

• The Malvantherae appear to be basal (an early offshoot) to the group. I feel like there should be a citation for this one.

The segment is all cited by FN 12 - rather than multiple tags, I generally do something like this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• A notable tree in the Sydney suburb of Randwick, the 150-year-old "Tree of Knowledge", was controversially cut down in 2016 to make way for the Light Rail. Which light rail? I'm assuming it's one of the lines that make up light rail in Sydney, but if possible, a wikilink for the specific line would be nice (this is the railfan in me speaking).

It is the CBD and South East Light Rail...now linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Often times when portal links are present, a geography-based portal link should be among them. How about the general one for Australia?

sure, why not? done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything else looks great and I can support after these minor things are resolved. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 01:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support from Jim Just a couple of things you might thing about. For the map caption, could have "Natural range". To me The huge numbers of fruit doesn't sound right. I'd have either The huge amount of fruit or The huge number of fruits Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

maybe it's an ENGVAR thing as huge numbers sounds fine to me.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, no big deal anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2018 [25].

---

Edward the Elder

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Edward the Elder was the son and successor of Alfred the Great. He built on his father's achievements to defeat the Vikings in southern England, and united Mercia and East Anglia with Wessex into one southern kingdom. He has been described as perhaps the most neglected of English kings. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009

A nicely researched piece. Thoughts from me:

• "When Edward succeeded, he had to defeat a challenge from his cousin Æthelwold, who had a strong claim to the throne" - I'd have gone for "When Edward succeeded to the throne, he had to defeat a challenge from his cousin Æthelwold, who had a strong claim", as "succeeded" read oddly to me without a mention of the throne adjacent to it. May just be me though!

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Alfred had succeeded Æthelred as king of Wessex in 871, and almost faced defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. After the battle, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control. In the early 880s Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd, and around 886 Alfred adopted the new title King of the Anglo-Saxons as the ruler of all Anglo-Saxons not subject to Danish rule." - this didn't quite work for me in the lead - it seemed to digress siginificantly away from Edward (who isn't even mentioned in the paragraph)

• How about "Alfred had faced almost certain defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. In the 890s the Vikings renewed their attacks, and Edward led the defence, together with Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, who had accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd. However, when Edward came to the throne, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control.

• Works for me! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• On second thoughts this is not quite right as it almost certainly exaggerates Edward's role compared with the veteran Æthelred. How about "Alfred had faced almost certain defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. In the mid-880s Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd. In the 890s the Vikings renewed their attacks, and Æthelred and Edward led the successful defence. However, when Edward came to the throne, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control." Does this look OK to you Hchc2009? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Edward has been described as "perhaps the most neglected of English kings"" - I'd be keen for this to say who's described him as such.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• "His reputation among historians rose in the late twentieth century, and he is seen as destroying the power of the Vikings in southern England" - I'm wondering if "and he is now seen" might work here; I'm assuming that the second half of the sentence applies to his improved reputation, not his former one?

• Done. I try to avoid the word "now" as it sometimes leads to accusations of recentism, but hopefully I can get away with it here. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Alfred the Great married Ealhswith in 868. Her father was Æthelred Mucel, Ealdorman of the Gaini, and her mother, Eadburh, was a member of the Mercian royal family. Alfred and Ealhswith had five children who survived childhood. " - would it be possible to frame this paragraph so that it began by focusing on Edward? (e.g. Edward was the son of...)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• "so Edward was probably born in the mid-870s" - could this key fact be brought closer to the beginning of the paragraph?

• I do not think this would work as I am explaining first the reasoning behind the date. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• How about "Historians estimate that Edward was probably born in the mid-870s. His eldest sister, Æthelflæd, was probably born about a year after her parents' marriage, and Edward was brought up with his younger sister, Ælfthryth; Yorke argues that he was therefore probably nearer in age to Ælfthryth than Æthelflæd. Edward led troops in battle in 893, and must have been of marriageable age in that year as his oldest son Æthelstan was born about 894." - I reckon this would give the reader the heads-up about why we're describing his sister's date of birth etc, and would also give the key fact in the first sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• "More is known about Edward's childhood than about that of other Anglo-Saxon princes, providing information about the training of a prince in a period of Carolingian influence" - I'm assuming that this is the description given by Asser above?

• Mentioned Asser. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• "experience in royal business" - I wasn't sure if royal business was like royal administration (running the country), or more like actual business affairs (trade etc.).

• Changed to administration. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• "The principal currency was the silver penny, and some coins carried a stylised portrait of the king." - is this a general statement for the period, or Edward's particular reign? If the latter (as the next sentence implies), this should be "the King" as it is referring specifically to Edward.

• It is general relating to the later Anglo-Saxon period. The source does not make that clear so I have added another which does. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

NB...

• I've cleaned up the image of the coin a bit. Some other images that might work well (and look okay from a licensing perspective) are [:File:Early-Medieval coin , Penny of Edward the Elder (FindID 223825).jpg], [:File:Edward the Elder coin imitation silver brooch Rome Italy c 920.jpg], or [:File:Edward the Elder on the Coronation Stone.jpg]. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clean up. I have added the penny. The brooch was in the article but taken out as Nikki queried the lack of licensing details by the uploader. I was doubtful about the coronation stone as it is thought to be an eighteenth century fabrication, but in view of the shortage of suitable images, I could put it in with a sceptical caption. What do you think? See also query above. Many thanks for the review Hchc2009. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

I always perk up when I see one of Dudley's Anglo-Saxon articles up for review. One is sure of an interesting and informative read. I shall be adding my support for the promotion of this excellent example, but just a handful of v. minor points first:

• "Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia with their support" – ambiguous: does this mean "with their support Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia" or "Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia who had their support"? (I assume the former, but it's as well to avoid any shadow of doubt.)

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• "...more information about Edward's childhood and youth than is known about other Anglo-Saxon princes, providing information..." – too much information (to coin a phrase).

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• "The effect of the changes were to strengthen" – singular noun with plural verb.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• "a major monastery for men, possibly in accordance of his father's..." – two points here. First an idiot question, viz can you have a monastery for non-men, a.k.a. women? (Forgive a layman's ignorance.) Secondly "in accordance of" looks odd: one might expect "in accordance with".

• OED suggests a monastery is mainly for men, but two of its quotes are for women. I have changed to "religious community" as monastery is in the following sentence. Also fixed "of". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• "however" – there are nine "howevers" in the article and one does start to notice them after a while. A judicious pruning would be beneficial: most "howevers" add nothing and can be blitzed with advantage to the prose.

• I have never understood this terrible prejudice against "however". It is a lovely word, which signals that you are qualifying the previous sentence. 2 of your nine are in quotes, but I have pandered to your views and got it down to 4. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • They're fine in small doses, but when there are lots of them they do rather break flow. However, no problem on this page now. Tim riley talk 19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Them's my meagre gleanings. I'll look in again anon. Tim riley talk 13:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your review and kind word Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Very happy to add my Support. The phrase "page-turner" seems silly when one's looking at a screen, but if this article were on paper that is what it would be. One really wants to know what happens next. Meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Support by Johnbod

- excellent stuff - just some small niggles: I am reading through, and doing some edits. Anyone interested in saving "however" from a Viking-like campaign of extermination, might like to comment at Talk:Anglo-Saxon art, where another editor has asked for comments. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• So far so good:
• "and the Danes of Northumbrian York offered her their allegiance, probably for protection against Norse (Norwegian) Vikings who had invaded Northumbria from Ireland," - gets a bit compacted. Aren't all Vikings "Norse" - Norsemen? Norse activity in the British Isles covers the lot, and people are always trying to rename Vikings. I wonder if such clear distinctions can be drawn between Danes & Norwegians at this point - the leaders perhaps, but weren't the rank & file mixed Scandiwegians, with no doubt Irish etc too? It's rather like those who try to distinguish between Angles & Saxons after about 600. Perhaps: "protection against a Norwegian-led invasion of Northumbria from Ireland".

• The Oxford Dictionary of English defines Norse as 1. the Norwegian language, 2. "Norwegians or Scandinavians in ancient or medieval times." Historians of Anglo-Saxon England use it to mean Norwegians, and Stenton refers to the threat to Danish-ruled York from "Norse raiders from Ireland". I do not think we should change correct usage by historians because some editors object to it. As to the lack of clear distinctions between Danes and Norwegians, you are very likely right, just as there were almost certainly Vikings who had accepted English rule and fought on the English side. Oda, one of the most respected Archbishops of Canterbury, was the son of a Viking who came over with the army in 865. However, historians speak of Norse and Danes, not Norse and Dane led, and I do not think we can correct their language. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but something needs to done about " [[Norwegians|Norse]] (Norwegian) Vikings " I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I have changed to [[Norwegians#Viking Age|Norse]] (Norwegian) Vikings " and added the alternative name with reference to the linked page. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• If it was me, I think I'd move another summary quote from "Reputation" to the lead.

• Done. does it look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• That's it - various links added, all correctly I hope. I'm afraid my books are all boxed up at present so I can't check if there is more to say about art from his reign.

Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your edits, support and comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Reading through now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Mercia was the dominant kingdom in southern England in the eighth century [and maintained its position] until it suffered a decisive defeat by Wessex at the Battle of Ellandun in 825. - I suspect the bracketed bit is redundant and can be removed safely without changing the meaning

• You are no doubt right, but as deleting would strictly imply that 825 is in the eighth century I prefer to keep it as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ah my bad, you are right. I wasn't familiar with the dates....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Err...what's an illustris femina? needs a link, footnote or explanation...

• Added translation to "noble lady" with reference. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise...looks on track. Reads well. I guess it is complete but am not too familiar with this stuff...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review Casliber. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Image review - the images are obviously public domain, but there are some problems with the licences. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• 2013 is not the true date of this[26] illustration. Also, its licence tags say "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."

• Changed the date but on the other point it does say below that it has a US tag. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• This coin image[27] also needs a PD tag for the artwork itself, not just the photo.

• I am not clear what is required. Can you advise please? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That is actually sometying Nikkimaria usually asks for. Since it is not an entirely two dimensional artwork, there are two copyrights here, that of the photo, and then that of the artwork on the coin itself, similar to here:[28] But for some reason, it doesn't seem to be used for images of old coins, now that I look. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It should be - coins are typically not covered by freedom of panorama, and we usually require that a tag is included even if the item is obviously ancient. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• This coin image[29] needs the date of publication, not the date it was uploaded. It appears it is a photo of a photo? In any case, that counts as a scan, and the original publication date is still all that matters. You list Grueber as the illustrator, yet you have artist unknown.

• I have changed the date. As to the unknown artist, I discussed this with Nikkimaria when she did the image review at A-Class, and she said it was OK as indicating artist as an unknown moneyer. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• In this case the creator of the coin is unknown but the coin is obviously out of copyright due to age, and the illustration is old enough to also be out of copyright due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• This page[30] was hardly ever published in the US, so it needs a more general PD old tag as well.

• Added PD-old tag. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It didn't seem to show what was intended, I've added the tag I meant. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks fine now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

• Hchc2009, did you want to add anything?
• I think we still need a source review for reliability and formatting.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review: All sources listed appear to high-quality and reliable, mostly heavyweight academic textbooks as one would expect for this sort of subject matter. Just a few points on formatting:

• You have a mix of ISN-10s and ISBN-13s (eg Blackburn, Foot ; these should be consistent.
• Some ISBNs have dashes, some don't; again, be consistent.

• I am not sure how to deal with this. I have done what I always do - go by the way it is shown in the book. So do I look at Worldcat, pick a random ISBN (for the book I have looked at there are two 10s and two 13s) without spaces or dashes and copy them? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• The easiest way to make the dashes consistent is to remove them all. As for 10s vs. 13s, try this (it was the top Google hit for "convert ISBN 10 to 13"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Done, but as almost all isbns have dashes I found it easier to add them to the few that did not. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• The author link to Simon Keynes should be on his first entry in the bibliography.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Likewise Pauline Stafford (who is linked on the middle two of her four entries)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• You give two different locations for Routledge (for books published in the same year)—see for example Higham, Nick (2001b) and Coatsworth, Elizabeth (2001).

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't checked the contents of the sources, but I picked half a dozen ISBNs at random and verified that they corresponded to the authors and titles given. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks HJ Mitchell. Query above. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant to do this earlier...got distracted by weekend chores and find it partly done, which is good as I will now go straight to spot checking....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• FN 30, cited once - material faithful to source.
• FN 37, cited once - material faithful to source.
• FN 59, cited twice - material faithful to source.

Ok, all good. Sources reliable too. good to be signed off. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Cas. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pericles

The article looks great, but there are some considerable and glaring problems with quotations and inline citations. The fourth paragraph of the lead section has several quotations that don't seem to be supported by any inline citations. That's problematic to say the least. I would leave those quotes for the body of the article, where they can be properly cited, and simply summarize them for the lead section (i.e. rewriting them in your own words, but conveying the same idea). William of Malmesbury's quotation "incomparably more glorious in the power of his rule" found in the body of the article also doesn't seem to have an immediate inline citation. At the very end of the paragraph you cite "Higham 2001a, pp. 2–4; Keynes 2001, pp. 40–41," but which source exactly does this quote come from, then? That needs to be specified. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, although the following paragraph has an inline citation for the very last sentence, you should probably stick a similar inline citation right after the direct quote from Higham, "Edward the Elder is perhaps the most neglected of English kings." I know it seems fussy, but someone at a future date could split your paragraph in half or shift material around (yes, even in an FA article), and then suddenly it is broken off from its cited source. For instance, this happened in my FA for Parthian Empire, years after its successful candidacy, necessitating a reevaluation where I had to go back and cite things properly after each sentence. I think it would be wise for you to avoid that scenario. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I do not see why quotations should be treated differently from other text. The quotations in the lead are all repeated and cited in the main text, and readers who want to check sources for the lead will need to look in the main text - whether for quotes or other statements. The problems you mention of people altering an article later apply all text, not just citations, and putting a citation at the end of each sentence would be excessive without stopping later editors altering the text so as to mess up the citations. The first paragraph of 'Reputation', which you also mention as problematic, is quite short and only has two citations, both chapters in the same book, as it happens. Do other editors have views on these points? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but at the very least the first quotation, the one by William of Malmesbury, is still ambiguous as to whether it came from Higham or Keynes. Which one? Your readers should be able to discern that instead of inspecting both sources in an attempt to figure out where the quote came from. You simply cannot make a quote and then fail to attribute it to a single, specific source. See WP:QUOTE, WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:CITE. It's not much of a burden for you to properly cite this one quotation, is it? Do you still have access to either Higham or Keynes' works? Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I take your point. There are several quotations in the paragraph, and looking more closely, the whole paragraph is covered by Higham, so I have deleted Keynes. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Although that technically works, that's hardly the best solution here. I never wanted you to remove sources. I just want to see quotes clearly attributed to the right source, instead of having ambiguous options because all the sources are tacked onto a citation at the end of the paragraph. Which parts of the paragraph does Keynes cover? Do you still have access to his work? I would prefer that you keep Keynes and simply make a note within the citation about which statements Keynes covers, if you do not want to provide a separate citation for every single sentence. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll also be willing to fully support the nomination if you decide to address this issue. I know it might seem pedantic, but this is a featured article candidate, and it should be held to the highest standards, including an effort by the editor/nominator that a variety of reliable sources were consulted in order to flesh out scholarly consensus for each major issue. If there are other sources that buttress and support Higham, they should be provided, not removed, and if these sources contain contradictory information, this should most certainly be explained in a footnote. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Keynes says the same without the quotes. I originally included him because he puts greater emphasis on the point that there was a consensus in views among medieval chroniclers. I do not like putting comments among the citations, but I could restore the Keynes citation and add a note that all the citations are from Higham. Would that work for you? Dudley Miles (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, that sounds like an optimal solution to me. I would gladly support the article if you did that. Also, congrats on all the hard work that you've done. You clearly put a lot of love into the article. It is well-written and well-sourced, but this particular issue bugs me. Thanks for understanding. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: excellent! With these changes I have decided to support the article. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Векочел

This is a very good article. It may need some citations, but otherwise looks well-written. Векочел (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the article on Edward's father, Alfred the Great, could also be nominated, but this is just a suggestion. Векочел (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Alfred the Great is a long way off FA standard and it will be a massive project to get it to that level. I own six books about him and that is a small fraction of the literature. The article is on my project list - unless someone else takes it on - but it will be a long time before I get to it. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes (2)

• Dudley, in the lead we say that "Alfred ... almost faced defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878" -- reading Background I don't really get the sense that he "almost faced defeat" even though the Vikings controlled much of Mercia. Could we tweak either the lead or Background to align more closely?

• Amended background. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Tks, that takes care of my concern. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• A relatively minor point but there are several duplinks that could perhaps be rationalised (let me know if you need a link to a checker script).

• I must have forgotten to run duplink. So far as I remember it did not highlight duplicates in the lead and main text before, and I have left these in. Have the rules changed? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• To confirm, do you mean is it fine to repeat a link from the lead in the main body? Yes, I understand that's still the case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes I have taken out repeated links flagged by duplink apart from those which are only duplicated in the lead and the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2018 [31].

---

Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically a Soviet republic for 10 years, the SSR Abkhazia was short-lived but had a long-lasting impact on the region, and is arguably the source of the current problems in the region. A short article owing to the fact that it wasn't exactly important at the time, I think it's ready for the next step. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi

• @Kaiser matias: Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Note that just because a warning is displayed doesn't mean there's really any problem.. but I'm listing errors in case there's something we can improve:
• Anchabadze, Yu. D.; Argun, Yu. G. (2012), Sort error, expected: Anchabadze1998;
• Anchabadze, Jurij (1998) Sort error, expected: AnchabadzeArgun2012;
  • For the two above, if you have one article by someone acting alone and another by that same person and others & that second article has the same author as its first author, the one with a single author goes first. For example: Sen, Amartya (2012) goes before Sen, Amartya; Greenough, Paul (1982).

Fixed

• Cornell, Svante E. (2001), Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation.

Removed

• kartuli sabch'ota entsiklopedia (1985) Missing ISBN;

I am not sure of an ISBN for it. It's a Soviet-era encyclopedia, though I can check in the next few days (I'm able to access it right now).

• Is Lakoba the same person as Lak'oba?

It is. For linguistic/political purposes the cited book uses a modified transliteration, which I have preserved for accuracy. Lakoba's name, when published elsewhere in English, is written without the apostrophe, and transliterated without it when going from Russian-language sources.

• Lakoba, Stanislav (1995), Sort error, expected: Lak'oba1998a;

Done

• Lakoba, Stanislav (1990), Sort error, expected: Lak'oba1998b; Missing ISBN;

Done

• Lak'oba, Stanislav (1998a) Sort error, expected: Lakoba1990;

Done

• Lak'oba, Stanislav (1998b) Sort error, expected: Lakoba1995;

Done

• Lakoba, Stanislav (2001) Missing ISBN;

Done

• Papuashvili, George, ed. (2012) Missing ISBN; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Done

:Thanks, will go over it within the next couple days. Just some things holding me up. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Addressed everything here. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Flag_of_Abkhazian_SSR.svg: source link appears to be dead

Updated link.

• Internationale-ru.ogg: while the composition may not be an object of copyright, the performance likely is

Removed the link, just kept the name of the song

• File:Lakoba_Nestor.jpg: source link is dead; where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It comes from a 1931 edition of Pravda. Not sure how that works for copyright, as it was an official Soviet publication.

:Will get through this shortly, though I may have to do some looking for the Lakoba image. Fairly certain it's from a Pravda issue, and I'll be able to go through that properly in a few days here. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Addressed these. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Reading now and making straightforward copyedits as I go. Please revert if I accidentally change the meaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Stalin visited annually throughout the 1920s and was joined by his associates from the Kremlin, who used this time to gain the trust of Stalin - try to avoid two Stalins in the one sentence.

Changed

• Collectivization was finally implemented after Abkhazia was downgraded in 1931, and after Lakoba's death in 1936 - these are two different dates...it can't really be after both. If gradual say so.

Clarified

Am reduced to nitpicking - well-written overall. I can't see any other prose issues. It appears to me to be comprehensive and neutrally written but I concede I have little knowledge of the region at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed both of those. Thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

All looks good to my eyes regarding comprehensiveness and prose, but I concede i am no expert in the area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from John

• I take it we're in British English here? The article seems to have been started in BrEng. If we are, I don't think we can have "cognizant" or "vacation". --John (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

As an international subject not based in an English-speaking country, it probably should default to English. The mix-up within likely stems from the fact that I'm Canadian and thus not totally familiar with the peculiarities of British English. If you have some example of things to fix up, please note them and I'll take care of them. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN. --John (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, and it should be British English based on that. However like I said, I'm Canadian and use Canadian English, so if there are any word choices to fix, please point them out, as I'm not familiar with the nuances of British English (like the aforementioned "cognizant" and "vacation"). Kaiser matias (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do we like this lead sentence? The Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia (SSR Abkhazia; Abkhaz: Социалисттә Советтә Республика Аҧсны, ССР Аҧсны; Russian: Социалистическая Советская Республика Абхазия, ССР Абхазия; Sotsialisticheskaya Sovetskaya Respublika Abkhaziya), was a short-lived republic within the Soviet Union that covered the territory of Abkhazia, and existed from 31 March 1921 to 19 February 1931. I'd trim all the metadata to a footnote and have the lead sentence read: The Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia^{Note 1} was a short-lived republic within the Soviet Union that covered the territory of Abkhazia, and existed from 31 March 1921 to 19 February 1931. Much easier to read and the interesting but nonvital stuff goes to the bottom of the article. --John (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Moved that down to a note. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't you agree that's much better? I adjusted the spelling that I could see as agreed above, and made some other very minor copyedits. I am left with: "The Abkhaz people were cognizant of their republic and its quasi-independent status, and though it was removed in 1931 they did not forget it had existed." "Cognizant" means "aware", but it's already a really awkward sentence and that would make it awful. Any other ways we can express this? --John (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed the native names was quite burdensome in the lead, and I hadn't really thought of how best to deal with it, so thanks for the suggestion. I changed the wording in question around a bit, hope that is better. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@John: Just seeing if you're good with it now? Kaiser matias (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks good and I am now happy to support on prose. Thank you for your work on this fine article. --John (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Kaiser matias, this has stagnated—if some more review is not forthcoming in the next few days, it will be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I knew that was going to come up, unfortunately. I have left some messages on a couple of relevant projects regarding this, but am not sure if anything will come of it. If not, then it'll have to be archived and renominated. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If I can scrape some time in the next couple of days, I'll recuse and review it. The topic looks interesting! --Laser brain (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I should note that over the next couple days I may be slightly inactive, as I'll be flying for most of that time. But soon as possible I will address things. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Support by Kees08

• Caption, not a complete sentence so no period The Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia in 1921.

