Despite not being as long as my last several nominations, this article may be one of my best. I personally find the storm fascinating, so I've spent an inordinate amount of time polishing the article over the past year, and the result is something I'm quite proud of. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I reviewed it for GA status, so I think it's appropriate that I also review it for FAC, especially in light of the changes you've made.
"Despite being plagued by strong disruptive wind shear" - seems a bit excessive. If you cut out "strong", the meaning still applies, and the sentence reads better.
Great prose in the MH. It makes sense to me, but it should get a read through by a layman to make sure it's understandable.
Your call, but when you mention Fabian in 03, it might help to say that the storm passed nearby or something. The implication in the first half of the article is that Fay was the strongest storm to affect Bermuda since Emily, but you are only focusing on the landfall. I'm not sure how you want to deal with that though.
"Indeed, in a report to the World Meteorological Organization, the Bermuda Weather Service speculated that all insurance claims totaled "tens of millions of dollars"" - this is from Fay alone, right? Was there a combined damage total?
I also did an image review. The storm images are NASA, they're good. The track map generator is PD, as always for every TC article, so that's good. And the yacht damage is creative commons, also correctly done and noted.
All in all a great read! I'm happy to support it now, as my comments are very minor, and the images are good. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the review and kind words! I made several changes that should have taken care of the things you mentioned, plus a few other minor issues I came across. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A well-written, and in-depth article on a damaging storm that was quickly overshadowed by its "big brother". No complaints on my end so I'm happy to support. As with any nomination, I'd suggest adding alt text to the images. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review. I've made my feeble attempt at adding alt text... you might like to check and see that it's satisfactory. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. All tropical storms articles are somewhat technical; I thought this one struck a nice balance. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - goddamn...I have to resist the temptation to change all the names....but good news is they're all consistent. Some ref titles are in sentence case and some in title case...choose one and forever hold yer peace....otherwise all good. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
using this version for reference for ref numbers etc:
FN 1 used 4 times - material in source and faithful to source without copyvio. all good.
FN 13 used 2 times - material in source and faithful to source without copyvio. all good.
FN 12 used 5 times - I don't see in the source where the time of the watch was given. Otherwise all other items in source and faithful to source without copyvio.
Oops, just saw this now, sorry about that! Hylian Auree was kind enough to help identify and fix a bunch of source formatting issues earlier this week, so I think this should all be taken care of now. Thanks for taking a look Casliber. (And yeah, the names are a bad habit... I can easily switch 'em over if needed.) – Juliancolton | Talk 15:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately as long as they are internally consistent it's no big deal. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As the person who got this article to GA, I like that changes that have been made since then and agree that this should be a Featured Article--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan Lochner (c. 1410 – 1451) was one of the most significant German old master painters before Albrecht Dürer. Few records survive, but art and social historians estimate that he was was highly successful during his lifetime, but over extended his borrowings and property debts in his 30s, and died of plague in his early 40s. He disappears from record at the end of 1451, during a winter and spread of illness that killed 40% of those living around him, including both his parents, in a period when graveyard space was at a premium. Lochner left behind a series of sophisticated multi-panel oil paintings and polyptychs widely copied and much imitated, and was involved in the production or design of at least three exant illuminated manuscripts.
A rewarding peer review is here, and as usual Victoria has been very helpful in guidance, copyediting and suggestions.
Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM
Looks like a really interesting subject. Happy to have a look through, but (beyond a smattering of reading around the philosophy of art, which is unlikely to help...) I've no real knowledge of the fine art, so please be ready to take my comments with a pinch of salt.
Concerning the lead, "virtuoso surface textures", and possibly "realism" and "iconography", are terms that may be unfamiliar to some readers.
Those phrases are now linked. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"(c. 1410 – 1451)" versus "He was probably born around 1400 in Meersburg"- is 1410 "around" 1400? It jars with me slightly.
Linked. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"in today's Holland" I don't mean to patronise, but you do mean Holland, and not the Netherlands, do you?
It was most unfortunate, but point taken and reworded. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"enthusiastic – at length – [10] emphasising" Surely the foonote should be within the dashes, in the same way it would be within brackets? Also, are you sure that's the correct spacing for your dashes? See WP:DASH. In the same sentence, check for MOS:LQ compliance, and are you committed to the tense shift? It's a little jarring.
Fixed all this by trimming out the dashes. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Michael Wolfson? Something "the art historian" (or, if we have an article, a wikilink)
Oh, please don't start that. Those bothered will find "Wolfson, Michael. "Hat Dürer das 'Dombild' gesehen?". Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, Volume 49, 1986" in thwe references. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The author wouldn't be starting anything- Wolfson is the exception in this article as the person who is not introduced beyond his name. It's not clear to readers whether he's an artist, a historian, a critic... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In articles about 500 year-old painters people can assume experts mentioned are art historians & only those who are not need a descriptive tag. We have been though this before at FA. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Ceoil, do you definitely mean 1996? Your only reference to Wolfson is a decade earlier, though I concede that this is not what you are citing for this claim. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're a bit back-and-forth about how certain we are of the year of his death; the lead switches from "1451" to "plague hit around 1451, [and we] assume", then there's a "year of his death" in the attribution section. In the discussion of his political career, you have "but died in office".
He died in the winter of 1450-51, prob jan of 51. I think this is clearer now? Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"its artists concentrated on more personal, intimate and homely forms" I'm not sure I know what this means. Paintings of mothers reading to children in front of roaring fires?
"Lochner's first appearance in extant records in 1442; nine years before he died." Grammar
Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the local painters guild" Do you need an apostrophe here?
You do, and added. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first couple of lines of the second paragraph of "style" are difficult for a Philistine like me. Some wikilinks might help.
Linked art material and terms. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does "especially in his