Done

• Cite the things in the infobox that are not cited elsewhere in the article
• Remove the fragment like: The Georgian SSR in 1922, with the SSR Abkhazia highlighted in pink (or similar) The Georgian SSR in 1922. The SSR Abkhazia is highlighted in pink.

Done

• Forgot a word or two? divert Georgian hostility from to authorities

Done

• First sentence is a fragment Nestor Lakoba, the de facto leader of Abkhazia from 1921 until his death in 1936. He was instrumental in having the SSR Abkhazia established.

Done

• In this citation, shouldn't violence be capitalized? A Fateful Moment: Ethnic Autonomy and Revolutionary violence in the Democratic Republic of Georgia

Done

Just a couple comments. Article was very well written. Kees08 (Talk) 10:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, delving deeper, past the prose now. Would it be normal for an article like this to write a brief overview about the flag, coat of arms, etc? I found a probably not reliable source, but it has some interesting information into the development of the flag.

It almost seems like it should have sections on religion, culture, etc...but I suppose those are covered by the Abkhazia article? Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 10:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for going over it, though as noted I will be slightly delayed in actually responding to the comments. Will note that I should be able to add a few things relating to culture that you noted (flag, coat of arms, religion, etc), and can add it to the "culture" subsection. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good; should we be adding other sections typically found in country articles, such as climate? As of right now, it reads more like History of SSR Abkhazia than an all-encompassing article Kees08 (Talk) 20:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at what I can do. Should have things done within a day though. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: Still need to just finalise citations for the stuff in the infobox (sorry I moved and am having issues getting settled), but in the meantime, I took a look at some other former country FAs, and most of them lack stuff that contemporary articles have (like the aforementioned climate). Now that obviously is not necessarily a standard, and I can add it if need be, its just it seems more in line to stay with previous articles and keep that for the modern incarnations, at least that's how I see it. Let me know what you think. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: I know the feeling, I moved recently too. No worries. Empire of Brazil is what I am looking at now, let me know if you have found better former country articles that are more recent; it is the most recent one I could find. Things I found there that might be good in this article: currency, government (did they have elections, or did they even plan to? etc). Those are the only two I think, unless coat of arms/flag, etc should also be in there. If you do not think so, just let me know with a decent reason. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 05:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, just wanted to see your views on it. And due to some delays I won't have proper internet access for a couple more days, and the one I'm using now is beyond awful, so thanks for understanding; it's just the worst time to have to deal with all this, and I do apologize. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(outdent) Finally gotten my situation under control here, so added some things regarding the government, currency, coat-of-arms. I've simply added to existing sections to keep the flow, but if there's more needed just let me know, I shouldn't be too long getting back now. And again, apologies to everyone for this. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks! I will look at this when I have time (soon). Kees08 (Talk) 03:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Last comment before my support: I do not think the comma should be there, regardless the space should between the ref and content should not be there. SSR Abkhazia, [19] Kees08 (Talk)

Seems that was simply an issue with the template. I fixed that up. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. I tried to fix it myself but could not. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 22:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I found the first paragraph confusing and unsatisfactory. "Formed in the aftermath of the Red Army invasion of Georgia in 1921, it was independent until 16 December 1921, when it agreed to a treaty uniting it with the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (Georgian SSR). The SSR Abkhazia was unique among autonomous Soviet republics in having de facto independence from Georgia." A treaty uniting two SSRs implies between equals, and it is still called an SSR, but linked to ASSR, which is one level below. It is described as unique in having independence from Georgia, but there were many ASSRs which had nothing to do with Georgia. It joined the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, which appears to be one level up from Georgia as a constituent republic of the USSR, but this is not clarified. So far as I can see, it was really an ASSR, quite far down the chain, but given the title of an SSR, one level up, but had a degree of autonomy due only to its leader's personal friendship with Stalin. All this - whether I have got it right or wrong - needs to be spelled out, not left to the reader to guess at. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the wording a bit, and sort out the confusing nature of what happened. If more is needed just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That looks OK now.

• Further comments
• I think it would be helpful to say that Abkhazia is located in the Caucusus at the eastern end of the Black Sea.
• "Stalin and other major Soviet leaders". I would delete the word "major" as superfluous.
• "Abkhazia was nominally led by the titular Abkhaz people," I am not clear what this means. "nominally" and "titular" both mean in name only - so Abkhazia was led in name only by a people which existed in name only?
• "Reluctant to create ethno-territorial units, the region was incorporated into the Kutais Governorate." This is ungrammatical. "Reluctant" requires someone to be reluctant.
• "Georgia never fully maintained control of the region" "established" rather than "maintained"?
• "Sukhumi was captured on 4 March" This is the first time you have mentioned Sukhumi (apart from in the infobox), so you should link it and say it was the capital.
• " e) ChKa, f) RKI, " These initials mean nothing to the reader and should be explained.
• "to divert Georgian hostility from the authorities in Moscow towards the Abkhaz" I am not clear what this means. Divert Georgians from being hostile to Moscow to being hostile to the Abkhaz? Why should it do that?
• What happened to Eshba? Was he junior to Lakoba, forced out or what?
• The article is a bit thin, but I assume that this is due to limited sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I've gone and taken care of all these as well. And unfortunately it is about all there is on the topic, which is a shame. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2018 [32].

---

First Battle of Dernancourt

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a joint British/Australian defensive battle on 28 March 1918 which played a small part in stemming the tide of the German Spring Offensive of WWI. A Tasmanian sergeant, Stanley McDougall, was instrumental in defeating the only real German breakthrough of the defences, and was subsequently awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions. This is the first WWI battle article I've developed from scratch, so hopefully it flows well. I believe it is comprehensive. All constructive comments gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Operation_Michael_1918.jpg needs a US PD tag, and the uploader is not the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Removed. Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 18:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

• "northwestern" should be "north western"?

• per MOS:COMPASS it's fine as long as it is consistent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. This is the case with the Spring Offensive navbox at the trop, but not the WWI navbox at the bottom. But its up to you.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed the WWI navbox, it really isn't needed here. Thanks for taking a look Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this article when it was up for GA, and it has been improved greatly since then. I have the following comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• some of the the images lack alt text. I'm not sure if it is an FA requirement, but it might be helpful to add: [33]
• the external links all work and there are no dab links
• do we know the German commander's name?
• in the lead "2nd Army (German Empire)" is overlinked
• elsewhere "Lancashire Fuisiliers" is also overlinked
• I spot checked the citations to Coulthard-Clark and Carlyon as I have those sources
• three German armies: suggest linking Field army here
• 4th Division, Major General Ewen Sinclair-Maclagan was ordered: possibly needs a comma after "Maclagan"
• He hosed them down with the gun: not sure about "hosed" here, it seems a bit informal

• Thanks for the review Rupert. All done, except the German commander's name, which I have been unable to find in sources in English. I suspect only Bean's diaries/notes or the German formation histories would hold this information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• No worries, thanks for looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I found the German corps commander's name, Hugo von Kathen, and added that in the body and infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• A few duplicate links
• No DABs
• Why was the 19/NF in the frontlines? It was a pioneer battalion, not infantry.
• lined out about 200 yards what does lined out mean?
• Who's Deayton?
• into Dernancourt but they met missing comma
• Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• G'day Sturm. All done, except the issue of 19 NF. Basically, divisional pioneer battalions were expected to be able to fight as infantry (same as engineers), and 35th Division had taken a battering since 21 March, so they were using whatever troops were available. I'm not sure I have a source for that, it's essentially from my personal knowledge of arms and services in WWI. Do you think I need to have a dig around for something to support a statement to that effect? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd prefer a little more explanation about why they were there, but I can live without it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I had another look at Davson's divisional history, but in the context of Dernancourt he just mentions them as if they were an infantry battalion and doesn't refer to them as being pioneers pressed into service as infantry. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Coord cmt

Hi PM, just a note that as well as a source review for reliability/formatting, I would like to see someone from outside the MilHist community give this a once-over to check general accessibility, avoidance of jargon, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from JennyOz

Hi Peacemaker67 and Ian, here are some comments from outside MilHist community. Firstly, I kept up with most jargon. PM has, as usual, intuitively wlinked terms that might be obscure to those readers unfamiliar with such, eg enfilade, minenwerfers, and the notes for "S.O.S. lines" and "artillery formation" were very helpful explanations.

• I wasn't familiar with "garrisoned" as a verb in battle but it seems obvious enough.
• Another was "off the line of march" which I would have tripped over if I hadn't seen it elsewhere last week and looked it up to understand.
  • Added "after a short artillery preparation/minimal artillery preparation" to clarify the difference from a set-piece assault
• Not military jargon but I was going to suggest wlinking "copse" however it redirects to discussion of woodland management rather than its basic meaning.
• The first link I tried was VII Corps - its short lede, rather disconcertingly, only mentions Second World War? (even though article goes on to discuss First, Somme etc)
  • Sadly, this is common, but I link anyway in case the target is improved
• The Australian 3rd and 4th Divisions had been sent south to help - I wondered south from where?
  • Belgium, added
• near Hébuterne in centre of the Third Army - the centre?
• That division had been involved a series of fighting - in a series?
• The forward positions of the salient held - wlink to Salient (military)
• wounding the two man crew - hyphen? (as in one-man niches)
• that the artillery fire be lifted at 14:00 - does that mean lifted as in stopped or increased as to provide cover?
  • changed to stop
• Further reading, Shaw - is it normal to have a retrieved date?
  • Not usually, removed.
• The attacks/sectors are complex to follow but the story is well told and, with Bean's invaluable map, this outsider now has a good appreciation of what unfolded there. Thank you PM, regards, JennyOz (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • All comments addressed. Thanks very much for taking a look, JennyOz! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

All references are regularly formatted and well presented. The main sources, a judicious mix of old and new, look to be of the appropriate range, quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking a look, Brian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: this looks good to go, can I have dispensation for another nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2018 [34].

---

Cooperative pulling paradigm

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Something different: an article on animal cognition. Will two animals pull a rope in a synchronised manner such that they both can obtain food? In reading the research I encountered quite a few interesting findings, which I hope you will enjoy as well. I'm pleased to report one of the researchers involved kindly donated his drawing of a cooperative pulling experiment with elephants. I look forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

I fixed a few p/pp errors for you but there are still a dozen left. And 13 instances of Hyphen in pg. range Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing a few, I believe I have fixed them all now. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jackdude101

1. It is—
1. well-written: The prose is satisfactory overall, but some things need fixing. Lead section: Researcher Meredith Crawford, who invented the experimental paradigm in 1937, used as apparatus two ropes attached to a rolling platform that was too heavy to be pulled by a single chimpanzee. The phrase "used as apparatus two ropes" should be replaced with "used an apparatus consisting of two ropes", or something similar. A similar sentence in the Apparatus section requires the same treatment. Overview subsection of Findings section: Bonobos, also social animals but with higher levels of tolerance, can outperform chimpanzees on some cooperative tasks. This sentence needs to be reworked. Perhaps something like "Bonobos, which are social animals with higher tolerance levels, can outperform chimpanzees on some cooperative tasks.".

   Fixed both by following your suggestions. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

2. comprehensive: The article appears to address everything notable about the topic.
3. well-researched: The article appears to be well-researched with 169 separate references cited. The vast majority of these are books, so good faith is assumed.
4. neutral: Neutrality is satisfactory.
5. stable: The vast majority of edits have been from the nominator, who is also the article's creator. All good here.
2. Style guidelines
1. a lead: Lead has no problems besides the item mentioned above.
2. appropriate structure: Structure is appropriate.
3. consistent citations: Citations are good overall and are present in every section. However, there are several instances where more than three citations are back-to-back. Whenever possible, no more than three should be used at a time, or else it's WP:Citation overkill. Either remove the unnecessary citations, spread them out within the information that they're citing, or give a solid case for why they should remain where they are.

   Fixed, mostly by spreading them out.

3. Media: The number of pictures in the article is just right and they are spread throughout the article appropriately.
4. Length: Length is satisfactory.

This article looks solid overall. Fix the items above and I'll support it. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 20:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to comment, much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

All issues raised in my comments have been resolved. Support. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 21:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Not sure there is a lot of benefit to having images just for the sake of having them - for example, I think it's safe to say most readers will understand the concept of "dog" without the photo

Hi Nikkimaria. The idea is that the images convey the actual subspecies that participated in the experiments, e.g. Asian elephants, spotted hyenas, and Labrador Retrievers. There are a few species that are uncommon and benefit from an illustration ((kea, tamarin), and it just looked better to be consistent once I had added a few. Happy to remove them all if that's the consensus of reviewers.

• File:Sketch_of_a_cooperative_pulling_experiment_with_elephants.jpg: given that this image has been published in a copyrighted journal, I'm not sure the author retains the right to release it as CC BY. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The article does not have this illustration. It has a better one, but this is the one the author says is still his.Edwininlondon (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The only difference between this illustration and Figure 1 View 2 in the source article is a dashed line - that's not significant enough a change to have a different copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Too bad. I've removed the offending illustration and have asked the scientist if he has an alternative sketch with full rights. If that fails, is it okay for me to make my own sketch or does that count as original research? Edwininlondon (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OI. In that case you'd also need to avoid creating a derivative work of a copyrighted image. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The scientist just responded and said that as per http://www.pnas.org/page/authors/licenses he has retained the rights.

Looks like under the default license only noncommercial reuse is permitted, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. So the license should be CC BY-NC 3.0, correct? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not a permissible license - that's why {{cc-by-nc}} redirects to a deletion tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I drew one myself instead based on the raven, rook and kea experiments. I assume this is fine now? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I asked a friend to sketch one with dogs. Much better. No license problems anymore. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon. I noticed that the elephant image mentioned here was removed as a copyright violation, but it should be fairly simple to redraw in a way that doesn't violate copyright? It does seem a shame that there is no lead image. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem a shame. I'll see if redrawing without violating copyright is possible. I'll do one of the bird experiments, seems safer than elephants.

Added a lead image. Not as good as the elephants, sorry. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, could there be some arrows or description of what and how they are attempting? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

A friend made an even better one. I think arrows will clutter it too much for mobile. Should the caption explain a bit more?Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the new image is very clear. FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• There are some duplicate links, perhaps try using this script:[35]

That's a nifty little tool! Thx for the tip. Deduped.

• The first paragraph under "Elephants" ends without a citation.

Fixed

• I know it may not be necessary, but could the first sentence under "Conditions" get a citation?

Done.

Thank you for you helpful comments so far. I look forward to more. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Does the name Meredith Crawford have to be spelled in full after the first mention in the article body? Everyone else only gets last names anyway.

Removed Meredith in the second mention.

• "who invented the experimental paradigm in 1937" Does the idea have any history before this?

No source has mentioned anything. De Waal calls Crawford the pioneer.

• You are inconsistent in whether you list the publication year of a mentioned study or not.

Would the following approach be alright: years are mentioned in Apparatus section, for pioneering work by Crawford, and Hiroto's invention of loose string, but then nowhere else. With the exception of "In 2008, Seed, Clayton and Emery said the study of the proximate mechanisms underpinning cooperation in animals was in its infancy" as that statement leads to misinterpretation without a year. Should I follow that approach? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• I made this change and I think it looks better now.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure how that happened, but seems the talk page of this article is not tagged with any Wiki projects?

Added.

• It is a bit unclear in each animal example whether wild or captive animals were tested (you specify for some of the chimp experiments, but not for many others). I think this would be interesting to note.

I have added this for each.

• "was the Clever Hans effect" Could be briefly explained in parenthesis or in a footnote.

Added explanation in parentheses

• "Labrador Retrievers" Is this the kind of dog used in the studies, or is the image just arbitrarily chosen? If the former, could be mentioned.

It is one of the breeds used yes. Added to caption.

• "10 meters apart", "1 cm, 3 cm and ultimately 6 cm apart". Perhaps a conversion could be given, as in other science articles.

Done

• "Asian elephants (Elephas maximus)" Missed italics.

Good catch.

• It seems off to have a section on "parrots" and one on "keas", considering the latter are parrots too. Since the first section is only about a specific kind of parrot, I think it should be renamed "African grey parrots" accordingly. Or simply "Grey parrot", as that seems to be the preferred name.

Done

• "birds native to New Zealand" Also seems misleading, as they are simply parrots. Saying "parrots native to" would make more sense, as we already know they are birds by them being in the bird section.

Done

• "use cooperative pulling experiments in order to try to understand how cooperation works and how and when it may have evolved." Maybe it should be stressed there that it only applies to animals with high intelligence and cognitive abilities (judged on what species have been chosen for study). Social insects cooperate, but I doubt they would be considered for such experiments.

Funny you mention that. I have asked two researchers mentioned in the article if any one ever has done anything with ants. I will try to find a source that makes your point and then add. Thanks for all your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I will try to find a source that describes the selection criteria.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Not much luck. The best I can find is something like this: "Researchers of experiments in cooperation have favored as subjects species that are tool users or live in complex social groups." This doesn't really exclude the ants, plus is broader than the cooperative pulling paradigm. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, not much to do then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - the content looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and support. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just one thing really

• observed in the air (e.g., among hawks— I'd prefer a link to bird of prey, instead. if you follow the link, hawk is somewhat imprecise, and although you cite only Harris hawks, cooperative hunting is reported in Aplomado falcons (Hector D.P. (1986). "Cooperative hunting and its relationship to foraging success and prey size in an avian predator". Ethology. 73: 247–257. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1986.tb00915.x.) Cooperative between different species has also been recorded (Cudworth, J., and Massingham, C. 1986. Hen Harrier and Merlin hunting together. British Birds 79:430, also Dickson, R. C. 1984. Falcons hunting close to harriers. British Birds 77: 481-482, and this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I only picked out hawks as an example. I changed hawks to Aplomado falcons, but still only as an example. It should probably be species specific and not make readers think all bird of prey hunt cooperatively. Plus keeps it in line with lions, killer whales, driver ants. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, not a big deal anyway, supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Source review for reliability/formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Under Conditions, I'd expect to see L4 headings rather than bolded text, unless MOS specifically recommends the latter; won't hold up promotion over it though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Ian! Edwininlondon (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

One small point: Ref 92 (video) needs publisher information and retrieval date. Otherwise the sources appear to be of the appropriate quality and reliability, and are regularly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for checking Brian. I have removed 92 altogether. The statement already was covered by 19 and the External Links section has a link to TED talk which features the video I was referring to, so no need for 92 actually. Thanks again. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2018 [36].

---

SMS Braunschweig

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is another German battleship article - this one passed a Milhist A-class review in December after having been significantly expanded and overhauled. The ship served in two German navies over the span of some 21 years, including during World War I, where there was relatively little opportunity for action, owing to the relatively cautious strategies adopted by the Russian and German fleets. Braunschweig was one of a handful of battleships that Germany was permitted to retain under the Versailles Treaty, but the vessel remained in active service for just another 8 years, being decommissioned in early 1926. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Image review: All images are freely licensed in the U.S. No apparent issues with the quality or usage of them. Codyorb (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Support by PM

• I reviewed this closely during December's Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to comment on then. It has not changed in any significant way since then, and I consider it meets the Featured Article criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Wonder how this has been open this long with so few comments. Anyway, I'll review soon, hope we can keep it form being archived. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated!
• Could we get some dates in the image captions?
  • I've added dates for the images with them, but the other two are either unknown, or the year provided is likely wrong (speaking of the Bundesarchiv image here - the years they provide are usually for when the ship entered service, not when the photo was actually taken, I've found).
• Citation for the first footnote?
  • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• You could state in the article body that it was the namesake of the class of the same name, and how many other ships of that class that were made (as you now only do in the intro).
  • Good idea - for some reason, this has never occurred to me.
• "to retain six battleships of the "Deutschland or Lothringen types."" You never state that this ship belongs to either type?
  • Added a note on this. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice, perhaps add a source for this footnote? FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There's not really a source for the fact that it was a mistake - sort of a WP:BLUE situation, I'd think. Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - everything looks fine to me now, and I couldn't find many issues to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel

• I've cleaned up the infobox for you; feel free to revert if my changes are unwanted.
  • All looks fine to me
• Cylindrical and Scotch marine boilers are two terms for the same type of boiler.
  • Fixed
• hyphenate twin gun turret
  • Done
• specify the type of machinery when you refer to machinery spaces.
  • Done
• A Coruña, Spain Comma after Spain
  • Done
• Might mention that she was often a flagship in the lede
  • Good idea
• Link (main) battery, Atlantic
  • The first is already linked, but I've added the second
• Reserve Division of the Baltic Sea Baltic Sea Squadron, Fleet, what?
  • That's what its name was - der Reservedivision der Ostsee - it was an independent unit, not part of a squadron.
• returned to Bornholm that day I presume that you mean that they resumed training off Bornholm?
  • Yeah, clarified
• sixteen more but only lightly damaged missing comma
  • Fixed
• older battleships Might be useful to clarify that these were predreadnoughts
  • Done
• Probably useful to clarify that Libau is in Latvia
  • Good idea
• Fix the problem with Jordan in the refs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I've added this to the urgents list but I'm afraid it may have to be archived soon if some more interest isn't forthcoming. @Sturmvogel 66: Have you concluded your review? --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Just one comment from me: if note c is supported by the same reference as the one citing that sentence as a whole, it wouldn't be the worst idea to reuse it for the note, which doesn't currently have a reference. Other than that nit-pick, I didn't have any complaints when I read through the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it's not supported by that citation, but the point that Braunschweig was the lead ship of the class (and implicitly, that Lothringen wasn't, and that the language in the treaty was a mistake of sorts) is covered earlier in the article (specifically, the second line in the "Construction to 1914" section). Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Support – The explanation for my one comment strikes me as adequate, and the writing, referencing, and other aspects of the article seemed up to the standards. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - really nice article, seems to meet the standards. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2018 [37].

---

Messier 87

Nominator(s): AhmadLX (talk•cont) 03:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an elliptical galaxy in Virgo cluster, some 50 million light years from Earth. It is famous for its enormous supermassive black hole which weighs about 6 billion solar masses and a relativistic jet emanating from the core, that extends up to some 4500 light years. This article was listed as GA in 2010, has been improved over this period of time, has been reviewed recently and I have also made some improvements. So article is broad in coverage, neutral, stable, well referenced and thorough. And so, I believe it meets FA criteria. AhmadLX (talk•cont) 03:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

Did more than one person add the references? They seem to be in at least two different styles, perhaps more. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, article has been on Wikipedia for 15 years and many people have added references. But all citations are in <ref>author, year, publication name, publisher, volume/issue/edition, page, bibcode/isbn</ref> style and none in Harvard (author,year,page) style. So they seem to be consistent. Could you please provide a specific example? Thanks --UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 16:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Compare the formatting of the page numbers of the book sources in fn 2, 6 and 14 - all different Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed it--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

Image review

• All images have appropriate licences, at but one being from NASA, ESA or ESO. I updated one licence on Commons.
• The exception is File:Virgo constellation map.svg. Seems to be okay. The copyright holder asserts (on his talk page) that the legal status of all my star maps is the GFDL

Therefore, all images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest moving fn 25 into the Notes section

Done.

• Template:Cite journal is called with more than one value for the "display-authors" parameter.

Done.

• Weirdness: The DOI system says that the DOI for fn 74 is wrong. I checked it against the journal page [38], and it is indeed what it says.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Now it is number 73. DOI is as given in the article pdf. May be, as the doi.org says, The DOI has not been activated yet. :-/ --UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 02:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I considered that, but the article was published in 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Praemonitus

Support – I gave it a read through and it mostly seems reasonable from an accuracy perspective. However, there are a few items that may need to be addressed:

• There is no mention of it being a LINER-type active galaxy. A discussion of what this means for M87 would seem appropriate.

Done (in section properties).--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is no discussion (I could find) of its enormous radio lobes,[39] or the implications thereof.

Done (in jet section). Unfortunately, I couldn't find a free image.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 01:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding the statement: "At the time it was the only known example of an elliptical nebula for which individual stars could be resolved": the reference for this sentence says on page 51 that this claim has been criticized because, at that distance, clusters and groups would be indistinguishable from individual stars. I have to suspect that what was being detected were members of the globular cluster population rather than individual stars, but I'm not sure how that could be referenced.

I think I have fixed it in a reasonable way. You may have a look.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 12:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Graeme Bartlett

• None of the images have alt= text. see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Done

"refer to caption" is not up to the standard required. The idea is to say what the picture looks like for those that cannot see the image. It is not to replace the caption. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not possible to describe many images of the article without introducing redundancy. One can not explain how X-ray emission looks like to somebody who can not see it. Nevertheless, I have tried to fix most of them.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 01:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The idea is just to say what we see. We don't see X-rays, but you can say what we see in the pic, a yellow circle with red bubbles coming out the top and bottom, upper right, and lower left, A blue beam shoots to the top and another to the lower left. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I have seen the pic before, but still, while reading this description, I couldn't generate any visual in my mind that matches with actual image. Maybe you should add "deformed rectangular region, with red shades, surrounded by blue background, with many stars .......". But as policy page says "alt text needs to be short and to the point, detailed explanation should be left to body". On the other hand, caption is descriptive and to the point.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 12:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Previous caption was inaccurate. Fixed that + equivalent description in alt. You may have a look.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• ö B¨ohringer should be Böhringer

Done

• extragalactic or extra-galactic

Titles of publications are not altered, other instances fixed.

• Gebhardt or Gehbardt (initial K - probably the same person)

Done

• intracluster or intra-cluster

Same as number 3

• Inconsistent apostrophe: M87’s or M87's

Fixed

• 'p' - should this be in double quotes "p"?

Done

• In the Jet section there is a phrase "and vice versa" but it is not clear, do you mean the reverse faster→smaller or opposite bigger→slower.

"vice versa" is not commutative, I think ;) So, "small diameter=fast variation", --vice versa--> "large diameter=slow variation", i.e it will take first argument first and reverse :D

• At one point Virgo-A makes a mention, but later it is always "Virgo A".

Fixed

• Should VIRGO CLUSTER in reference 91 be all caps?

Fixed

• Slight inconsistency with X-Ray (in external link) or X-ray in text

Fixed (as X-ray), although it was in publication title, but since title was all caps, so justified I guess

• Link first occurrences of journal titles eg Astronomy and Astrophysics

Done (wherever wiki article exists)--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 13:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Also where authors have articles use authorlink. (The first I checked Christian Luginbuhl, has no article, but does have an asteroid named after him!) but Brian A. Skiff exists

(I will check references and also do a spelling and symbol check) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from Comments from Jim

Looks pretty comprehensive, just a couple of nit-picks

• it lacked any spiral structure, but appeared to belong to the same family of non-galactic nebulae as spiral nebulae—a few words explaining why it's classed with spirals despite not being one might be helpful

It actually means that it was identified as non-galactic nebula (like spirals, which were also identified as being far from the Milky Way), as opposed to galactic nebula (like planetary nebulae, which are within the Milky Way). I have clarified it a bit in the article.

• with former being independent star systems—"the former"?

Done.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 21:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to watchlist, happy with changes, supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking pretty good overall...notes below:

• ...it has been shown that M87 has absorbed a medium-sized star-forming spiral galaxy over the period of last billion years. "the" last billion years? or even better "sometime within the last billion years"?

Done

• I'd link chevron, and corona

I am not sure on this one, if it would be appropriate.

Agree/point taken. Ok not a dealbreaker Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Gamma rays coming from M87 have been observed since the late 1990s, but in 2006, using the High Energy Stereoscopic System Cherenkov telescopes, scientists have measured the variations of the gamma ray flux coming from M87, and found that the flux changes over a matter of days. - I'd split this long sentence

Done

• Interaction of relativistic jets of plasma emanating from the core with surrounding medium gives rise to radio lobes in active galaxies. - should there be a "the" before "surrounding"?

Done.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 14:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok - all looks good prose and comprehensivenesswise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

• I can see that sources were checked for formatting but not sure if anyone's signed off on reliability.
• Also since I believe this would be the nominator's first FA if successful I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

Cas, given your experience with such articles I thought this might be a mission for you, should you choose to accept it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Earwig's looks ok. Will spot check a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• FN 27 - used once, material cited and faithful to source.
• FN 37 - used twice, material cited and faithful to source.
• FN 78 - used once, material cited and faithful to source.

Spot checks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for quick response, Cas -- are you satisfied with the reliability of the sources used? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Some web pages of astronomers have layout issues but the content is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Ceoil

Apologies, non expert here, so checking for accessibility. Note I expect to support

• The term 'encountered' is used 6 times but was not linked - is this collision?

You've already linked that.

I was wondering if I was correct - linked local group in the same edit, which was reverted since Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wording: "both amateur astronomy observations and professional astronomy study. French astronomer Charles Messier discovered M87" - astronomy, astronomy, astronomer.

Astronomy related article is gonna have that word anyway ;)

I am dissapointed in your reply, we have FAC criteria 1.a for a reason, and its easier to do better. "To both amateur and professional astronomers". Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on that change.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• "cataloguing it as a nebulous feature while searching for objects that would confuse comet hunters". I understand the point from later in the article, but here "that would confuse comet hunters" is confusing (ironically)- was he was out to confuse comet hunters?

He wanted to sort out things that would confuse comet hunters, so off course he was helping them

of course, but you are missing the point. Can you be more clear wrt intent. Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)it

No, it conveys the meaning properly. I undid your changes on this as your edit "..while mapping objects that could be distinguished from comets" sounds like his aim was separate comet-non-comet things. His aim was to only identify the objects that could potentially, and incorrectly, be identified as comets.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly - "as part of a list intended to identify objects that might be confused with comets" - to separate or distinguished...objects...that might otherwise be identified as?

Done.

• there was no spiral structure in M87 - M87 did not have a spiral structure? I dont get "in".

In my view, both seem okay. You can change if you prefer the second one.

I do. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• What is an "inner end"

"inner end" means core region, where the jet originates. Seems obvious to me.

Bully for you, but I'm reviewing as a non expert for accessibility. "Seems obvious to me" doesnt cut it. Have edited this in now anyhow. Ceoil (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just making my point, not bullying. thank you :) --UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 03:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• oops, its an Irish colloguial term, it means "good for you", not anything else!!! I appreciate all this is second nature to you, but the rest of us need very tight descriptive language and blue links to navigate. Ceoil (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

"Seems obvious" not because of technicality but because of the language. "Inner end" here means what it may mean in any other context: part near the origin, on the inner side.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Junejo, this seems to get to the core (if you'll forgive the pun) of our disagreement. You think the page is already a sea of blue links, for an uninciated novice like me, the links are vital grounding. I'd put "Inner end" and "Local Universe" as at the core of why I had found the page unsatisfactory. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so what do you suggest for linking "Local Universe" to? It can not be local group. I am not even sure if linking to "virgo supercluster" is okay, but it is already linked later in the article. Secondly, I am also novice in the field.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 23:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggest that it is described as regions within a billion light years; per the sources you provided below. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• By 1931, Hubble had identified M87 - Why "by 1931", did he not publish his finding

Fixed. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• All estimates are provisional. First estimated?

Could you please clarify this? thanks in advance

This is just a matter of basic clarity and tense. When, what sequence of discovery. One of the two words is redundant. Ceoil (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please provide the sentence where you think clarification is needed.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Had two windows open - rephrasing as I was compiling here. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• It was then the only known elliptical nebula for which individual stars could be resolved - can we link "resolved"

Article is already quite blue with links. Doesn't seem necessary to me. Maybe somebody else will agree :-/

• But we are talking about foundation advances in astronomy here, what methods of star detection. Ceoil (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolution is a common term; context is evident that resolution here means that "objects could be identified separately" and not, for example, "dispute resolution".UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Again: "This source was confirmed to be M87 by 1953" - can we be more precise than "by" 1953

Old literature :-/ Difficult to be precise. Finding all publications on the topic from that period is difficult.

This raises issues of comprehensive research. Ceoil (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It took me a month to figure out exactly why and when was M87 called galaxy. We didn't have arxive, bibcode back then.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• That is, about one part in six of the galaxy's mass is in the form of stars that are radiating energy. The total mass of M87 may be 200 times that of the Milky Way. - Given "That is", should this read "stars that are radiating energy, and the total mass of M87..." ie both claims arise from the same findings.

The 200 times thing doesn't directly come from mass-luminosity ratio.

• There are tense issues throughout, eg "was being generated" (is generated unless we are assuming the galaxy has died since the light reached us), or The total energy output of these electrons was estimated as, then "the entire Milky Way galaxy output is estimated" etc

Use of "suggested" requires "was". Also "was estimated" when we are referring to the measurement in distant past. You won't say "Hubble has identified M87 as external galaxy".UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Lobes of matter from the jet extend out to a distance of 77 kiloparsecs (250 thousand light-years).[84] - Is "lobes" the right word here? Lobes usually form a pair.

There is actually a pair of lobes, visible in radio. Also, jet is bipolar, as discussed in the article.

then say so - surely so we can link lobes so it doesnt sound careless. Remember the audience. Blue links (like seem clutter to you, but are lifelines to the rest of us. Ceoil (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

What would be destination link in your view? I have linked "radio lobes" to "radio galaxy" which occurs later in jet section. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Linking: please clarify what local universe means. Had thought local group, is it Virgo Supercluster?

These sources define local universe something from 50 million to a billion light years. It is certainly larger than Local Group.

So...the Virgo Supercluster, or? You havnt rearlly answered my question. Ceoil (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Links that I have given address the issue: it is not clearly defined. Local universe means different to different people. But it is not akin to local group.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Added note, as you've suggested above.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Love these astronomy project articles, here it is fascinating to read about the early distinguishing of galaxies from nebula. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ;) --UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 02:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• the seeming position of the galaxy center with respect to the black hole - should "with respect to" be "in relation to".

What is the difference to be honest?UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Gaa, ok, but I'll just fix it. Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• hypervelocity globular cluster is red linked, and not otherwise explained in the article. This seems like a cop out in a very technical page.

Unlinked. Link to HVGC1 is given.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• The contribution from these sources was much lower in abundance than in the Milky Way - "abundance" - volume, density, frequency or?

Fixed. I really appreciate this objection, solid and objective ;)--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 01:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• the emission appears to be fully explained by synchrotron radiation from the jet - We follow "appear to be" with "fully explained"?

Done--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 21:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• optical filaments have been observed in M87 - drop "in M87", its clear in which galaxy

Done--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 22:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• 'A 2006 survey out to an angular distance of 25′ from its core estimates that there are 12,000 ± 800 globular clusters in orbit around M87. Add the word "found".

It is an estimate, 12,000 ± 800. "Found" would require some more precise number.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 22:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• The size of the M87 clusters shows - plural: 'cluster shows'

There are thousands of globular clusters in M87, so "clusters" seems okay--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 22:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Several possibilities have been suggested - better "may explain" - makes it more about fact than personalities

It is not a fact. One paper has explored the possibilities. It is to be presented as it is. "May explain" would require more publications on the topic.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 22:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Can you express this on the article body. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean adding that "one research group has suggested....", or?--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 23:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

yes, "one study"; vs "Several possibilities" Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• decreasing with increasing - can you rephrase

I couldn't find it. Can you give the whole sentence?--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 21:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Had two windows open - rephrasing as I was compiling here. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• In subsequent use -don't like this, even "later" would be better. "each item" - object?

Replaced "item" with "entry", as it sounds even better.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 21:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd still prefer "object" here. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• 1 (a) - consecutive sentences opening with the same words - "The term nebula persisted for some time thereafter and M87 continued to be called an extragalactic nebula at least until 1954.[15] The term was replaced by..".

Fixed.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 21:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Their nature is unclear as to whether they are dwarf galaxies captured by M87 - "Their nature" is vague; don't like "as to whether" either.

Fixed.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 21:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• active elliptical galaxies of a form similar to M87 - instead of "of a form similar"; "such as"

Done.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 21:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is now little dust - I'd be careful of terms such as "now", given it's 53.5 million light-years from Earth.

That is same with all astronomical objects. So now is better than having "there was litle dust 53 my ago"--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 14:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I very much doubt that astronomers use terms such as "now" so flippantly without any context of scale - again no links on units to guide the reader. "There was a litle dust" - please, if your going to descent to farce we are done here. Ceoil (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hope these are useful. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The para ending In general, the smaller the diameter of the emission source, the faster the variation in flux, and vice versa. is uncited.

It would be nice if an expert had a look over before it was considered for promotion. I think we have a very, very bright and knowledgeable editor who could do with help in polish and exactitude before it is taken over the line. My gut feeling is that this nom will need a second go. Ceoil (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I was not around for a few hours as I was sleeping and you took it personal that I am not responding. Nominator is not supposed to notify reviewers about that, I guess. Nominators are supposed to address objections raised in a couple days. I discussed a few of them at night and thought to do the rest latter in the day. Secondly, many of your objections were subjective and so I honestly gave my opinions on them. You seem to have taken that quite personal as evidenced by your message on my talk. As a nominator, I do not think I am supposed to accept all opinions just to garner support. I will accept and work on objections that are objective and reasonable. If you see comments by other people above, I have not agreed to all comments/suggestions. But other people did not take that as being kind of insulting or rude behavior. I still have to go through your recent suggestions/objections and again I will implement those which seem reasonable to me. Others, if you find necessary, you can do yourself. The article is not mine. I am here to help and contribute and so is everybody else. I will not implement any suggestion that, to my mind, doesn't add much to the article. If it means facing opposition, so be it. Thank you for your understanding. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 14:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, yes you have a point. But Jesus Christ, all this is irrelevant and I was rather hoping you would address on substance. I took nothing personal, was simply unimpressed with your curt and dismissive unsigned replies, and senced a tooth and nail non-meeting of minds. But again, pff. So, wot do? Address points or blow smoke? I took a lotm of time to review the page, as I was excited and engaged by it, but if you only want to blow smoke; I think your article falls below standard and you should withdraw and rethink, if you are serious about this, is my advice to you. Ceoil (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the time and effort that you have put in reading and suggestions. I have addressed almost half of the points and will do the rest today and tomorrow. I think the article is up to the mark, so I will not withdraw the nomination. Thanks. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 20:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed you have. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Am very encouraged by both Outriggr's detailed review below, and AhmadLX's (formerly UbedJunejo) keen and informed responses. Note however AhmadLX is not the primary editor and has 892 edits total to wikipedia over a three year career. I would be assured by a more detailed source review, quality is one thing, claims another, my fear here is incremental tacked-on edits that might have slipped through. Ceoil (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, having certain number of edits on Wikipedia or being primary editor of the article is not a requirement for FA nomination: only familiarity with the subject is required. Source formatting was done (as per suggestions above), and source review was also done by another editor. Regards. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 18:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, ideally, but there is the matter of diligence. You provided 10.5% of the content. Cas performed 3 random spot-checks. I would like to hear that you performed a more extensive audit before the nom. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I did many things before nom, including source checks, copyright checks and other stuff. But I didn't brag ;) UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 18:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I notice RJHall contributed much of the content; he is an editor I am inclined to trust, and you also seem impressive; but it pays to be sure with first noms. Re sources

• Ref 22: ok
• Ref 49: Claim "The extended stellar envelope of this galaxy reaches a radius of about 150 kiloparsecs (490 thousand light-years)" - Source: "M87's gravitational reach extended about one-third as far as predicted" - I'm not seeing further back up here

This has been fixed.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 20:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 93: ok
• Ref 97: ok

Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I am doing detailed source review again: will update here.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 14:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sources 1-27, covering infobox, lead, Observation history: all okay, except number [2] and [23], which are from books that I don't have access to.
• Sources 28-60, covering Visibility and Properties (+recurrence of previous ones in these sections): all okay, except: [29], [32], [44] and [59], which are books that I don't have access to.
• Sources 61-102, covering Components, Jet, and Environment (+recurrence of previous ones in these sections): all okay.(A couple issues found and fixed). UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 01:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Support - I wont be editing during the next week and don't want to leaving this hanging, so will assume that the final points will be cleared up by UbedJunejo, who has been very responsive and engaging so far. The nominator has a low edit wiki account, but after a reasonably in dept trawl thorough the article, I'm not seeing any red flags, assured by RJHall's authorship and the current stewardship, and the rather very well informed and helpful responses during this review. I'm still not happy with the phrasing re "that would confuse comet hunters", but whatever. These astronomy articles are a considerable cap in our bow, endlessly fascinating, and post the review 2nd after this one (note that 213.205.251.29 is not me, I dont have to log out to speak my mind) am happy that the page is accessible and clear and am pleased to support. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Encouraging comment by 213.205.251.29

• Encouraging comment from a passing anonymous editor. This is a very nice article - no doubt due to the helpful feedback that has already been supplied. It definitely needs further thorough review by someone who is not a subject matter expert to make sure it makes sense to the non-expert reader, and by someone detached from the subject who can smooth out any remaining bumps and wrinkles in the prose. Inevitably there will be quite a few blue links in this sort of technical article, so the putative high school student we might be aiming at will be able to make head or tail of it. 213.205.251.29 (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

comments by Outriggr

Hi; I noticed the above and took a look at the article. There are lots of areas for improvement despite the support votes:

• In the Yerkes (Morgan) scheme, M87 is classified as a type-cD galaxy; a supergiant D class galaxy. Why not explain what both the "c" and the "D" mean, per the linked article? This is half redundant as it stands. I believe the next sentence may explain it, in which case the part after the semi-colon would be better removed and integrated into the next sentence.

Done.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 23:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sometimes "galactic" is the adjective, but I have noted "galaxy" used as an adjective as well. There are times where this may be unavoidable because of terminology, but surely "galaxy center" for example would be better as "galactic center"? Please check them all.

Fixed. Only one such instance in the article..--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 23:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Twice in the article the abbreviation "kpc" is used when the article goes out of its way not to abbreviate (kilo)parsecs the rest of the time.

Fixed two instances as kiloparsecs. Other two instances in caption and table kept as kpc.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Is there any reason that The mass of M87 within a radius of 9–40 kiloparsecs (29–130 thousand light-years) from the core steadily increases roughly in proportion to r^1.7, where r is the radius from the core can't be rewritten as The mass of M87 within a radius (r) of 9–40 kiloparsecs (29–130 thousand light-years) from the core steadily increases roughly in proportion to r^1.7?

Done.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 23:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Center" and "centre".

Fixed as "center".UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is not a sentence, but maybe the result of a recent editing mix-up: Forming around one sixth of M87's mass, its stars have a nearly spherically symmetric distribution, their population density decreases with increasing distance from the core.

Fixed, I guess ;) UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is inconsistent use of the false title--sometimes "the" is there, sometimes it isn't.
  • Fixed myself. Removed about three "the"s. Outriggr (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• The manual of style says not to end captions with punctuation if they are not sentences (and vice versa) (MOS:CAPTION).

Fixed.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• In April 1965, the United States Naval Research Laboratory group --there are already five adjectives or nouns in a row here, is the sixth, "group", needed? Also, this sentence begins the paragraph, but is insufficient as a topic sentence. Can we say why they launched the rocket? I know it's implied from further reading, but clearer writing is the only chance a lay reader has. The second sentence here, This flight discovered seven candidate X-ray sources, including the first extragalactic X-ray source; Virgo X-1 was designated as the first X-ray source detected in Virgo, is poor.

What about replacing both of these sentences with "In 1966, Virgo X-1, the first X-ray source in Virgo, was identified by Aerobee 150 rocket"?UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 00:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Done, as you have suggested below. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• M87 has been an important testing ground...--I don't think "testing ground" works idiomatically for an astronomy topic, but that's just my opinion, I suppose. Update: consider stricken, it will do. Outriggr (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• as an "early release observation" designed to test the scientific performance of the post-repair Hubble instruments--the part in quotes is confusing, and then I wondered, is this context necessary to the article?

"Early release" thing refers back to the "testing ground" thing, that you have agreed on keeping ;) UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is some evidence of linear streams of stars to the northwest of the galaxy, which may have been created by tidal stripping of orbiting galaxies, or by small satellite galaxies falling in toward M87,[48] as well as...--this sentence is too long, and it becomes unclear what "as well as" refers back to, if anything.

Split into two sentences. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 00:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• The mechanism and ionizing source for such behavior of LINERs and M87 is under debate. Please clarify; "such behavior of LINERs and M87" is awkward, as is the passive and vague "have been claimed as the causes" in the next sentence.

Fixed. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• their stellar content is primarily an old population--"is primarily a population of old stars"? * * with little or no ongoing star formation at the present epoch--are "ongoing" and "at the present epoch" redundant?

Fixed.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• This has resulted in addition of some younger, bluer stars to M87.--is this just the result of a missing "the"?

Fixed. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have the last three sections left to read again. Regards, Outriggr (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To continue: Outriggr (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• The sentence Analysis of M87 in 2011 did not find any statistically significant displacement ends a paragraph in which the opposite is stated (as I understand it). In that case, some kind of acknowledgement of the contrary finding is needed, possibly as simple as the insertion of "however".

Done. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 01:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest that this sentence, which ends a paragraph, is the topic sentence and should introduce the paragraph (with additional clarifications): Almost a hundred have been identified from the thousands of globular clusters in M87. The paragraph reads as hypothetical right now, making no mention that it is discussing uncertain objects in M87 until the end of the paragraph.

Done. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 01:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• 1.5 kiloparsecs (5 thousand light-years)--this should be "5,000" to be consistent with the rest of the article. Not sure how to do that in the convert template.

I think, 5 thousand is okay because other values, when larger then thousand, are written just like that (e.g. 53.5 million light-years). In parsecs we have "kilo" thing, but it is not used with light-year. When value is less than thousand light-years (kilo in pc) numerals are given (e.g. 82 light years). I have changed the other instance, where it was given as 490,000 light years, accordingly (to 490 thousand light years). Except first 4,900 value, as 4.9 thousand looks ugly. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 01:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• The total energy output of these electrons is estimated at 5.1 × 10⁵⁶ ergs (5.1 × 10⁴⁹ joules or 3.2 × 10⁶⁸ eV). By comparison, the entire output of the Milky Way is estimated at 5 × 10³⁶ joules per second (watts). I don't understand how this is a comparison when the measurement used for the Milky Way is a different unit from any of three mentioned in the preceding sentence.

Yes it is kind of weird comparison as M87 values are energy values and Milky Way values are power values. But energy value for M87 jet electrons can not be converted to power, unless power output is measured. The comparison actually means that energy of electrons (not their energy output) in M87 jet is say 10^13 times the energy MW generates in one second. It is certainly not obvious. I will either add note here, or will rephrase the sentence.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Rephrased and clarified: "The total energy of these electrons is estimated at 5.1 × 10^56 ergs[83] (5.1 × 10^49 joules or 3.2 × 10^68 eV). This is roughly 10^13 times the energy produced by the Milky Way in one second, which is estimated at 5 × 10^36 watts (joules per second)". UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 19:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• It is proposed that M87 could be a BL Lacertae object (with a low-luminosity nucleus compared with the brightness of its host galaxy) seen from an unfavorable angle to appreciate the properties of that kind of galaxy. I don't understand "to appreciate the properties of that kind of galaxy". Later: oh, I get it now, but it could be phrased better: e.g. "seen from an unfavorable angle that makes observation difficult" or whatever.

Modified. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 20:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have performed quite a lot of copyediting of the article in conjunction with this feedback. [40] (Plus what others have done before me!) It should be reviewed for unintended changes in meaning. The goal was to simplify sentences, reduce redundancy ("a distance of"), remove phrases like "This is because" (which are always a sign that more fluid phrasing can be made), etc. Outriggr (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reversed two changes you made: 1) Inserted back "Selected" in "Elemental abundances...." since otherwise it means only these elements are there in the core, which is not true. Table lists those for which abundances have been reported. 2) "..contains various ions' emission lines.." to "..shows emission lines of various ions.." as ions' is rarely used in literature and contains is inappropriate in this context.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. I will gather a few responses here rather than thread them above.

• You now have Even though, flux variations, characteristic of the BL Lacertae objects, have been observed in M87, which is a sentence fragment. Also, this supports the previous sentence's proposal doesn't it?--so I don't understand "even though". Can it just be "Flux variations, ... in M87."?

I added "even though" to emphasize on its BL Lac nature: "despite being viewed from a large angle, it shows BL Lac characteristics". Also, "Flux variations, ... in M87." seemed dry to me. But if its not okay, it can be removed. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 01:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It is good now. "Even though" doesn't emphasize, it contrasts or suggests an alternative circumstance. So what you have now makes more sense--the sentences support each other: It is proposed that M87 could be a BL Lacertae object (with a low-luminosity nucleus compared with the brightness of its host galaxy) seen from a relatively large angle. Flux variations, [which are] characteristic of the BL Lacertae objects, have been observed in M87.

• Regarding spelling out numbers, I am not familiar with what suggestions the Manual of Style has for scientific numbers, if any, so I won't comment on that. But just to mention, there are a few ",000" (non-spelled "thousand"s) left in the article, like "70,000 times the mass".
• For the rocket sentence, ok, but again look for way to use non-passive voice (who did what, not what "was done" by whom): "In 1966, the United States Naval Research Laboratory's Aerobee 150 rocket identified the first X-ray source in Virgo, called Virgo X-1." For example.
• I'm checking just a couple of sources for numbers cited. You write "The mass of M87 within a radius (r)... steadily increases roughly in proportion to r^1.7." The source states that the inferred mass-to-light ratio in solar units increases in that way. Are those the same thing?

The source actually says (in abstract, as well as in body and summary): "M(r)~ r^1.7". Regarding "inferred mass-to-light ratio" it just says that it increases from 5 to 30 when you go from r=9 to r=40 kpc. UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 15:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise I am good with everything above that you have responded to so far. Mostly done! I will take another look at the article to see if I'm ready to support. In the future, before a nomination, asking someone to copyedit (I don't know if this was done), such as at WP:GOCE, would help. There are good lessons here that among other things show how to simplify sentence wording, which was a problem for this article. I mention this only to help; the more you can build these ideas into your own writing, the easier FAC is, and the more people will read the article, especially technical articles. :) Outriggr (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you :) UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 17:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• In the "enclosed mass" table, seems like "radius" should be on the left and mass on the right because mass is the dependent variable (as done in the cited source's [Cohen et al] tables). Outriggr (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, great idea. How can you spot so many things ;) Done.

• Hi again... can you explain how right ascension and declination in the infobox are obtained from the source [1] "On radio source selection to define a stable celestial frame". This will be my last question/comment... Outriggr (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back ;) M87 is no. 145. Glad to hear that :D --UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 00:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. Citation 1 is a journal citation though. Neither of the DOI/bibcode links don't go the page you specified...? I got a PDF out of one, and an abstract etc from the other. Fix? Outriggr (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that [41], "Tables at CDS" is the way there... Outriggr (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes and that link is also present in the pdf you are referring to.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 01:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

My point is that the reference should be updated e.g. to reflect the most exact source of the numbers cited. Whatever. Outriggr (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, yes I understand, but it was not obvious to me how to actually do that, and then I saw you your edit; great. Thank you;)UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 13:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Outriggr (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment

The last sentence of the forth para of the Jet section is uncited. As it appears to be a general and probably uncontroversial statement, I won't hold up promotion over it, but given this is an FA and not all its readers (including me) are familiar with such things, I'd like to see it sourced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2018 [42].

---

Mark XIV bomb sight

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The Mk. XIV was one of the most numerous bombsights of WWII, equipping the majority of Bomber Command during the height of their campaign against Germany. Connected to the NBS, it survived in the post-war period into the 1960s. Nevertheless, it is practically unknown today, overshadowed by the much more famous Norden (advertising pays!).

The article went through a A-class some time ago and has remained pretty static since then. There were questions about one source (Black) that don't appear to have ever been resolved, so reviewers should look at that thread.

And in case anyone is curious, although today we normally write "bombsight", such was not the case in the RAF's contemporary documents, as is the case for the "computor". Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

• The RAF was working on the Automatic Bomb Sight along these lines: should this be "an" rather than "the"? It hasn't been mentioned before.
• Suggest adding "contemporary" before "Norden bombsight" in the body, as you do in the lead.
• It seems extraordinary that one branch of the UK forces would deny another branch access to important technology such as the Norden bombsight. If the background can be made both concise and interesting, it would be nice to get it in a footnote.

I rewrote this to fix both of these, it should be much clearer now.

• What does "suction-powered" mean?

And this.

• Any information about the Mk. XVI? You mention the XV and XVII.

None whatsoever! I asked the RAF Museum and they had no idea either.

• As the Naval Mosquito did not have a bomb aimer's position, the sight head was unstabilized and mounted in front of the pilot: why unstabilized?

None of the sources say, so I added a note to that effect. I strongly believe it was simply because there wasn't room for it all in front of the pilot, the stabilizer is half of the mechanism. That, and that at low altitude the effect of banking the aircraft would be a few yards difference in the aim line, instead of kilometers!

• The sight head was mounted on top of a square platform, with screw adjustments that could be used to level the platform. A spirit level on the sight allowed it to be checked. The normally periodic and minor changes required to level the sighting head could be performed by removing the cover over the spirit level and then turning a small adjusting screw on the mount. Repetitive, unless these refer to different things, in which case that's not clear.

Indeed unclear, rewritten.

• Can we get a link or an explanation of the difference between the systematic error and random error?

I added this with a note and an inline to a discussion. I guess it could be in the body, but take a look and see what you think of it now.

That's everything I can see. I made some minor copyedits; the prose is clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Support. The fixes look good; this is FA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "Low Level Bombsight, Mark IIIs" (meant as a plural proper noun): Ugh.

Nice catch... reworded sentance for clarity.

• "were in focused at infinity, allowing the user to focus their eyes on the target and not have to change focus to see the line": two many instances of "focus". "in focused"?

Indeed, fixed! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:462_Squadron_RAAF_Halifax_bombsight_AWM_P01523.007.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

  Interesting question. Ronald Maxwell Hines was a member of No. 462 Squadron during the war. At some point he gave his collection of photographs to the Australian War Memorial. (We don't know when that was, although if we really, really wanted to know, I could drive round there and ask. They keep this information on file.) The handover date legally became the publication date, and the images became Commonwealth-owned photographs. Copyright expired world-wide 50 years after the images were taken during the war. We could use the {{PD-AustraliaGov}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Not sure about the direct external link in Note 2. Such notes are normally treated as part of the text and subject to the same restrictions regarding ext. links. An alternative would be to treat the link as a source and use a normal citation.

Do you mean the link to the image? It's not being used to cite the text, so I'm not sure what restrictions apply here?

• There's a hyphen in the page range of ref 38 which should be an ndash.

Fixed.

• "Harry Black" sources: the publisher in each case is given as the "RAF Bomber Command Association Newsletter". I guess, however, that since you give no details of this newsletter, e.g. dates, your source is this website, a privately prepared archive – see "about the archive". I'm not doubting the late Harry Black's credentials, but I think the source information should make the provenance clear.

My source is the web site. I contacted the current "owners" of the newsletter for further information but they were unbelievably unhelpful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Subject to these points, sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Meets FA standard in my opinion. Some minor suggestions:

• "Windspeed" should be "wind speed"
• "venturii" should be "venturi"
• "center" should be "centre"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

All fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2018 [43].

---

2007 AT&T 250

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a race in the 2007 NASCAR Busch Series, known today as the Xfinity Series for sponsorship reasons. The race was notable because of a driver change involving Joe Gibbs Racing's Aric Almirola and Denny Hamlin; the latter went on to win the race while the former was given credit for the victory per NASCAR rules. I believe the article is up to par with the other NASCAR FAs. As always, all feedback is welcomed and greatly appreciated. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by User:Royalbroil

I am very familiar with NASCAR as a WikiProject member. I live in Wisconsin and attended several NASCAR races at this track (but not this particular one). I am reviewing from that perspective. Royalbroil 04:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• 1a. Well written
  • Yes
• 1b. Comprehensive
  • Yes
• 1c. well-researched
  • I checked all of the sources - they are all are very reliable IMHO.
  • "Four Wisconsin-born drivers entered the race hoping to continue the trend: Scott Wimmer, Todd Kluever, Kelly Bires, and Frank Kreyer." The article later has Kvapil who is also from Wisconsin. Was he entered or was he just supposed to practice in place of Edwards?

• • Kvapil was in the same situation as Almirola and Darnell; he was practicing in place of a Cup regular. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• • "Almirola qualified his No. 20 car on pole position with a time of 29.608 seconds." isn't cited with a RS.

• • Fixed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• 1d. Neutral
  • Well done
• 1d. stable
  • definitely
• 2a. style: lead
  • well done
• 2b. structure
  • Well organized
• 2c. consistent citations
  • yes
• 3. Media
  • All have appropriate licenses. I had a hand in most of the images for this article (unbeknownst to me when I started reviewing this FA). I took one, cropped another, and located/uploaded another from flickr.
• 4. Length
  • Appropriate

@Royalbroil: Thank you for your comments. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Thank you for addressing my concerns! Royalbroil 02:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from Argento Surfer

• I think Busch league should link to Bush league to make the pun clear for readers unfamiliar with the term.

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• "With at time of 29.981 seconds" - something's off here

• Fixed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Wimmer was the fastest in the opening" - if only elapsed time is given, then he's the quickest. Fast relates to speed. (2 instances in this paragraph)

• Fixed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• The ET is shown to the third decimal. Is it worth mentioning the difference between Wimmer and 10th place in the prose to show the tightness of the field?

• I don't think any of the other NASCAR GAs and FAs do this so I'd prefer not to for consistency's sake, though if you insist, I'll oblige. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Other than these minor things, the prose looks great. Argento Surfer (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I have amended the issues raised. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm satisfied. Happy to support. Argento Surfer (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Support by Kees08

• Should this really be a semicolon? Seems like it should just be a comma. Aric Almirola of Joe Gibbs Racing (JGR) was the listed winner of the race; Richard Childress Racing's Scott Wimmer finished second, while Braun Racing's Jason Leffler finished third.

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Define and wikilink JGR in the body

• JGR is the abbriviation for Joe Gibbs Racing, which is linked and noted already. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I may be mistaken, but it has to happen in both the intro and the body, right? Kees08 (Talk)

• • Ah ok I missed the "in the body" part. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is the decimal place necessary? Not sure 0.4 degrees makes much difference. Temperatures hovering between 66 °F (19 °C) and 55.4 °F (13.0 °C)

• Removed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Cite the things in the infobox that are not cited in the body of the article

• Cited the TV announcers, though most everything else is already present in the article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Any way to avoid using returned in consecutive sentences? (return is used in that sentence again, making it three)The Busch Series first came to the Milwaukee Mile in 1984, returning the following season before taking a seven-year absence from visiting the track. It returned

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Would the points paragraph be better represented with tables, like it is represented at the end of the article? Just the same tables, but in the background section?

• For the sake of consistency with other NASCAR GAs and FAs, I think it's better to represent the points entering the race in prose. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hm, I think I will wait for a second opinion on that. It seems like the article would flow a lot better with it in a table. Kees08 (Talk)
  • @Royalbroil: What do you think about this point? Looking for a second opinion. Kees08 (Talk) 21:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm, good question. I don't think that the other FA/GA should need to be revisited for such a small matter. No strong opinion either way - a weak preference for the table per WP:WHENTABLE (a sporting list). Royalbroil 02:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Bcschneider53: Okay I think we are both leaning towards a table; would you mind implementing that? Kees08 (Talk) 09:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
        • @Kees08: Not a problem with me; I'm busy today, so maybe this evening I can make the table happen. I do want to ping @MWright96: though since he works with a lot of similar articles; should this be the standard going forward? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
        • @Kees08: Tables are done! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think I am missing a core concept here. Why exactly are all these racers flying here to race? I know there is another race, and I remember similar things happening w/ NASCAR and the Indy 500, is it a similar concept? Might be something you can lay out better to those who are not familiar with the race. (after finishing the article, I guess Busch is not the premier racing league, and that is why. Not clear to me on why they would want to race in both still)

• Some drivers race in both NASCAR-sanctioned series to gain more experience, fulfill sponsor obligations (the case with Hamlin here), or simply because they love to race. It's called Buschwhacking. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Toyota is wikilink twice in the qualifying table

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Who led the most laps?

• Edwards. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Duh, I did not follow the footnote. Kees08 (Talk)

• Does Hamlin getting the points affect the season at all?

• Hamlin actually didn't get the points; Almirola did. The driver who starts the race receives the points and prize money. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry was a bit sleepy. I meant does Hamlin not getting the points affect the season (or Almirola getting the points). Looking at the standings, it does not seem like it, was just curious. Might be worth putting in the article if there were/were not implications. Kees08 (Talk)

• • Since neither Hamlin nor Almirola ran the full season that year, it did not really have any notable impact on the standings. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay, is there a good place to put that in the article? That seems important, it was the first thing I thought of when I saw Almirola received the points. Kees08 (Talk) 21:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was curious what blocked the track, apparently parked cars. Might be neat to include that and that they considered landing on the racetrack itself. Also has some details on Edwards' commute if you feel like including it.

• Added. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that's it for now. Kees08 (Talk) 09:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: Thank you. I'm rather busy today but I'll have time this evening. Will try to get it done then as most of these seem fairly simple fixes. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: Done everything in the first go-round; let me know if you need anything else. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: Three things I commented back on. Kees08 (Talk) 08:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Y File:CarlEdwardsAugust2007.jpg - link to photo it was cropped from is broken, can you try finding it and repairing the link? License review pending that.
• Y File:DennyHamlinAugust2007.jpg - License was originally fine, Flickr user changed the license to all rights reserved, however creative commons licenses are irrevocable, so the license is fine for this image.
• Y File:AricAlmirola army.mil-2007-08-27-075631 (cropped).jpg - Looks fine
• Y File:ScottWimmerMilwaukee2009.jpg - Looks fine
• Y File:The Milwaukee Mile.svg - Add an English description on the filepage

I think personality rights warnings have to be added to all the images focused on an individual. If you think they do not let me know.

Check out WP:ALT for how to write alt text, and redo the alt text for all the images. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 09:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: Thank you for the review; fixed the two minor issues and tried my best at the ALT text (something I've always struggled with knowing how to do well). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I will try to reword the alts later today. Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: If you want to give it another go though, just write them like you are describing the picture to a blind person. Instead of 'map of Milkwaukee Mile', it would me more like 'Diagram of oval shaped racetrack, with pit line jutting from the top of the image into the interior of the track' or something...worded better than that, but along those lines. Kees08 (Talk) 21:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay I changed the alt text. Let me know if you have any issues with it. Otherwise the image review is complete. Kees08 (Talk) 09:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments – Read through the article and most of it looks good to me. I did come up with the following few comments, which are relatively minor.

• At the end of the lead, why is the second word of "Manufacturers' championship" not capitalized when other similar items in the same sentence are?
• Background: Redundant use of "race" in "Menard, the defending race winner, did not participate in the race." I'd say the last three words could simply be dropped to tighten the writing a bit.
• Practice and qualifying: Try not to start a sentence with a numeral like 44; in that case, spelling out the words is fine. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08 and Giants2008: Done the minor comments, so I believe all that's left are the new tables? I'll try to finish those up tomorrow afternoon. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support – All of my comments have been resolved and I think the article meets FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Sarastro1: I think this is ready to close unless you guys see something missing? Kees08 (Talk) 19:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2018 [44].

---

Sonic X-treme

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix ^talk 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sonic X-treme is more than a canceled video game for the Sega Saturn - it's also in many ways a cautionary tale of corporate politics and the effects they have on a company. It's a captivating story of game development, I believe, whether you are a video game fan or not. I'm nominating this article because I feel it's a great read that meets the FA standards, and since its GA has undergone a major expansion to make it as comprehensive and well-sourced as it can be. It is the first article I've worked on since returning from a three-year absence on Wikipedia, however, so I welcome all the feedback I will receive and will do my best to address any concerns that arise. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

Woohoo, another Sonic FAC! I'll finish reviewing this within the next day. JOEBRO64 23:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just as a general note for the article, there seem to be a lot of quotations (excluding the quote boxes). While this isn't a bad thing, I'd recommend paraphrasing most of these.
  • It tends to be, mostly because Senn and Wallis provided so much insight into the game development. I've actually already paraphrased a lot before we ever got to FAC, but I'll take a look over it and paraphrase some more where I feel I can without taking away meaning.
• Lead designer Chris Senn states that he modeled and textured four main characters, as well as designs for 50 different enemies and an hour of music.[2] Later builds had Sonic, Tiara, Tails, and Knuckles as playable characters.[1]—were the four characters Senn modeled Sonic, Tiara, Tails, and Knuckles? From the way this is written, it sounds like you're talking about different characters.
  • I actually can't say that. The source only says that Senn modeled 4 main characters. While it may seem safe to presume they're the four in the other source, I found another, but unreliable, source that suggests Amy Rose was also a playable character, courtesy of artist Ross Harris. There's nothing to say Senn didn't model her, either, since he and Harris had different duties on the project. All we can safely say is what the sources say.
• You mention STI in the premise section, but you don't explain what this stands for until the background section.
  • Oops. I restructured this article over and over so many times that I must've missed it. Fixed.
• In 1991, they began development on several titles that would lead to the creation of Sonic the Hedgehog 2—several games were merged together into Sonic 2? Proposed change: In 1991, they began development on several titles, among them Sonic the Hedgehog 2
  • Used your wording, thanks.
• David Houghton of GamesRadar described the prospect of "a good 3D Sonic game" on the Saturn as "a 'What if...' situation on a par with the dinosaurs not becoming extinct."[9] IGN's Travis Fahs called X-treme "the turning point not only for SEGA's mascot and their 32-bit console, but for the entire company", although he also noted that the game served as "an empty vessel for SEGA's ambitions and the hopes of their fans".[8] Dave Zdyrko, who operated a prominent website for Saturn fans during the system's lifespan, offered a more nuanced perspective: "I don't know if [X-treme] could've saved the Saturn, but ... Sonic helped make the Genesis and it made absolutely no sense why there wasn't a great new Sonic title ready at or near the launch of the [Saturn]".[30] In a 2007 retrospective, producer Mike Wallis maintained that X-treme "definitely would have been competitive" with Nintendo's Super Mario 64.[3] Senn has expressed his belief that a version of X-treme built by him with Alon's engine could have sold "quite well".[2]—this "A of B said C" structure should generally be avoided, since it's a bit dull and repetitive. See WP:RECEPTION.
  • I gave this a shot. Let me know what you think. I agree with WP:RECEPTION where it says, "even good writers have trouble with these sections".
• I recommend archiving your sources.
  • Done. Wow, that was easy. I'd never heard of that bot before; definitely a tool I'll have to save for future article writing.

Overall, this article is in fantastic shape. I think this is an interesting story, and it's weird to think where Sonic would be if this game was released. Once my comments are addressed, I will support the promotion of this article. JOEBRO64 12:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you've addressed my concerns, so I'm happy to support this article's promotion. I found this article outstandingly comprehensive and informative; I'm sort of wondering if Sonic Adventure (which might be at FAC soon, wink wink) would have ever existed had X-treme been released. JOEBRO64 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, just a question: which version of the game engine is this? JOEBRO64 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll respond to this one on your talk page. No reason to clutter up an FAC with this :) Red Phoenix ^talk 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Please include ALT text for the infobox image. The other images in the body of the article should also have ALT text.
  • Done. Forgot this was a thing; it's been a while.
• For this part (then eventually to the Saturn and PC,), I am not sure if the “eventually” part is necessary.
  • Fixed.
• I would use Knuckles’ full title (i.e. Knuckles the Echidna) on the first use of the character’s name in the body of the article.
  • Done
• For Reference 1, Destructoid should be linked.
  • Oops, not sure how I missed that. Fixed.
• Game Players should be linked in References 5 and 6.
• I have been given this note in the past, but all of the work/publisher should be linked in the citations format. For instance, IGN is not linked in several of the citations.
  • Grouping the last two together: That's actually not what I was ever taught to do in any of my previous FA's. Past direction I have been given and I've used in all of my articles since was to link the site and publisher for the first reference that uses it on the list of references, but not to repeatedly link it in references beyond the first use due to overlinking. If it's something you've been given as an FA note, however, maybe we can ask for a second opinion on this one? Red Phoenix ^talk 04:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I will leave this up for other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article! Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion, and good luck this time around with this article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1)? Either way, have a great day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Popcornduff

This is a pretty good article. Interesting subject (failures always are), thorough and well researched.

I've done some extensive copyediting, mainly to trim unnecessary words and simplify prose, but also, hopefully, to clarify in a few places. You'll want to carefully check my work to make sure I haven't accidentally removed useful information or altered meanings. (I'd like to keep going, but I'm getting major Visual Editor bugs - what the hell's going on?)

However, imo, there remain a few problems. These are significant but definitely fixable. (The quotes below are based on my copy-edited version of the article.)

• The Premise section should cover the game's content - so the first two paragraphs, with info about plot, levels, camera etc is good. But then you start going into development - information about developers and engines and development problems - which isn't appropriate for this section.
  • Reformatted this quite a bit. The idea here was to filter through aspects of the game design that was more about the game's premise than the development, which is more of the project's history. Some of it was a bit redundant, though, so I rephrased the third paragraph to talk about gameplay elements, and moved the fourth into the development section.

• The Background section has too much information about the creation of the Sonic franchise. I don't think this is relevant here - who cares that Sonic 1 was released as a Genesis pack-in game? I'm here to learn about X-treme. I think you need, at most, two sentences about the first Sonic game and its success etc, then move directly onto Cerny setting up STI to develop Sonic 2.
  • Reworked. This seems to be a perennial weakness of mine, knowing how much background is enough and how much is too much, just because I've worked with similar material so long. Hopefully this is better.

• Likewise, the Background section ends with: According to Hector, after the release of the PlayStation, the corporate atmosphere at Sega became political, with "lots of finger-pointing". Tensions between Sega of Japan and Sega of America pervaded development. Development of what? General Sega development? Or X-Treme specifically? If it's the latter, this doesn't seem to be what this section is about. Maybe you can just delete this last sentence.
  • I think you actually might have caused this one by mistake. In my last revision, the sentence read "Tensions between Sega of Japan and Sega of America would continue to pervade the development of the game." I restored this sentence for now.
    • Struck out. Decided we were taking too many liberties with the source, which was about X-treme specifically and this statement was placed elsewhere before.

• Lead programmer Don Goddard was replaced by Alon, a decision the team members disagreed about. Is there more information about what, specifically, they disagreed about?
  • There's a bit more in the source here that I tapped; it's really unclear what they "disagreed about" but I would presume from reading it that they didn't agree with Alon being made lead programmer. I added a bit about how Alon was perceived to be difficult to work with.

• One team, led by Senn and Alon, developed the main game for PC, with the intent of porting it to Saturn; the other team, led by STI tech director Robert Morgan and including programmer Coffin, developed the boss levels on the Saturn. This two-team thing seems critical to understanding the development, but I think, right now, it isn't clear. What is "the main game"? This could be taken to mean there were two games. One solution might be to reverse the order, like this: One team, led by STI tech director Robert Morgan and including programmer Coffin, developed the boss levels. The other team, led by Senn and Alon, developed the other content, working on PC with the intent of porting it to Saturn. That's not perfect phrasing, I just jotted it off to illustrate the idea.
  • I used your phrasing for now. That being said, I don't like the phrase "other content". What else would you call a game's levels that are not its boss levels? That is what is meant by "main game". There's not a good term for it.
    • I think the key to this is this quote from the Edge article: "By this time, the team had split into two distinct groups, both working on Sonic X-treme but not on the same version." In other words, the two teams developed separate versions of X-Treme (though possibly with a view of combining them, right?). If we can talk about these as different versions, explaining them becomes much easier. Popcornduff (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking of that PC thing: I think it's unclear whether there was ever a plan to release the game on Windows, or if it was just developed on Windows in anticipation of porting to Saturn.
  • It's unclear if that's initially the case in the sources too, but we do know Senn and Alon tried to develop a PC version of Sonic X-treme using Alon's engine at the same time as Coffin and his team were trying to redo X-treme in his engine. So essentially, it starts as one game being built in two different pieces, to an official project an an unofficial project being developed simultaneously, to no games being released at all.

• The most problematic part is the explanation about the executive being unimpressed with the demo. It's very difficult to follow - there are too many concepts, with the "main game" (again, this is an unclear term) being ported from PC by a subcontractor, etc. This little section needs to be simplified and probably needs to be totally rewritten. If you need help with this I can try rewriting it myself - I may come back to it later this evening, but no promises.

• OK, I've trimmed this bit. Hope I didn't remove any information you consider critical. Popcornduff (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Anything I did consider critical, I placed elsewhere in the article, so this should be good now.

• Senn and Alon's project was rejected for the second time, causing Alon to leave Sega.[9] Sega's PC division was not prepared to pay for development of this version, and may have been hesitant to approve the game based on its earlier rejection for the Saturn.[8] I don't understand this. It comes out of nowhere and I don't know what it refers to. What project? What is "this version"? The game was canned, so what were they working on? We need more information.
  • This was referring back to the sentence that had stated that Senn and Alon continued working on their version of the game after the March 1996 visit that resulted in its rejection, with a hope of pitching it as a game for the PC. I pulled this out of the paragraph it was originally in and recombined it to try and make it make more sense.

• STI was officially disbanded in 1996 as a result of changes in management at Sega of America. According to STI's Roger Hector, the success of Sony and the PlayStation console led to corporate turmoil within Sega that resulted in STI being dissolved. Wallis has stated that STI was not actually disbanded, but rather became Sega of America's product development department while the previous department had branched off to form SegaSoft. This is confusing. You say it was disbanded, but then say Wallis said it was not disbanded. If sources disagree, we should say that explicitly, rather than making a claim in Wikipedia's voice and then quoting a source that contradicts it.
  • Rephrased to remove contradiction in statement.

• *Senn, along with the community, announced intentions to recreate the game. Is Senn working with the community to do this? Are these separate endeavors?
  • They're quite separate, actually. I could use your input on this one: in my GA version in 2013 when I worked on this article before a three year retirement, Senn had recently announced he was not going to finish the remake. The problem is, he announced it on his own website, and whereas the video game media covered him working on the recreation, they didn't cover his cancellation. The only evidence we have is the post he made on his own forum site, Senntient.com. I did cite that then and used WP:SPS as my reasoning, but the reviewer told me he'd let it slide for GA but that it should be removed or re-sourced for FAC, which I can't find a reliable source. The fanbase actually did finish levels of the game in 2015, while I was temporarily retired. How do you think it should be handled?
    • I think I might have this fixed, actually. While I didn't note Senn's cancellation, I noted that the fans who built the game were affiliated with the website SonicRetro, which is in the source listed. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I've attempted to simplify this - I don't think we need to namecheck SonicRetro in the prose. I'm a little confused, though; the prose here suggests this was said in 2007, but the source is dated to 2008. This source is also used for the Yasuhara claim, but I can't find that. Is this source correct? Popcornduff (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Struck out. This last section was by far and away the best written part when I first picked up the article in 2013 and I was relatively familiar with it based on the Retro Gamer article so I pretty much left it alone, but I just reviewed this myself based on your spot-check and yeah, it's not there. So I struck it and rephrased it; I don't think we're really losing any meaning here. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a lot to chew on. But I think this article can get there. Popcornduff (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not to worry about having a lot to chew on. Since this is a FAC, I'm glad to have a lot because it can only mean I can make the article better :). On the Visual Editor bug, I did submit a bug report for it. It's been speculated that a "nowiki" tag may be the cause, but it isn't the case all the time. I noticed the same issue myself and for now just edit the Cancellation section in edit source until they will get it fixed. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There should be responses ready for review now. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: can you have another look and tell me what we have left to address? Thank you, Red Phoenix ^talk 15:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for slowing this down. I'll be getting back to it again soon. Popcornduff (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Final comments from Popcornduff

OK, I've done one final pass. (Make sure to check that I haven't broken anything.) I'm almost ready to support this. I hope only a handful of small points left to address:

• Websites such as Destructoid and GamesRadar have speculated that X-treme may have inspired games such as Super Mario Galaxy (2007) - If possible it would be nice to say exactly what elements these are. Same goes for the point about Lost World - no need to go into long detail but one or two concrete examples would be nice.
  • There's not a lot of detail here except comparisons. Destructoid contrasts Mario Galaxy's movement with Sonic X-treme's, and the GamesRadar article calls the fisheye lens system "a spell-bindingly hypnotic, spherical look, long before Mario ever thought of going off-world." I'll leave it up to you, but I'm feeling more and more it's not a lot of support and would not mind striking if we need.
    • I removed the GamesRadar thing because it's too vague to be really useful - I think it borders on WP:SYNTH, so safest to omit. But the Destructoid article does go into detail about the similarities between X-treme and Galaxy, so I've added it. Popcornduff (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Can you double-check the source for the "cool" activities is correct? I shuffled this section around and the previous sourcing wasn't clear, and I can't check it.
  • Source is confirmed correct.

• Sonic X-treme was conceived for the Sega Genesis as a side-scrolling platform game like previous Sonic games. The design changed early in development due to the difficulty of adapting platform games to 3D. I don't understand the second sentence - at this point it doesn't sound like they were developing a 3D game. If it's not possible to clarify this, maybe just delete the second sentence.
  • Struck. I agree; the second sentence doesn't really add up. On rereading it I'm not fully sure where it came from; I don't actually recall putting that in.
    • It might have ended up there by mistake in one of my reshuffles. Popcornduff (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Remnants of the project can be seen in the Saturn compilation game Sonic Jam.[1][2][3][4] Are four citations for this claim really necessary? Popcornduff (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No, not really. It just happens to be cited in that many. I took one out for now, and if we need, we can remove the one to the NiGHTS article.
    • I think more than two is overkill for such a straightforward claim, so I've removed the NiGHTS source. Popcornduff (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Responses submitted. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I forgot to include the clarification-needed tag in my list of things to address here. Regarding your edit summary, I added it knowing you'd address it promptly, so thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Phew. That was a lot of work. Thanks for being patient, and good job on the article. I'm happy to Support this for FA. Popcornduff (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment from ProtoDrake

• Support; Anything I might've pointed out's already been pointed out above. It's a wonderful read. I didn't think an article about a cancelled game could be so good. Congrats, and hope it passes! --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them somewhere, we still need an image and source review. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Will do - they haven’t happened yet. As a side note, I will be unavailable until April 12 while I leave for a vacation and to get married. I have asked TheJoebro64 to watch over this FAC while I am gone, and I can answer any lingering questions when I return. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^talk 07:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sonic X-treme Coverart.png: Use, rationale and license seem fine for me.
• File:Sxtreme-jadegully.jpg: It is not clear to me how WP:NFCC#8 is met here.
• File:Sonic X-treme engine test screenshot.png: Same problem as above.
• File:Sega-Saturn-Console-Set-Mk1.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.

OKish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It is extremely common and precedent for video game articles to include one screenshot of the game itself to illustrate the gameplay. My rationales used for this article and on the image pages are in line with this precedent. This one includes two because there were two distinct game engines with two different styles of animation and gameplay during development. The GA review three years ago was done by an experienced video game article writer and his opinion was that the use of both would meet WP:NFCC. Those images have not changed since then. Red Phoenix ^talk 09:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because something has been done before doesn't make it right. We need to show, in this review, how WP:NFCC#8 is met. And I'm not ticking off this as an image review as done until the point is cleared up. Sarastro (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've gone and updated the rationales. Do they meet NFCC#8 now? JOEBRO64 00:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The first one does, now. I am not convinced on the second since it looks like the same rationale as the first, and that is a bit worrying from a WP:NFCC#3 perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: How about now? JOEBRO64 19:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Better, but I'd like a second opinion on whether the second image satisfies WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. On other videogame FAC I've accepted one non-free screenshot of the game with the understanding that graphics are an important part of videogames and that the understanding of the article topic is improved by one non-free screenshot. Here we have two screenshots, and I am not convinced we can't do with less. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll put in a request for comment at WT:VG. JOEBRO64 23:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A second screenshot demonstrating an in-development version of the game is acceptable, since it would be emphasizing the production process rather than a general demonstration of the gameplay. See the article for StarCraft, which has a general gameplay screen, a development screen, and a story screen (not that this article needs one of those.) I support the inclusion of the second screenshot here. Phediuk (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

After reading the article and going over both WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 to me both images meet the requirements. One image alone can't convey the approach used in developing the game. The first image shows the game engine that was intended to be used for regular levels and is significantly different from the second image. The second image shows the second game engine for boss battles that would later be the main engine for the entire game after an executive was not pleased with the first engine. In this regard both meet WP:NFCC#8 as they both increase the contextual significance of the article. The two images also meet the first part of WP:NFCC#3 because they show two different points in development that can't be expressed by a single image. The second part of WP:NFCC#3 is also meet here because both images are of low resolution. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Phediuk (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In theory, I think both images could be included - more non-free media makes justifying each more difficult, but not impossible. However, I have some concerns. First, I'm not sure the second image meets the guidance of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Sourcing. Second, while the article mentions the two engines, I don't see that it does a very good job of contrasting their design elements - is there sourcing to support development of that point? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I've updated the article to make it clearer that they were two separate engines. Is it better? As for sourcing, WPVG does allow users to provide our own screenshots, as long as they are not modified. JOEBRO64 21:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Not really - it already said there were two engines, what's not really clear (at least to someone who isn't up on video game development terminology) is what the differences between the two are. As to sourcing: that policy makes sense for an official game that anyone could verify by picking up a copy at their local shop - less so for a leaked version on an emulator. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Apologies that I have not been here to respond; I was on a weeklong wikibreak while on vacation somewhere with no internet. Details on these differences were moved into the Premise section during the copyedit and did originally pin each element to which version of the engine it was at the time; the articles from Game Players during development do a good job handling sourcing on this. For reference, I've quoted the section it is now below; the original version was more clear on whose engine it was for each, but was moved due to relevance to either Premise or Development. That being said, before we do handle this, let's figure out the image sourcing issue or else it's all redundant anyway. If we're in dispute about the emulator shot (and there's not an actual release to get a screenshot from), an IGN article used as a source actually has a very similar screenshot, as do scans from the Game Players issues of the boss engine. Let me know what you think here; surely we can sort this out, and if not, we could cut the image but I think the article will lose some meaning from the loss of that visual. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Any idea where those articles got the screenshots? Were they released by the team, photographed at E3, also taken from an emulator? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

IGN received its from Chris Senn, a developer on the game. He provided them courtesy of his website he formerly ran, the Sonic X-treme Compendium. Game Players most likely received the images from the development team themselves; they sent writer Patrick Baggatta to STI to interview the developers - that source is from 1996, before the release of the game. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Addendum for clarity: as in, it was presented as a "pre-release" set of interviews, since the game was obviously never released. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that seems reasonable for sourcing. I would like to see more sourced content contrasting the two engines, if possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

All right, I'll replace it this afternoon. @Popcornduff: When I do this later, I'll be adding back in some bits about whose engines were what. Could you help copyedit this in in a professional and easy to read manner? Suffice it to say I don't 100% trust myself to do it in a manner consistent with a fully professional style, in the right location with the right amount of detail without repeating myself. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. Just ping me here once you've done it. Popcornduff (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Ready. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. But I'm afraid I can't understand the final two sentences.

• Alon and Senn focused on building an editor that would set in place the gameplay and environment of the main levels. Does this mean they built an editor to construct the main levels? If so, I suggest "Alon and Senn built an editor to construct the main levels", or something like that - ie simple and direct.
• Enemies were created as rendered sprites, while music and backgrounds were added later. I don't understand what these claims have to do with one another. "Added later"? Added later than what? The enemies? Why? What is the relevance of music and backgrounds here? Popcornduff (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Addressed. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The game featured a fisheye camera system, the "Reflex Lens", that gave players a wide-angle view,[2] making levels appear to move around Sonic.[3] Levels would rotate around a fixed center of gravity, meaning Sonic could run up walls,[4] arriving at what was previously the ceiling. Sonic was also able to enter and exit the screen as he moved.[5] For boss battles, levels were "free-roaming" and "arena-style'",[3] and rendered bosses as polygonal characters as opposed to sprites. These levels used shading, transparency and lighting effects to showcase the Saturn's technical potential.[6]

— Premise section of Sonic X-treme article on Wikipedia as of April 12, 2018

@Nikkimaria: Have we addressed your concerns fully with the better-sourced image and more detail added with copyediting? Red Phoenix ^talk 13:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Better, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Ian

Not having any interest in video games, I thought it might be worthwhile recusing as coord and reading/copyediting from a wholly dispassionate perspective. I tweaked a few things, so pls let me know if I got the wrong idea anywhere, but generally it read well to me and was easy to follow. I'll take a breath and then re-read without editing before I sign off on the prose, though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Ian. Of course, I have to give credit to Popcornduff and several others for helping to really give the prose some polish. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: It has been a few weeks and this is now at the bottom of the queue; have you re-read this yet? Kees08 (Talk) 08:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Source review/spot check by Jackdude101

• References formatted consistently. web pages archived appropriately.
• There are possible copyright violations related to three sources according to this link: [45]. Observe the highlighted text in the link and correct accordingly.
• FN 3 - used 17 times. material cited and faithful to source.
• FN 13 - used once. material cited and faithful to source. Link should be changed to page 7 of the source instead of page 1, though.
• FN 23 - used twice. why is there a huge caption for this one? Also, on which page is that caption from in the article?
• FN 33 - used once. it talks about one playable build and not "several playable builds". This should be corrected in the article.

Resolve the items before I can offer support. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 02:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

All addressed. To clarify what I've done:

• All of the "possible copyright violations" are direct quotes from developers that are cited in the article as direct quotes attributed to that person, and therefore not a copyright violation. There was one minor exception, which I reworded a bit to resolve.
• Link changed on FN 13 and archive also updated.
• Dropped quote out of FN 23 - this was a remnant from before I started work on the article and I just hadn't bothered to remove it. It's a short enough interview that I don't think it's necessary to have. Shouldn't be a paging issue there on the caption; the article itself is only one page.
• FN 33 quote fixed.

Thank you for your review. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Alright, everything looks good now. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 00:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Sorry to bother you, but are we ready to go here? Red Phoenix ^talk 20:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2018 [46].

---

Simon Hatley

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a man who shot an albatross that became famous in literary history. Whether he deserved it or not, I don't know, but it's why he is remembered.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

I missed the peer review, so I have a few prose queries:

• "...and assuring Hatley's literary fame." Hmm, I'm not so sure that many people remember, if they ever knew, that Coleridge's poem was based on the experiences of one Simon Hatley, so "fame" might be overdoing it. Perhaps "...assuring Hatley a place in literary history" or some such modified wording, would be more appropriate?
• Early life: I'm still unsure about transatlantic comma usage, but to me, the comma after "Mary Herbert" looks superfluous.
• Same section: "The residence was pulled down and rebuilt in 1704, after he had left home" – needs name, not pronoun
• "...and third mate was a very junior officer position." A non sequitur where presently stated – this info correctly belongs to the previous sentence.
• Career: "The first such voyage made by Hatley was during the War of the Spanish Succession, which found Britain and Spain on opposing sides, under the command of Captain Woodes Rogers." The clauses in this sentence seem oddly ordered. Surely the logical order is "The first such voyage made by Hatley, under the command of Captain Woodes Rogers, was during the War of the Spanish Succession, which found Britain and Spain on opposing sides."
• Voyage with Rogers: first mention of the Duke and the Duchess should explain that these were Rodgers' ships
• Why the huge manpower? 183 and 151 respectively seems vastly more crew than necessary to sail these ships.

I've made it clearer that these were effectively warships, and so the more men to fight the better.

• First captivity: "leaving real estate in Woodstock to his son Simon, though with a life estate to his widow." What is a "life estate"? I've heard of a "life interest", but the term "life estate" I've never encountered.

Linked and explained.

• Shelvocke expedition: "The Speedwell completed her Atlantic passage." Seems like an unnecessary sentence.
• "In spite of Hatley's attempt..." – what was he "attempting"? Some explanation needs to be added here. You say in the Literary influences section that Hatley shot the bird in the hopes of fairer winds – this information should be brought forward.

I am trying to incorporate Shelvocke's account into the article, though it is too large to blockquote. I'll make it clearer the reader is to look at the blockquote. After all, we have nothing to add to what he wrote.

A most intriguing story, giving body and context to something that I was vaguely aware of, from school probably, but had forgotten completely. You seem to be developing quite a taste for oddball articles – where next? Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done those things. In addition to your school days, you may remember Mr Hatley when he played a small part in the Woodes Rogers article, which I improved nine or so years ago and you reviewed at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Support: My concerns adequately answered. Nine years! Days of wine and roses. Brianboulton (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review and my few (v. minor) points were dealt with then. A rereading confirms the excellence of this article, which I found highly informative as well as a good read. Certainly of FA standard in my view. Tim riley talk 13:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments then and now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll review soon. First an image review, to get that out of the way. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Image review - the licences and sources are generally fine, but are we sure that this[47] image was published in the US, and not the UK? I'm thinking PD-old should be added as well. As for the second image, could it get a date in the caption? There should also be space between its title and the preceding text.

All done.-Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Some of the references contain notes, aren't they better off moved to the notes section?
• Perhaps the notes could be sourced.

Both the above done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Cape Horn and Coleridge are overlinked.

In both cases, I felt the first link was in an unexpected place, that might leave the reader without a ready link when they get to the real discussion about the cape, and Coleridge.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But maybe Coleridge's full name should be spelled out at first mention outside the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• "According to Simon Hatley's sole biographer, Robert Fowke" Could we get a date? I assumed he was a contemporary, until I looked at the references.

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• "and Hatley purchased a pair of silk hose." How are such specific details known? Perhaps state what sources are available about his life for modern historians?

The account books for the Rogers expedition exist and mention his purchase. What there are are two sets of published journals for each of the two voyages, (Rogers and Cooke for the first, Shelvocke and Betagh for the second, some records in Oxfordshire, the records from Lima, that Fowke reviewed, the records of the Rogers expedition, probably I'm missing a few things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• "a Scottish sailor who had been left there" Link or spell out marooning?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Thus, for a time, Hatley, who would inspire Coleridge's albatross-shooting Ancient Mariner, Selkirk, probably the original for Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe and Dampier, possibly the inspiration for Jonathan Swift's Lemuel Gulliver (of Gulliver's Travels), shared the same vessel." That is pretty fascinating!

I know. I mean, who would have thought?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• "There, a native spotted the ship, and Hatley and his crew were captured" Is the date known?

Late May, Fowke says. Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• What did Hatley do between 1713 and 1719? I guess it isn't known?

Other than selling his property, we don't know. He called himself a mariner on the deed, "Mariner, Gent."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Link albatross outside the lead also?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I've got everything. Thank you for your reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now, interesting to read about the everyday lives of "pirates". FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yo ho ho.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support, one comment In line 1 of career you describe his theatre of action as the South Pacific, perhaps just "Pacific" would be more accurate. I'm no sailor, but I doubt that treasure ships between the Philippines and Mexico would cross the equator, and Ecuador is, well, on the equator, rather than what we would think of as South Pacific Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review and support, I've changed it to "Pacific coast of South America".--Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

I think we just need a source review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose and Wehwalt: Sources are all consistently formatted an appear to be of appropriate reliability. I haven't checked the contents of them, but I've verified that the ISBNs correspond to the books listed. The only problem I spotted is that we seem to be missing a publisher location for Woodard (2007), which ought to be fixed but isn't worth holding up promotion imo if that's the only thing standing in the way (I haven't reviewed the article, just happened to spot Ian's request for a source review). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added that now. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2018 [48].

---

Ford Piquette Avenue Plant

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 ^talk cont 17:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant, a former car factory owned by the Ford Motor Company in Detroit, Michigan. From 1904 (when it was built) to 1909, the company used the building to produce several car models, including the Ford Model T, which was created and first made there. It was also the first factory where more than 100 cars were built in one day, and is currently the oldest car factory building in the world open to the public. The factory survives today as a museum and is well-preserved, with almost all of its original structure intact. Pending its promotion, this will be the second FA connected to Detroit (the first was The Supremes), the second FA about a manufacturing facility (the first was New Orleans Mint), and the second FA related to Ford cars (the first was Ramblin' Wreck). Suffice it to say, the subject of car factories is mostly uncharted territory in terms of receiving featured-quality treatment on Wikipedia. I look forward to reading all of your comments, addressing all of your concerns, and successfully completing this review. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 17:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

The only thing I can bring to the table is that I once went to Detroit. Nevertheless a few comments on what appears to be a well-researched and fine article:

• a museum and former factory --> do you see it as a museum first? or 'a former factory and museum'?

•  Done I now have it simply stating "former factory", as the fact that it's now a museum is already mentioned elsewhere in the lead.

• this factory, including the Ford Model T, which was created and first produced there --> To me, most notable is first Model T creation and production, so I would lead with that, and then add that other models were assembled here too. In addition, I think Model T needs a little explanation of significance. I like what you have in the main body: the car credited with starting the mass use of cars in the United States.

•  Done

• spur line connected to a Michigan Central Railroad main line behind the building. --> to avoid ambiguity, perhaps this: spur line behind the building, which connected to a Michigan Central Railroad main line.

•  Done

• table of cars: it's quite hard to read the notes in such a narrow column. Can we combine a few columns? Eg., make one for Engine and one for Production dates?

•  Done The note column in the table was already fixed at 25% of the table width, but I increased it to 33%.

• The Ford Model AC, produced at the Mack Avenue Plant in 1904, was a Model A that used the engine of a Model C --> do we need this? Were model C engines made at Piquette?

•  Done We don't need that bit. Per my research, Ford did not start making its own engines until the Model N.

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Edwininlondon: All of your recommended fixes have been implemented. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 21:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice work. I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

I know next to nothing about automotive history, but found this to be an interesting read. I'm pleased to see FACs on industrial heritage, though the human dimension could be expanded on here. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• The article is a bit wordy. I've made some example edits to streamline things a bit.

• I'm fine with these.

• Given that this was such an early car factory, how did the architects know how to design it? Was its layout based on earlier factories and the lessons learned from them?

• In the second paragraph of the History section, I noted that the factory was modeled after New England textile mills.

• "The vast majority of factory tasks were done by men, except for magneto assembly, which was done by women." - how many people worked at the factory?

• To address that, I added the following sentence to the article: "Due to changes in demand and car model changeover, the number of employees varied constantly, ranging from as low as 300 to as high as 700".

• Do we also have any figures for the size of the workforce after other companies used the plant? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Only figures for Ford are available. A consistent theme in every piece of source material that I found on this topic is that very heavy emphasis is given to Ford and the current owners, but minor emphasis to the owners in between.

• What were working conditions like for the automotive workers? (eg, was it cramped, noisy, hot, cold, good for the time, etc). What were safety standards like? Did these change over time as the plant's layout and role evolved and the building aged?

• In the second paragraph of the History section, note the information about fire safety, especially the fire sprinkler system. This was an unusual thing to add to factories at the time (that is also noted). The factory did have a heating system, but that is characteristic of most buildings of the time, especially in places like Michigan where Winters are long and cold.

• Given that Ford had a complex relationship with his workers, can anything be said about this? (or relationships at other companies who used the site?)

• I added the following to the article: "The company did not recognize labor unions at the factory, and each worker was paid a daily rate".

• Did the workers attempt to unionise? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I added the following: "Ford Motor Company was a member of the Employers’ Association of Detroit, an organization that prevented most of the city's factories from unionizing until the 1930s".

• "completed components would be brought by hand to the chassis for final assembly.[1]:17–18, 20 Completed cars would be shipped to the company's distributors" - repetition of 'would be'

• Fixed.

• The para which begins with "In 1905, Ford Motor Company was the fourth-largest car producer in the United States," seems to break the article's chronology, and lacks a clear purpose. Starting it with a more descriptive sentence would help, but I suspect that things need to be moved around as well.

• The last date mentioned in the previous paragraph was 1905, so there's no chronology break. The purpose of beginning the paragraph this way is to give context to its final sentence, where it states that Ford was the largest US car producer by 1906.

• "Plans for the Model T were announced" - to whom? (and was this the blueprints for the car, or the fact that they would be produced?)

• The source material mentions Ford's dealers, specifically, so that has been added.

• "a group of factory employees" - which factory?

• I noted that it was Piquette Avenue Plant employees.

• "Despite no moving assembly line" - not great grammar

• This has been changed to "Despite not having a moving assembly line".

• What was the building used for between 1936 and 2000? The article hints at this, but it's not fully stated.

• I added more info about 3M from the source material, where it specifically states that it made rubber auto parts and non-adhesive paper tape. What the Cadillac Overall Company made is indicated by the name.

• Not sure that it is - was it involved in Cadillac cars (if so, do we know what part?) or overalls? - serious question for those of us with little knowledge of this field! Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I noted that it made work clothes, which is mentioned in the source material.

• Presumably the building's layout and equipment became obsolete at some point?

• The building itself became obsolete by 1909, when it became clear that it was no longer big enough for Ford's needs, hence their move to the larger factory in Highland Park (this is mentioned in the article already).

• Yes, but the article then notes it remained in use until around 2000, with the uses of the building becoming seemingly less important over time. Can this be fleshed out? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Its importance decreased mainly because Ford left (all of the significant historical milestones that happened at the building occurred during the Ford period), and partly because of its location in an industrial area that became mostly abandoned and blighted over time, which coincided with the overall decline of Detroit. On that note, I added this statement: "The Piquette Avenue Plant still stands in spite of the decline of Detroit, which began in the mid-20th century". In terms of factory equipment, there is no mention in the source material about it becoming obsolete during Ford's occupancy (they were only there for a few years), and the type used by subsequent tenants is not mentioned at all. However, I have already mentioned near the end of the article body that the factory currently contains almost none of its original equipment. This suggests that Ford either brought all of their equipment with them when they moved out (the most likely scenario, in my opinion), or it was replaced later by one of the building's subsequent owners. Also, the fact that the factory's power plant was demolished shortly after 3M took over suggests that the power plant became obsolete at some point.

• Who runs the Model T Automotive Heritage Complex? Is it funded by Ford, a volunteer group, etc? Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Model T Automotive Heritage Complex is the name of the organization that runs the Piquette Avenue Plant. I split the first sentence of the Model T Automotive Heritage Complex section and noted that it's a nonprofit organization.

@Nick-D: I addressed all of your points. Let me know if this is satisfactory. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 13:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I addressed your additional comments. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 00:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed: nice work Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

A curious topic - will read and jot quibbles below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• The lead's three paras all start very similarly - try to diversify the initial words. Like this....well, I've done this now. It would be good to combine the second and third paras actually..

• @Casliber: Thanks for taking a look at the article (it is indeed a peculiar subject). I combined the 2nd and 3rd lead paragraphs like you suggested. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 21:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• The Bellevue Avenue Plant was utilized until 1908 - why not "The Bellevue Avenue Plant was used (or even "in use") until 1908"?

•  Done

• ''... began to focus the company's efforts .. - unnecessary, just "focussed the company's efforts " is fine.

•  Done

• ''Beginning in January 1907, in a room located on the Piquette Avenue Plant's third floor in the northwest corner, the Ford Model T, the car credited with starting the mass use of cars in the United States, was created - either the car was created in Jan 1907 or production of the car began in Jan 1907...suspect that "Beginning" is redundant

•  Done The 1907 date refers to the start of its design process, and I changed it to the following: In January 1907, in a room located on the Piquette Avenue Plant's third floor in the northwest corner, the design process began for the Ford Model T, the car credited with starting the mass use of cars in the United States.

Otherwise reads ok and looks comprehensive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Casliber: I made the fixes you recommended. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 11:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review/spot check by Cas Liber

• References formatted consistently. web pages archived appropriately. page ranges consistent.
• Earwig's copyvio tool is ok
• FN 6 - used once. material cited and faithful to source.
• FN 17 - used once. material cited and faithful to source.
• FN 19 - used once. strictly speaking source (which confirms Decline of Detroit) does not state plant still stands but loads of other do. So no big deal.
• FN 20 - used once. material cited and faithful to source.

ok I'm happy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like a broken record, Cas, but can I assume you're signing off on the reliability of the sources too? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support Most interesting. Just a few suggestions.

• "and its maple floors, supported by square oak beams and posts, cover 67,000 square feet (6,224.5 m2) of floor space.[1]:7[7]" I might cut the last three words.
• "Completed cars were shipped to the company's distributors and dealers by rail, using a spur line behind the building, which connected to a Michigan Central Railroad main line.[1]:5, 12 " I might get rid of the final comma
• "Due to changes in demand and car model changeover," I'm not sure I like the double use of "change-" here. Maybe "Due to variation in demand and changes in car model,
• "The company paid each worker a daily rate and did not recognize labor unions at the factory.[1]:21" I'm not sure I understand the need for the first part of the sentence. Of course the workers got paid; this seems unnecessary to mention, unless there's some other reason for it.
• "Also in 1926, the equipment in both of the Piquette Avenue Plant's elevators was replaced.[1]:7 " I might sub "machinery for" for "equipment in"
• "The openings that previously allowed direct access on the second and third floors between the two buildings are now sealed.[1]:5 " suggest reversing the order of "on the second and third floors" and "between the two buildings"
• "The Piquette Avenue Plant is the oldest, purpose-built automotive factory building open to the public.[7][23][24]" I might ditch the comma.
• "and is one of the oldest-surviving examples of that car model.[28]" I'm not sure the hyphen is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. I made all the changes you suggested. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 23:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Nominator comments

@WP:FAC coordinators: This nomination has four supports, and has completed reviews for images, prose, and sources. I believe it's ready for promotion. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 23:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2018 [49].

---

Central Link

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 23:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Joining my two nominations of Seattle train stations, here comes the line that connects them. Central Link (most call it "Link" or "the light rail") runs 20 miles from the city's airport to the central business district and the university campus. It took over forty years between conception and construction, and was nearly derailed by a budget crisis at the turn of the millennium. But it was built and carries 72,000 passengers per day (ranking high among U.S. light rail systems), and will eventually form the backbone of a 110-mile rail network spanning the entire metropolitan area. The article went through a copyedit and GA review recently and I feel it easily meets the FA criteria. SounderBruce 23:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This article is part of an ongoing Good topic nomination and was improved as part of WikiCup. SounderBruce 23:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

A fine article. Little to quibble with on prose. Just a few comments:

• will also open in 2023 --> a comma can help here: will also open, in 2023,
  • Rephrased that sentence in a different way.
• forced the interurban system to shut down --> forced seems a bit strong. Did the Great Depression have something to do with it? See perhaps History of rail transport in the United States
  • @Edwininlondon: The first interurban shutdown was a year before the Black Friday crash, so I don't think it's attributed to that. Reordered that sentence and added a reference. SounderBruce 03:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• 2016 dollars --> a few instances of these, which ideally are updated to 2018
  • These are generated by an inflation template and will automatically be updated to the newest GDP-based inflation rate when it becomes available.
• 20 hours per day from Monday to Saturday, from 4:00 am to 1:00 am --> that would be 21 hours
  • Fixed (actual start time is 5 am).
• 12:00 am is normally ambiguous, less so here. Still, midnight would be better I think
  • Fixed.
• is reduced to 15 minutes --> is reduced to every 15 minutes
  • Fixed.
• not sure now if on Tuesday morning the second train comes at 6:06 am or 6:15 am. Is that not early morning for most people?
  • It's what Sound Transit considers to be its "early morning" schedule. Commutes can start rather early here, thanks to the long days during the summer, so it can be on the edge for some people.
• The record itself --> is itself necessary?
  • Removed.

I'll look at the references later.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Formatting references seems fine. Sources reliable.
• Spotcheck: 58 59 81 124 all fine
• 130 seems to have 2 authors and published May 22

Nice work. With the caveat that I am not an expert or local, my support. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Came here to do an image review but found fewer than three supports. so am reading. comments below...

• The Central Link project was originally planned to open in 2006 and cost $1.9 billion (equivalent to $2.76 billion in 2016 dollars) - sounds like the actual cost. Might read better as "projected to cost" here

Otherwise looks ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: Fixed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 22:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

All images are licensed appropriately. I support this nomination. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from Harry

• The opening and infobox really ought to mention the country that the line is in.
  • Added.
• Trains are composed of two or more cars that can carry 194 passengers, including 74 in seats Per car or per train?
  • Per car.
• Voters approved Central Link in a 1996 ballot measure and construction began in 2003 Is there anything you can add to the lead about the intervening time? Seven years seems like a long delay.
  • Added a bit to that sentence.
• The route section could really do with a map of the area served and a route diagram for the benefit of readers not familiar with the area. I compared the closest FAs I could find (Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway and MTR) and a high-quality GA (Manchester Metrolink) and all three had maps and diagrams.
  • Added this map, which reproduces well enough at thumbnail size.
• 6.4 miles (10.3 km) of the 20.35-mile (32.75 km) line is at-grade, including grade separated segments did I read that wrong or are you including grade-separated sections in the "at grade" figure?
  • I'm referring to tracks that are "at-grade" (or, rather, at ground level) along freeways with overpasses and underpasses for crossing streets. It's phrased to differentiate this segment from the "at-grade" (on street, with traffic signals and such) segment on MLK Way.
• requiring valid payment before boarding and lacking a turnstile barrier at stations I'm not sure what that means. From the link to Proof-of-payment I think it means that passengers are required to have a ticket but that this isn't enforced by any sort of barrier at stations, is that right?
  • This is explained in the third sentence, where fare inspectors check valid fares.
• The interior is 70 percent low-floor What does that mean? I see from the photo there's a raised area at one end but that's not clear from the prose.
  • Added. Not entirely happy with how I phrased this, though, so I might come back and change it.
• typically operate at 35 miles per hour Is that the speed limit on the line or is there some other operational constraint?
  • Speed limit on the street-running segment, though I can't find a reliable source that spells this out. The reference here uses 35 mph as the average.
• The passage of Sound Transit 2 in 2008 and Sound Transit 3 What are these?
  • Rewritten to add context. (They're ballot measures that approved taxes and projects)

Seems close to FA standard on the whole. The lack of geographical context from maps etc is the only thing that really holds it back in my opinion; the rest can be fixed with some light copy-editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the review. I have added the map and modified the prose as requested by your comments. SounderBruce 06:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The map is a big improvement. That's exactly what I was looking for. And I'm happy with the rest of your replies, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from Freikorp

Was surprisingly more entertaining than I expected haha. Well done. It would be of interest to know how much the fines are for passengers without a valid ticket, and what some of the 'other factors' were ("due to their cost or other factors"). But I won't hold my support over those minor issues. Don't feel obligated but I'm looking for comments on my current Wikicup featured nomination if you've got the time. Freikorp (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Thanks for the support! I've added the citation/fine ($124), but can't really expand on the factors surrounding the failed proposals. I've tried to keep this article down in summary style, so I feel that putting too much detail would overwhelm the history section. SounderBruce 01:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Quite a few duplinks so pls review but I won't hold up promotion over them (if you need to install the duplink checker, doco is here). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2018 [50].

---

John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

Nominator(s): ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm nominating Mowbray for Featured Article status; originally little more than a stub, I expanded it and gave it a thorough re-write, and it has most recently undergone an extremely thorough (if informal) peer review on the article talk page, as well as a thorough copyediting by some of the best brains in the business, as it were. This is my first attempt at the FAR process, so please don't be gentle!

John de Mowbray is one of those medieval characters of whom—while we know very little, if anything, of their personal or private lives—reveals a lot about themselves by their reaction to events and treatment (including mistreatment!) of political rivals. Mowbray has much that personifies the "overmighty subject" of the Wars of the Roses, private feuds and killings, imprisonment in the Tower of London, roadside trysts with his wife, and finally, in the last months of his, literally changing the course of history by being late. What he was late to, though, was the biggest and bloodiest battle in English history, with decisive results. All round, an interesting if not always pleasant man—but no less the product of his age than anyone else. That, however, is another question.

All comments and commentators are extremely welcome. Thank you. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment and image review

• Advise against having both father/son and predecessor/successor in the lead template
• Suggest scaling up the Towton map
• File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Sir_John_Mowbray,_3rd_Duke_of_Norfolk,_KG.png should include an explicit copyright tag for the original design
• File:Vigiles_de_Charles_VII,_fol._90v,_Siège_de_Calais_(1436).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you very much for kickstarting this. Right—I think I've addressed the image issues. Towton now 500px; pd-old and us-pd for the coat of arms (was originally published in 1901, author died in 1919, note left to that effect); also us-pd on the Calais siege. I edited the Commons page by the way—that's right?
  • Regarding your first point— could you clarify slightly? I'm not sure what the lead template is, and specifically what father/son, heir/successor means?! Sorry! Thanks again, ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    • She means, she feels it's unnecessary duplication for the infobox to include his father and son, and his predecessor and successor, since they're one and the same. I disagree in this particular case; while in this instance they're identical because he succeeded his father on the latter's death rather than by means of attainder etc, and he only had one child, I think it's important the infobox make this clear. ‑ Iridescent 11:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I see; yes, actually I can see their point (ironically—re. your point below, of course I couldn't see that...because the box is collapsed! Somewhat QED eh). Right: I'm easy on this. What's the strategy? Perhaps wait for a consensus of more editors to emerge? ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
        • My personal opinion is to look at similar articles and be consistent with what they do—most people reading an article this niche will likely be surfing through a whole batch of Wars of the Roses articles, and consequently it's a service for everything to be where they expect to find it. Take this with a pinch of salt, as I'm fairly hardline "box unless there's a specific reason not to" when it comes to the Infobox Wars. ‑ Iridescent 12:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, editing the Commons pages is correct. The one issue with what you've done is the scaling - per WP:IMGSIZE that should generally be done using |upright= rather than a fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Nikkimaria, this is all most interesting: I've changed to the |upright parameter. Is that so he imaget stays in proportion to the rest of the page regardless of screen resolution? I think 1.8 was a sufficient increase to easily see the details without overtaking the section; but please say if you don't agree. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
      • It's so the image stays in proportion to what you've set as your default image size. If you've never set one (or are not logged in), that will be 220px, so times 1.8 would give a display size of 396px - someone who'd set a smaller default would see a display smaller than that, and someone who'd set larger a larger display. The scaling you've used seems fine, at least with my settings. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Understood, thanks a lot. I went by the mobile view, and it fits quite snuggly next to the whole paragraph. Cheers! ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent

A brief support from me. To save going over everything again, I already nitpicked this one to pieces on the talkpage and everything was addressed. (I'd lose the collapsible infobox—it screws things up for anyone with poor motor skills or trying to print a hard copy of the article, and this page doesn't suffer from clutter to such a degree that the box needs to be minimized—but that's just me.) The usual disclaimed that I haven't performed any kind of source review. ‑ Iridescent 11:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• OK: Thought it was getting in the way of the quote box beneath. Many thanks, also for the picking of nits out of him. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

Very comprehensive and readable, and reviewed elsewhere by better editors than I. The following are more to show I've read it than serious criticisms Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• the William de la Pole, Earl (later Duke) of Suffolk?
  • Lost the def. article.
• felt increasingly excluded from government became increasingly belligerent.—over-increased
  • How about, "Richard, Duke of York, who by the 1450s was feeling excluded from government, became increasingly belligerent"?
• a Paston letters reports —singular "letter", surely, even if linked to the Paston Letters?
  • Absolutely.
• Please check whether all uses of "however" and leading "although" are necessary
  • Only one however and two althoughs now-how's that? Thanks very much for your comments and support here, Jimfbleak! ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

Read, copy-edited and reviewed this closely in the last few weeks. What a strange man and wonderful article. Happy to Support. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wonderful comment! Thanks for everything you have done to get it here Ceoil ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dweller

First glance is a support from me. Anything that appears below is trivial - unless I strike this!

• opening parag jumps around chronologically, which affects the reader's response to his 'treacherous' switch to York. Drop the first mention of the Wars of the Roses, move the wikilink and it'll all flow better methinks.
• "short career" bit in Lead is at best PEACOCK and at worst POV. Either way, kill it with fire.

More maybe. Or maybe not. I am semi-retired y'know, grumble grumble. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks very much Dweller—starting from the bottom, would "who, despite having a relatively short political career, played a significant role in the early years of the Wars of the Roses" be better?
• I've broken up that first para and moved the relevant elements to their respective chronological positions.

Any suggestions are always welcome, even if it does mean dragging you from the comfort of the "Sunshine Home for the Wiki-aged"  ;) Sorry! Thanks very much for your involvement, it's greatly apprecited as ever. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

I fear I too often overlook things during PR that I only spot at FAC, which is annoying, and I apologise. A few quick and rather random points for now; I'll give the text a properly close scrutiny a.s.a.p and report back here.

• Date ranges
  • It looks to me as though in the first line of the lead you have an unspaced em dash rather than the prescribed spaced en-dash.

Indeed; I've been proactive and gone through the article inserting ' – ' where necessary. Don't think I missed m/any?

• Quote boxes
  • You are inconsistent in whether to include the ornamental large quotation marks. The first has them, the second doesn't, the third and fourth do, and the fifth doesn't. I rather like them, though some editors whom I greatly respect can't be having with them at any price. But either way, I think you should be consistent.

Well spotted; I've inserted quotes where necessary—although that last one is quoting a poem. Not sure of that makes a difference?

• False title
  • There is a clunky one in the second para of Cultural depictions.

(comment below)

• Under the Yorkists
  • "(theoretically, at east)" – at best or at least?

Least, changed.

• WP:OVERLINK
  • Always a matter of judgment, admittedly, but to my mind nobody reading this article is going to want a link to gentry, favourite, estate, court, royal favourite, factional (second link, at least) and gentry (again).

I bow to your better judgement; I have a bad habit of automatically linking and thus eventually overlinking. I obviously don't trust my own ability to explain things. (Actually, I probably would have kept Royal court.)

• Battle of Towton
  • You write "rear-guard", but link to "rearguard". The dictionaries favour the latter.

Absolutely, cheers.

More anon. Tim riley talk 20:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"Shakesperian scholar" discussion

On the false title, on this particular occasion I'd consider Shakespearian scholar W. W. Greg suggests… is actually preferable to The Shakespearian scholar W. W. Greg suggests…; to me, the latter suggests that he's the only one, or at least the pre-eminent one. Something like It has been suggested by W. W. Greg, one of the leading bibliographers and Shakespeare scholars of the 20th century… might work; this would also make it clear to the reader that Greg is someone worth listening to on this point and not a junior lecturer at a community college in the middle of nowhere, who happens to have a pet theory. ‑ Iridescent 20:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd be a bit cautious about this. I doubt if avoiding a journalese false title by the simple addition of a definite article would mislead anyone. "The actor Boris Karloff" or "the singer Peter Pears" for instance, would, I think, be unlikely to be taken as implying that either was the only or the preeminent actor/singer, and the same seems to me to apply to Mr Greg; and waxing eloquent about Greg's qualifications would itself call for citations to justify it. Tim riley talk 21:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Would using Iridescent's proposed wording be acceptable, Tim riley, if I could find sourcing for the claims to be waxed lyrical over...? On the assumption that I could find them of course. Just a word to explain my own reasoning for titling him so; throughout the article I referred to "Historian X" (or some such form of words) as a means of verifying the credentials for those giving the opinion, and I thought—consitency again—that I should clarify (not only as Iridescent says that he is qualified to comment) that he is specifically not a historian unlike everyone else previously mentioned. I think it likely that without some sort of qualifier, the reader will (understandably if incorrectly) assume that he too is an historian. But, what say you? ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't for me to lay down the law about your drafting. Having given my comments I leave them to you to act on or not as you think best. More comments, as promised, in the next few days, I hope. Tim riley talk 16:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it on his qualifications; I've never heard of him and am taking my proposed wording verbatim from W. W. Greg, which if accurate implies that his opinions are particularly important when it comes to Shakespeare. The sourcing on his WP biography is dreadful, but his ODNB entry does appear to back this up, albeit reading like something written by the man himself or a family friend, rather than an impartial analysis. (In youth Greg was unusually handsome and in old age he remained an impressive figure. Redoubtable in print, he was sometimes so in person, if angered by pretence or arrogance or slipshod writing. But he was friendly and accessible to younger scholars, and always a punctual correspondent.) ‑ Iridescent 18:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Idea—would depersonalisation remove the fake title? Something like, "one scholar of Shakespeare's plays, W. W. Greg, has suggested that..."?

Yeah nice advert that  :) G11-worthy stuff from ODNB. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I've just tweaked the wording per my comment above—what say you to how it reads now? —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I can confirm that W. W. Greg is a Big Deal™ in Shakespeare studies (anybody familiar with the field will instantly recognize the name), and that "Shakespeare scholar" is, presumably due to the more than usually multi-disciplinary nature of it, a common way to refer to people like Greg. It's not an actual title anywhere so far as I'm aware, but it is commonly used where one in neighbouring fields might use historian, historiographer, lexicographer, paleographer, professor of Shakespeare studies, etc. That is, the original phrasing was correct, and the current phrasing suggests that Greg just read a lot of plays (he did a lot of work on bibliography, textual provenance, and Early Modern English theatre in general; as well as other playwrights than Shakespeare). Iridescent's slightly peacocky suggestion above might also work, since the plaudits are actually merited in Greg's case.

And Greg's ODNB entry is written by F. P. Wilson and Henry Woudhuysen, both themselves familiar names in the field. And if it reads kinda chummy it's presumably an artefact of Shakespeare studies in general being a bit like the cliché of old Oxbridge academia: I'm guessing Wilson originally wrote it and treated it essentially like a Festschrift, and Woudhuysen has only minimally updated it. --Xover (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, a "Support" from Xover there  ;) the "current phrasing" you refer to is as of my latest edit, I take it? Thanks very uch for talking the time to comment, Xover, greatly appreciated. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, sorry for not being specific. previous and current in my comment are the edits either side of your edit.

BTW, Bromley 2011 doesn't attribute the identification of Mowbray with the "Duke of Norfolk" character in The Merry Devil of Edmonton to Greg. It only says Greg argued the play was set during the reign of Henry VI of England (rather than Henry VII of England), and then draws the conclusions about Mowbray itself. I don't currently have access to Fiehler 1949, which might make this attribution, but Bromley cites Greg in this journal article and David Kathman's article on Peter Fabell in the ODNB. If you have OUP access you might want to check these for a direct attribution of this identification to Greg.

And while you're futzing around with this section, it could stand a bit more context: what does it mean if Mowbray is that Duke of Norfolk? Bromley provides a good overview that can be briefly summarised (I'm thinking specifically on the contemporary associations of the title, and the poaching theme).

And you're very welcome, and I hope my comments may be of some use. Feel free to ping me if something Shakespeare-y pops up. I'm by no means an expert, but I have some superficial familiarity with the area and would be happy to help when I'm able. --Xover (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice one Xover, that's reallly useful. I've ODNB up so I'll look into your suggestions: this is a Good Thing, because I was slightly ashamed of the "Cultral depictions" section, which is a testimony to my ignorance of all things Shakespeare/ean. It looks a little throw-away at the moment, so what you've suggested should allow for a little expansion. Some good I mean to do, as the feller said  ;) cheers! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: It occured to me, do have any good sources regarding Norfolk in Shakespeare? It seems ironic that now, the paragraph about his possible characterization in an incomplete anonymous play is twice the size of the one about his definite, etc., appearance in Shakespeare-! Any suggestions gratefuly received. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what I can find. But I wouldn't expect too much since Norfolk has all of three lines in 3 Henry VI: "Such hope have all the line of John of Gaunt!", "We’ll all assist you. He that flies shall die.", and "And I to Norfolk with my followers." Other characters refer to him only twice, as I recall, and only incidentally. If I find anything I'll drop it on the talk page, since I'm starting to feel I'm blundering around making a mess of Tim's section of comments here (sorry about that Tim!). --Xover (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That's most courteous! But apologies are really not needed. Tim riley talk 12:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting here Tim, I really appreciate it, as, I hope, I always do your input. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Having given the article one last read-through I'm now happy to support its promotion to FA. Two final points, neither of them terribly important. First "archenemy" should be hyphenated according to the OED (though if you counter with archbishop and archfiend I shall not fight to the death in defence of the OED's version). Secondly, as we round into the home straight I can't find any way of seeing this as a sequitur: "Mowbray did not live long enough to benefit from the Yorkist victory. On 2 November 1461, Howard was arrested by the new Yorkist regime. Mowbray died four days later on 6 November 1461." Mowbray was presumably not so attached to Howard that the latter's arrest caused the former to suffer an apoplexy?

• • That was a laugh-out-loud moment! I see, it does rather imply cause and effect doesn't it (incidentally, I agree about "Arch- and have adjusted accordingly, thank you). As you say, they might have been close, but not that close  :) the reason I meantioned it was because it tied in with not getting the support of the new govt. But since that was in the previous section, I've moved Howard's arrest there. Although, thinking about it, if you questioned its entire relevance, I'm beginning to wonder myself...
    Thank you very much for the support though Tim riley! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Glancing below, I see you ask BB about how to convert 10-digit ISBNs: this link is all you need: https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter – Tim riley talk 12:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Just a few small presentational points:

• The 13-digit ISBN formats ought to be standardised. The form normally employed is 978-x-xxxxx-xxx-x. There are also a few 10-digit versions which ought to be converted.
  • Done all the 13s; any means of converting the 10s? and converted all the 10s Many thanks to Tim riley for the help with that
• Page range formats: Ref 16 differs from your standard (see e.g. 58, 86, 92 etc}
  • @Brianboulton: I think I've rumbled it—you meant 100-10 rather than 100-110, for example? Ah ha! I've changed to three-digit ranges throughout the refs in the body too. If so, ignore this---> Err: sorry about this—but I've gone and added a few more sources which of course has screwed up the numbering—would you be able to re-identify the one you meant please? I'm afraid I can't see it (cf., blind spot, of course)
• Boardman 1996 and 1998: Are the respective publishers "Alan Sutton" and "Sutton" one and the same?
  • Indeed, certainly the same firm, but I think they must have changed their imprint in that two-year gap, as those are the actual publishers given in the front?
• Goodman: is it possible to specify location more precisely than "US"?
  • Ah!—New York, acc. Worldcat; but, honestly, the actual bok is that vague. Bizarre.
• Grummitt: som eextra words appear to have crept in.
  • What ones? The "short histor of..."? Changed to just "Short history"—it's the name of the series. Or is it something else I've missed?

The sources themselves appear to be of excellent quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for this forensic touch, Brianboulton—I have got a couple of queries I'm afraid, and it's not that I'm not going to address your remaining points, ust need a touch of (re-)clarifyication first  :) Cheers, ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat

• Support from me on prose. I'm not an expert in the field, or even remotely well-read on the subject, so my review caveat applies. – SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • • Understood, and thanks very much for coming in SchroCat! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Prose comments

I've started a careful readthrough, and found the following issues in the lead:

• "Mowbray command the defence of England's possessions..."

• • -ed, of course.

• "and in 1438 he again led a force to Calais". Again? When was the first time?

• • "He also fought in Calais in 1436, and from1437 to 1438 he served a year's term as warden of the east march on the Anglo-Scottish border. That year he then returned to the fighting in Calais again"—any good?

• "often taking the law into his own hands—and often breaking it". Surely, taking the law into your own hands is breaking it?

• • Well; in the fifteenth century they weren't necessarilly synonymous; a magnate could quite easily take the law into his own hands without necessarilly breaking the King's peace (crushing rebellions, etc., spring to mind: pardons after the fact were a fact of politics, as, indeed, were applying for pardons in advance!), so I thought it ought to be emphasised that this was not such and occasion. However: "often violently taking the law into his own hands" if you think better?

• "Such tactics were also employed by his enemies..." It's not clear what you mean by "such tactics"; the preceding sentence reads: "He was bound over for massive sums and imprisoned twice in the Tower of London".

• • Becomes "Violent tactics were also employed by his enemies"?

• "but often Mowbray was was..."

• • Was not was!

• "Mowbray was instrumental in helping Edward win the Battle of Towton by his late arrival with reinforcements in April 1461." I'd be inclined to reconstruct this, by bringing the date to the start of the sentence, and adding a comma: "In April 1461 Mowbray was instrumental in helping Edward win the Battle of Towton, by his late arrival with reinforcements".

• • Thanks for that Brianboulton—I've ½"-d your construction. Many thanks for picking up on those details. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of these glitches appear to have entered the article after this FAC began. It may be useful to check the rest of the prose, to see if other minor errors have inadvertently been introduced. Meantime I'm reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Another slice of prose review:

Background and youth

• I think it's contrary to MoS to include birth–death year ranges for blue-linked individuals. I can't lay my hands on the specific guideline but perhaps someone else can.
  • Believe you Brianboulton, and removed from his mother and father accordingly.
• The phrase "being placed upon him" seems redundant as you say "personal" restrictions.
  • I removed "personal" so as to keep who had imposed them ("council-imposed restrictions being placed upon him").

Inheritance

• "but not the rest of his inheritance" – somwhat vague: wahat was this "rest"?
  • Changed to "inherited the office of Earl Marshal, but not yet his father's lands or titles."
• Suggest remove non-encyclopaedic interpolation "in fact".
  • Done.
• Pipe link encumbered
  • Done.
• link dowager
  • Done.
• "Constance died in 1437, but his mother survived until 1483" – "his" needs defining. Also, in the previous section you give the mother's death year as 1484.
  • Specified "but Mowbray's mother survived"; also adjusted the earlier erroneous mention of her death in 1484 (it was the prevoius year, just after RIII's coronation.

Claim to the earldom of Arundel

• Inappropriate section heading. The claim is not referred to after the first short paragraph.
  • Mmmm fair point; changed to "Claim to the earldom of Arundel, royal service and local rivalries." Is this still too bulky? Can't really think of an all inclusive short phrase that covers things as diverse as the section covers...?

Crime and disorder in East Anglia

• I think "ancestors" would be a better term than "predecessors".
  • Agree.
• "was thus unable to ever establish" is clumsy. "was thus never able to establish"
  • Thank you; stolen.
• "East Anglia was forced upon him..." Slightly confusing phrase. I think it means he had no choice for his power base other than East Anglia, but I'm not sure. It needs to be more clearly stated.
  • Right: How bout "The choice of making East Anglia the locus of his landed authority was somewhat forced upon him by the fact that this was where the bulk of his estates were."

• • OK, but I'd replace "by the fact that" with "since" or "because". Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

-OK, "since."

• "Their feud was often violent, and encouraged their retainers to fight". I'd word this slightly differently: "Their feud was often violent, and their retainers were encouraged to fight". Also you have "retainers ... retainers" in the line.
  • "Their feud was often violent, and this encouraged clashes between their respective followers. In 1435, some Mowbray retainers..."
• "In 1435, some Mowbray retainers (led by Robert Wingfield, Mowbray's steward of Framlingham Castle) murdered one of de la Pole 's (James Andrew)". Again, somewhat clumsy and over-bracketed. Perhaps "In 1435, Robert Wingfield, Mowbray's steward of Framlingham, led a group of Mowbray retainers who murdered James Andrew, one of de la Pole's men" – or some such.
  • Thanks for that; used your phrasing, also turned the next sentence about the aldermen into a separate sentence to shorten it overall.
• Robert Wingfield should be linked on first, not second mention.
  • Thus linked.
• What's a "Paston letter"? Ah, I see it linked at a later mention. That link needs to be transferred to first mention, here.
  • Done.
• Who is "Helen Castor"?
  • A very nice lady  :) but also one whom I didn't realise we already had an article on. Linked.
• "Mowbray’s situation did improvement..." Assuming you mean "improve", how is this improvement evident in what follows - a catalogue of imprisonments, fights, bindings-over for vast sums, lost arbitrations and law cases, and assaults and murder of his followers? Improvement is hard to find!
  • Heh  :) Indeed, I think I missed out a pretty fundamental word there. How's "Mowbray’s personal and political situation did not improve over the following decade"—?
• What was the reason for Wingfield's defection?
  • Clarify, "Wingfield deserted Mowbray over the latter's continuing attacks on him over Hoo"
• "In June 1446 one of his father’s retainers..." First mention of a person in a paragraph should be by name not pronoun.
  • Done.
• "5" should be "five"
  • Done; what about "8.0 km" though?

• • • I'd be inclined to leave that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Scrope had petitioned King Henry that Mowbray's proceedings were "inaccurate and inherently malicious," who ordered the cessation of proceedings against Scrope's men". Grammatically dodgy, needs recasting.
  • Perhaps, "Scrope had petitioned King Henry that Mowbray's proceedings were "inaccurate and inherently malicious," and as a result, the King ordered that proceedings against Scrope's men cease"?
• "requested a commission of" → "requested that a commission of"
  • Yes.
• The Earl of Oxford should be linked at first mention.
  • Swapped around. Name & title linked first time, title alone unlinked the second.
• "The Duke himself fell from power in 1450" – The Duke of Suffolk, presumably.
  • Clarified and sourced.
• "that defeated him against de la Pole" → " that had defeated him against de la Pole"?
  • Of course—thanks.

I'll try and finish it next pass. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks Brianboulton, have a look at a couple of these points if you would, just for clarification. Thanks again! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Continuing: I'm finding a worrying number of prose points which I think should have been spotted by the several supporting editors who claim to have copy-edited or read through the article. They should have gone to Specsavers. Some of these issues might be considered as matters of style, but some are downright errors. I've got as as far as the end of the "Wars of the Roses" section, and that's all I can do today.

Later career and political crisis'

The first paragraph is cluttered with names (Mowbray is mentioned over and over again) and you might try a little rephrasing to reduce this. For example, the sentence "York canvassed Mowbray for support against Somerset, as Mowbray was one of the few nobles willing to outrightly criticise the court" could be "York canvassed Mowbray for support, as one of the few nobles willing to outrightly criticise the court". I also think "openly" is a little more elegant than "outrightly".

• • OK (I was trying to avoid my perennial problem of too many "he"s), I think I've reduced them, also taken that suggestion on board.
• "where John Paston was ordered to meet him" – who ordered Paston? Should it be "having ordered John Paston to meet him there"?
  • Xactly.
• "for the duration": for the duration of what?
  • The parliament—clarified.
• "Their alliance could have also been abandoned by York, perhaps embarrassed by Mowbray's violent behaviour in East Anglia. York was, after all, presenting himself as the candidate of law and order." Slightly confused wording: I suggest "York may have abandoned the alliance because of his objection to Mowbray's violent behaviour in East Anglia, as York was, after all, presenting himself as the candidate of law and order."
  • Thank you; used.
• The parenthetical insertion ("the loss of two so noble Duchies as Normandy and Guyenne") disturbs the flow somewhat. I'd say " attacking his failure to prevent the loss of the duchies of Normandy and Guyenne in France".
  • Well, it's quoting a contemporary description (hence why their loss was so keenly felt), but I've kept a small bit of the quote and made it part of the sentence rather than bracketed—how's that?
• "Somerset's" → "Somerset"
  • Done.
• Who is "Ralph Griffiths"
  • Historian, and linked to our article too.

The Wars of the Roses

• "Civil war erupted in May 1455, when York and his allies ambushed the King at the first Battle of St Albans." This wasn't a case of civil war "erupting", but a planned attack. We need to know, briefly, why York laid the ambush.
  • Provided some background: less of an eruption than a slow descent into.
• "Mowbray either arrived after the skirmish or was in the area while the battle took place". Well, yes, that's rather like saying he was either there or he wasn't. Besides which, was it a "skirmish" or a battle? The OED definition of skirmish suggests it was a battle.
  • Well, no: some people were absolutely not there (the Earl of Westmorland, for example, never left Penrith!)—What I was trying to say here is that Mowbray is known to have been in the area, but it is uncertain whether he was close enough to actually take part, or did he hang back?
    Anyway, Brianboulton, I thikn I've clarified that per your criticism—better?
    Also, I removed mention of "ambush" as being misleading (although to clarify, historians really label it a battle for convenience; compared to the—for example—Battle of Towton it was certainly no such thing. Michael Hicks has described it as less of a battle and more a quick series of assassinations (Somerset & Northumberland), after which the battle such as it was immediately stopped.) Anyway: got rid of it.
• There's a lot of uncertainty here: "may have", "more than likely that", "probably", "may have gone", "It is also possible" – it's like trying to catch snowflakes. Could we have a few "Sources suggest that" or similar constructions to vary the tone?
  • Rephrased.
• "civil war again broke out between September and October" That sounds as though the two months were fighting each other. Maybe replace "between" with "in"?
  • Classic :D adjusted, thanks.
• "York and their supporters" → "York and his supporters"? Either way, comma required after "supporters"
  • Okay—I'd already mentioned Salisbury as being with York, so assumed the 3rd pers. plural applied.
• "for Coventry" → "at Coventry"
  • Done.
• "He was received a number of royal commissions" – delete "was"
  • Deleted.
• Pipe-link Lancastrian
  • Linked. Odd it hasn't come up before actually.
• Beginning a paragraph with "Yet" is somewhat non-neutral, so I'd delete it.
  • I've tweaked the whole section quite heavilly, incl. moving chunks from one para to another.
• Who is "Rutland"?
  • York's second son: clarified & linked.
• "Norfolk remained in London" – that's Mowbray, I assume, but changing the nme mid-sentence doesn't help readers
  • Bizarre; it's the only time in the entire thing that I don't call him Mowbray! Changed, thanks.
• I found the last paragraph, beginning "The precise cause of Mowbray's change of loyalties..." muddled and hard to follow. No context is given for the Battle of Northampton, and what follows is a very confusing account. This paragraph needs to be rewritten for clarity.
  • Yes, I agree: this was (hopefully) re-written as part of that section juggling I mentioned just up^^^there —a litle clearer?

Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I realise you're probably a bit pressed for time so if you could just let us know at your earliest how things look now, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Ian, I have no wish to hold up the promotion of this article, which in general is in excellent shape. I have, however, been concerned by the rather large number of small prose errors or malformations that I've discovered, long after many editors have registered their supports saying that they've copyedited etc., which is a fault of the reviewers as much as of the nominator. I have the final sections still to read through, but I am quite happy to do this after promotion, should you feel inclined to do that, rather than your having to wait on me. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

​ I don't mind waiting at all personally, as I would rather the ship was launched with all its paddles in the water. But, most importantly—I think—have I addressed your previous concerns satisfactorily? Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 20:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Tbh, I think half the time pings don't seem to work nowadays: there were a few recently where I only know I was pinged because I saw the email alert—seems hit and miss, bizarre. I'm not sure of the etiquette here, but is there anything you think I should be looking at / getting on with? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Does this get archived then? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 08:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The review has not yet been open a month, so given the depth of the article I don't think the duration is excessive. Per my recent edit/summary on the article page, I had a look at the text changes over the last couple of weeks and could see some obvious typos and a few places I felt other improvements were called for, and edited accordingly. Given the calibre of the reviewers who've looked at this, I think it'd be worth someone just going over the prose as it stands and polishing where possible. I'm no expert on this subject but as the heavy lifting re. sourcing and comprehensiveness appears to have been done I'd be happy to recuse as coord and do it myself if no-one has any objections. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, before we get to a final polish, I know that Ealdgyth was involved with editing the article prior to FAC but hasn't stopped by here -- would you like the opportunity to comment on the current state of the article? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you Ian Rose, anything you see ft to do is OK by me; unfortunately I did not receive feedback on my alterations so minor qualifications were probably inevitable. Incidentally, I wasn't trying to rush the thing—I just assumed that would fail at that point. I'm kind of glad now I didn't provoke you into doing so! ;) Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-ping Ealdgyth, fancy this? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It'd be Wednesday before I could possibly comment... I'm swamped in non-Wiki world. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Well; things certainly seem to have quietened down—what's the SP? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't got back to this sooner -- Hchc2009, did you want to take a look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Ian, do you still want another set of eyes here? If so, I'll take a read through, but it'll take a few days if that's ok? Victoriaearle (tk) 23:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello Victoria, I'd be more than happy for you to go through it if you have time. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    • • Hi Ian, will do. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  Comment: Have started to give this one another look over. I do think its in good shape and am encouraged to see the watchful eye below. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  Update, have done a top to bottom copy edit, but am not finished. I take Brianboulton's observations to heart, this was slack, there should be learnings, and will resume over the weekend, weather permitting (ie if it finally stops bloody raining I will head for the coast and delayed until the weekend after). Will update anyhow. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Victoria

Hi Serial Number 54129, if I disappear for a few days please ping me back. In the meantime, I'm working my way through, will make small copyedits as I go, and post comments as I go.

Background and youth

• I think there are some organization issues and maybe a few issues of context. First, Henry VI was only a boy in 1432, had spent the better part of the late 1420/early 1430s with Bedford in Burgundy and France in hopes of securing the French crown (per agreement Isabeau of Bavaria made with his father, Henry V), none of which is necessarily relevant here, but I'm wondering whether the sources mention whether the granting of estates during his minority was at Bedford's behest (he was married to Philip the Good's sister; Humphrey married to Philip's cousin Jacqueline, to confuse things more. In the least, the regency & Bedford should be mentioned. (Sorry, I know a little about this period).
• I had to wonder the same about the behavioral issues; the boy king, who spent quite a lot of time in France in an attempt to secure the crown there, I have to assume would have followed Bedford's advice. Not sure how important this is, but I'm curious whether the sources mention Bedford or say Henry was making decisions himself? If Bedford, a sentence to clarify might be in order.

Inheritance, early career and royal service

• The section is quite stuffed (quite long) and it might work better to shove some of the text up to the "Background and youth" section, i.,e the issue of encumbrance seems to belong to background, and then consider starting that section with "Claim to the earldom ..."

Claim to the earldom ...

• 2nd paragraph >> "On 13 September ... " without comma, next sentence is "In 1437, " with comma. These constructions need to be consistent throughout.
• It might be useful to sneak in a sentence somewhere explaining that Calais was under British control, not French, for the uninitiated who might wonder why Mowbray was strengthening defenses in France

Crime and disorder

• First paragraph seems to me to either belong to the "Background" or to the "Inheritance" section
• The next two paragraphs seem to repeat the de la Pole feud from the previous section. Somehow all these issues need to be woven together.

Stopping here. I think the article could do with some re-organization and even renaming of sections. If you don't mind, I could have a go at it. I think it would help straighten the chronology and help with the flow. More later. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've tried some text shoving/re-organization, only experimented, and reverted. Something like this version might flow better. Skimming through the rest of the article, I see fewer issues to address. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Victoriaearle: Many thanks for your review Victoria (apologies for the outrageous informality though). I like the structural changes you made—I can wear that, so I have restored your version with a (hopefully!) amusing edit-summary  :) regarding your other points:
    I deliberately tried to avoid getting too bogged down in the adminstrative details of Henry's minority and the regency, on the grounds that he had come of age (or at least, begun his personal rule) by 1437, and Mowbray's father had only died five years earlier so there wasn't a particularly long period when Mowbray was under the minority. And Mowbray's coming of age coincides, more or less, with Henry's personal rule. The rules of behaviour, for example, must have been imposed on M. between the ages of 17 and 21 (1432x1436); true that for the the earlier end of the range the regency council was firmly in control, but by the end of it, far less so; and something like immoral behaviour has (someone else rather than me!) pointed out, very much the kind of thing that a young—and very religious—Henry might insist on dealing with himself. But perhaps a couple of sentences clarifying the division of labour between Bedford, Gloucester and the regency council in the early 1430s might be in order. (I think, since Mowbray didn't attend Henry's Paris coronation, a degree of background detail can probably be ommitted?). —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 06:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Big changes that I do quickly, in minutes, I'll always revert and let the nominator decide. I've not really looked again, but if you (and others) think it works, then my sense is that it straightens out the organization. As for Henry & Bedford, yes, I agree with you. I almost struck my comments last night, because it's all waaay too complicated. I hope to get back here to continue reading this evening. One quick comment while I'm here: how do you feel about having a single color for all of the text boxes? Some are a little bright (migraine sufferer here, sensitive to some screen colors) and it might be slightly less distracting. Only a preference though, not actionable, so it's your call. Back later. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Victoriaearle, that's appreciated. I like your changes; can't imagine anyone finding particular umbrage with them. The only thing I would ask (I meant to ^^^earlier, but totally forgot) is whether you think its possible to sub-section or in another way slightly break up the "Feud" section at all, possibly around the Storey quote? It might just be me, but does it now look slightly solid, if you know what i mean?
        As for the quotebox colours—it's funny you should mention that. It came up at something else I've got on the boil, and I have to say, as I did there, I totally agree—perhaps the yellow?(See here) More understated, less garish, but still effectively adds colour to the text? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, I agree that it's stuffed. I'll put back the section header called "Crime and disorder" just above the paragraph that begins with, "Mowbray's personal and political situation did not improve over the following decade ... ", if that works?? Re text boxes - very nice! I'm not one to talk, having littered the project with articles filled with text boxes, some quite bright. It does look better with a single color though - at least to me. I've been sidetracked, so will get back to this tomorrow. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Thanks very much, Victoriaearle, I appreciate your work. If it's OK with you, I made that section a sub-header of the feud section—based on how close they are as subjects? That OK? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Yes, that's better. I snuck it in quickly so as not to interrupt the copyediting, and then thought I should have made it a level three instead of level two header. Do you think it should go down another paragraph? Victoriaearle (tk) 21:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
              • Let's see; I've moved it down a paragraph—an improvement?

Crime and disorder in East Anglia

• Storey quote: not a big deal, but it's not only two lines, the block quote interferes a bit with the image below (on my monitor) and I wondered if has to be a block quote?
  • As you say, no big deal; I got rid of the block quote and made it a sentence. That then made the whole sentence v long and unwieldy, so I split it up—I think it works?
• This sentence confused me: "Wingfield had received Hoo from the second duke, but the third duke wanted it returned to his possession" >> does it refer to Mowbray (3rd duke) & his father (2nd duke)?
  • Yep, replace with "Mowbray's dad" & Mowbray himself.
• "This may have been the only occasion on which Mowbray personally sat on a local King's Bench commission as the hearing J.P." >> tiny brain here - I couldn't make out what J.P stood for. Did figure it out, but suggest linking it.
  • Linked.
• "princypall rewle and governance throw all this schir" >> not at all actionable, but maybe put a translation in parenthesis after?
  • In brackets; this did occur to me, but I wondered whether it verged on OR (being my interpretation).
• "John de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, another enemy of de la Pole, sought Mowbray's "good Lordship",[62] and in 1451 they collaborated in Suffolk investigating participation in Jack Cade's Rebellion.[63]" >> I tried to recast this sentence & might give it another shot, but there's a lot in it. De Vere is also de la Pole's enemy, seeks an alliance with Mowbray, the two collaborate in Suffolk (assuming the American reader understand Suffolk is in East Anglia) trying to decide whether to participate in Jack Cade's rebellion - with or against Cade??
  • Split it into two sentences, which then allows (hopefully!) to clarify that they weren't participating at all—they were bringing the previous year's rebels to justice for the King  :)
• "Mowbray spent much of the early 1450s hunting down de la Pole's affinity.[62]" >> don't know what affinity means?
  • I can't link that, because it's mentioned in the previous para, but did link that one (Affinity (medieval))

Back later this evening. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• • Hopefully addressed these points, Victoriaearle—see what you think. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Later career

• I made a few copyedits. Feel free to revert. No quibbles.

The Wars of the Roses

• Still complicated, no matter how many times I read about it! You've handled it well. I made a few minor copyedits

Battle of Towton

• Nicely done! No quibbles.

Under the Yorkists

• Looks good. No quibbles

Character and legacy

• No quibbles; made a few minor copyedits

Cultural depictions

• No quibbles.

That's all from me. Most are minor quibbles, nothing terribly important. It's a nicely researched article and, I think, does a good job of summarizing what seems to be a complicated person during a complicated period. Nice work! Victoriaearle (tk) 23:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the kind words Victoriaearle—and, thank you too, for the copyediting, which I see no problems with whaaatsover  :) Let me know if there's anything else you can think of, of course. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, not able to do much today. Your fixes look good and I've moved to support. I might have another minor comment or two when I'm feeling better, but doubt it. I see that Ceoil's on the job copyediting, so that's good. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
      • That's great news Victoriaearle, nice one. Very sorry to hear you haven't been well—not SerialNumberAndMowbrayItis, I hope?!  ;) seriously, hope you are better soon. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 22:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
        • • No, not MowbrayItis. It's looking good. I've struck everything, so the coords know I've seen it all. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Victoriaearle :) time to awaken the Kraken @WP:FAC coordinators: —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 06:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I did end up making a few edits, but not enough I think to require recusing from closing this -- thanks all for your participation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much Ian Rose, it was epic  :) Barnstars all round! (If that's not against etiquette) And thanks for your last run through. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2018 [51].

---

Flora of Madagascar

Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The land of the 900 orchids, the baobabs, the spiny thickets, and the traveller's tree, which suffers so much economically and ecologically, deserves a decent article on its flora! I've been working on this on and off for nearly two years. Did some last checks and think that it's not too far off from meeting the FA criteria now. Looking forward to your comments and criticism! Tylototriton (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi

• Note that just because a warning is displayed doesn't mean there's really any problem.. but I'm listing errors in case there's something we can improve:
• de Flacourt, E. (1661). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• Du Petit Thouars, A.A. (1806). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• Baron, R. (1900–1906). Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• Perrier de la Bâthie, H.P. (1921). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• Perrier de la Bâthie, H.P. (1936). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• Lowry II, P.P.; Schatz, G.E.; Phillipson, P.B. (1997). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Jeannoda, V.H.; Razanamparany, J.L.; Rajaonah, M.T.; et al. (2007). CS1 maint: Unrecognized language; Missing archive link;
• Groupe des Spécialistes des Plantes de Madagascar (2011). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (28 with; 1 without); Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
• Moat, J.; Smith, P. (2007). Missing ISBN; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added the missing ISBN/OCLC/page numbers and fixed the language for Jeannoda et al. 2007. "Groupe des Spécialistes des Plantes de Madagascar (2011)" has no publisher location evident from the document. Tylototriton (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Potential issues:
• Bourriquet, G. (1970). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
• Morel, J.-P. (2002). "Philibert Commerson à Madagascar et à Bourbon" (PDF) Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
• Baron, R. (1900–1906). Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• "Le muséum à Madagascar" (PDF) Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Added ISSN for Bourriquet (1970). No identifiers available for Morel (2002) and "Le muséum à Madagascar". Baron (1900–06) is in fact a collection of fascicles published in different journals. As this is detailed in Dorr (1987), I removed the reference. Tylototriton (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the topographical map
• File:Seal_of_Madagascar.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Scaled up the map (not too much I hope). Not sure about the copyright status of the seal image; I somehow thought official seals such as these were public domain anyway... But if there is a doubt, the image is not that important – I can replace it with one of the plant itself. Tylototriton (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I finally replaced the seal with this image whose copyright status should be fine. Tylototriton (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, replaced it with yet another, better image, also used in Madagascar. Tylototriton (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• Looks very interesting, will review soon. Pinging Maky, who might want to have a look as well (if still active). FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• You mention extinctions here and there, perhaps state how many species are known to be extinct in all?

I didn't come across any figure or estimate for plants, and didn't find much information on fossils. Strong contrast to the extinct megafauna...

• "most of them from fossil deposits" So are they fossilise,d or do they just live in these deposits? If the former, are they extinct?

The source says it is unknown whether some are still extant. Added this.

• "it was mainly French naturalists that documented Madagascar's flora in the following centuries." Needs source.

Don't think a have a source that says this explicitly. To me, this is a general introduction statement which is referenced in the following paragraphs.

I think you can just use one or two of the sources that follow. FunkMonk (talk)

23:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Tylototriton (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Edible mushrooms, including endemic species, are collected and sold locally (see above, Diversity and endemism: Fungi)." Seems this needs a source.

Ref added.

• "The traditional slash-and-burn agriculture (tavy), practised for centuries, with a growing population today accelerates the loss of primary forests (see below, Threats and conservation)." This too.

Ref added.

• "Pierre Sonnerat visited the country from" Is this an appropriate way to describe the island at the time?

Probably not. Changed to "island".

• "specimens were later worked up by" Not sure what "worked up" means here.

It means they described them; replaced this.

• "Contemporary research" It might be better to call it 21st century research or similar. Then the "Nineteenth century to present" section should also be renamed, though the title didn't really make sense before either. It indicates that "present" comes before "contemporary".

Changed the section titles. Not sure if a title can begin with a number, so I left "Nineteenth to twentieth century" instead of "19th to 20th".

• Have any plants coevolved with animal species? I'm thinking the large extinct lemurs or small hippo species, for example, might have influenced the evolution of some plants? Googling it brings up some interesting articles, so this might be an oversight:[52][53] The first is based on this journal article, which should certainly be incorporated:[54]

Thanks FunkMonk for your comments! I'll go through them but might take me a couple of days. Didn't know that article on lemur–plant coevolution, this might indeed merit a short paragraph, thanks! There's actually quite a debate on whether there were grazers among the extinct megafauna – which would imply prehistoric grasslands... I'll see what I can out together this week. Tylototriton (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, note I still need to read most of the rest of the article, so more comments will come. FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a few changes, see my response to the individual points above. Found three more interesting sources on coevolution and added a paragraph in "Origins and evolution". Also found a more recent "chronology of prehistoric Madagascar" and added a few bits in the introduction of "human impact". Tylototriton (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• "in the Madagascar lowland forests", "the Madagascar subhumid forests" Why italics for these and other English terms? You don't do this in the pie chart caption, for example.

True, wasn't very consistent. I've now put the names of vegetation types or ecoregions in quotation marks at first mention.

• "It is unprotected but the local population considers it sacred." Which keeps them from chopping it down, I assume?

Yes, probably; only I don't have access to the source anymore to check if it says that...

• "hunting to extinction a megafauna" The megafauna?

Corrected.

• "with first evidence for human presence" Could be stated where these humans came from? Since you also mention Europeans later.

Mentioned that they were either African or Asian as per source (still debated to my knowledge).

• You have internal links and references to other sections of the article, and tough I don't know if this is discouraged, it is certainly not standard.

I've removed the links but kept the references, I think they're useful.

• You are very inconsistent in how you list scientific names; sometimes it is in parenthesis, other times it is after a comma.

Now all scientific names should be in parentheses; also linked scientific names consistently now instead of common names.

• "A number of plants with native to Madagascar" Looks incorrect.

Corrected.

• "over six million hectares" Convert.

Done.

• "around 10% of the land surface are protected" Is?

Corrected.

Modifications done; see responses above. Tylototriton (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - reads well to me now, and also one of the visually nicest articles I've seen! FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, FunkMonk! Tylototriton (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "The flora of Madagascar counts more than 12,000 species" "The flora of Madagascar consists of more than 12,000 species" sounds better to me.

Reworded as suggested.

• " Dry forest and woodland are found" This sounds a bit odd, as if forest and woodland are different. I would expand to say "succulent woodland".

Well, forest and woodland are different, the latter has an open canopy and usually a grass understory. The distinction has not always been clear but has been made more and more in recent literature, and is important in Madagascar: woodland has regular natural fires but forest doesn't.

• "Forest fire" has over 300,000 hits in Google Scholar. I think the distinction you make must be a specialist one few readers would know about, and you need to spell it out if you want to distinguish between the two. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are forest fires of course, but they don't usually occur every 1-3 years as in savannah/woodland. I admit the distinction is less clear-cut as I would like; I still prefer keeping the two in that phrase of the lead as they link to two distinct ecoregions. Added "succulent" before woodlands to make the distinction clearer. Tylototriton (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• "One of the most productive explorers of Malagasy wildlife in the 19th century was French naturalist Alfred Grandidier." "productive explorer" does not sound right to me. How about "One of the most prolific writers about Malagasy wildlife in the 19th century was French explorer and naturalist Alfred Grandidier."

"Prolific writer" doesn't really reflect the fact that he's actually travelled and collected a lot; what about "Preeminent worker on Malagasy wildlife"?

• How about "French naturalist Alfred Grandidier was a preeminent nineteenth century authority on Malagasy wildlife."Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, made the change. Tylototriton (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• "the British missionary Richard Baron" "the British missionary and botanist Richard Baron"

Agree, but I added "naturalist" rather than "botanist" as he's also done some herpetology and geology.

• "During the French colonial period" I would specify between 1897 and 1958.

Done.

• "also present with a dependency in Madagascar" What is a dependency in this context?

The source says nothing more than "permanent base", don't know if this is really more precise?

• It would be much clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, done. Tylototriton (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• The arrangement of the sections looks wrong to me, with exploration between plant and vegetation types. I suggest 1 origins, 2. Diversity, 3. Vegetation types, 4 Exploration, 5 Human impact. Of course, other editors may disagree.

I prefer describing the diversity first, before talking about its botanical history and evolutionary origins. I'd be OK however to move the "exploration" section down, after "origins" and before "human impact". What do other editors suggest?

I finally moved the "exploration" section down, think this makes sense. Tylototriton (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• "It is dominated by the namesake tapia tree" eponymous is better than namesake.

Done.

• "given their divergences estimated well after Gondwana break-up" This does not sound right. Maybe "given that they are estimated to have diverged from continental groups well after Gondwana broke up"

Reworded as suggested.

• "The English missionary Richard Baron (see above, Exploration and documentation: Nineteenth to twentieth century) already described more than one hundred native plants used locally and commercially." This is not needed. You can just say "Barron described more than one hundred native plants used locally and commercially."

This will depend on the final section order...

Made the change, but added the century for context. Tylototriton (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments, Dudley! Responses above. Tylototriton (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

Nice article. I love the illustrations. Just a few comments:

• Today, humid forest including the lowland forests, is --> something doesn't work for me here, maybe the commas, maybe the singular then plural then singular, probably both.

Used plural and added a comma, should be better now?

• 662 species/77% --> I think a – looks better than a /

Agree, done.

• central highlands and Central Highlands both occur in the article. Intentional?

No; should all be lowercase now.

• highest elevation (2,876 m (9,436 ft)) --> that's a lot of ). Perhaps something like this: highest elevation in the country, namely 2,876 m (9,436 ft)

Done.

• [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] --> I think one reference to the index page will suffice

I agree that seven refs are not very elegant, but as the chapters have all been cited individually, I think this is more correct, and it saves us une uncecessary additional ref.

• 6,000 mm --> and in inches?

Cvt added.

• Trees other than tapia include the endemic Asteropeiaceae, Sarcolaenaceae, and others, --> that "and others" is not needed I think, as include suggests that already

Done.

• around 150–160, and from the Indian subcontinent 84–91 million years ago --> I think in the lead this is done more elegantly, avoiding the question 150-160 AD?

Now done as in the lead.

• now–separate island, which later contracted to what is now --> do these two uses of now refer to the same period? or is one today and one in the past?

Actually the whole two first sentences of the paragraph were not very elegant, tried to restructure this.

• established since the Oligocene --> during?

No – they probably couldn't evolve before, but some may be much more recent, see following sentences.

• Several hypotheses exist --> I found this one paragraph a bit too short. Given the uniqueness and abundance it warrants a lengthier description, methinks

Thanks for motivating me on this – I found two nice examples of plant diversification from dry habitats (Euphorbia) and humid forests (tree ferns). As the section is quite long now, I subdivided it into Paleogeography and Species evolution.

• nineteenth century --> earlier you used a different notation, 17th, and later 21st. Should be consistent across entire article

I enjoyed reading it, thank you for bringing it here. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr already fixed this (thanks!).

Thanks, Edwin. Sorry, I'm pretty busy atm, might take me a while before I can address your points. Tylototriton (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Worked through your points, @Edwininlondon: responses above. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

comments from Outriggr

• Support. When I returned to WP a few months ago I took an interest in this article, already at FAC. I copyedited it a fair bit. (Which is to say I was and am not "involved" with the article.) Since this FAC is still open, I'm going to add my support now. I find the quotations around the WWF's eco-regions awkward, but I guess they serve a purpose. They are not entirely consistent, and should be checked. For example, The driest part of Madagascar in the southwest features the unique Madagascar spiny forests (WWF). By the current logic, the ecoregion should also be in quotes, in which case it would be better rephrased as the WWF's "spiny forests" ecoregion. It would ease reading if the "Madagascar" was removed from the visible part of the link in all cases, and then add "ecoregion" after, to help the reader understand why quotes are being used in the first place. An example: The WWF classifies the northern part of this vegetation as +the "Madagascar dry deciduous forest"[16] +ecoregion and the southern part, including the northernmost range of Didiereaceae, as "Madagascar succulent woodlands". But you know, quotes may not be needed at all, because "Western sub-humid forest" occurs inland in the southwest at the start of a para is still awkward. Outriggr (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all your copy-editing work, Outriggr! I've reworked the Vegetation types section as you suggested, with ecoregions now consistently in quotations but "Madagascar" removed. The paragraph is complicated because there's the vegetation types in the Atlas of the Vegetation of Madagascar and the WWF ecoregions. Both are different concepts; they often overlap but are not the same, so I think it's important to clearly mention them, even if that sometimes produces a little awkward wording. Tylototriton (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Much better, thanks. Outriggr (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we're just waiting for a response from Edwininlondon. Sarastro (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

With the caveat that I am not an expert, I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tylototriton: I glanced at this to see if it was ready to promote, but I'm finding odds and ends that I shouldn't be at this stage. See my few edits, but there are more—for example under Vascular plants, why is the parenthetical after Malvaceae not consistent with the others? Please go over this with a fine-tooth comb for MoS and consistency. --Laser brain (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Thanks, I'll go through it again this weekend. No time before, sorry... Tylototriton (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Went through it and removed the remaining inconsistencies, I hope? Tylototriton (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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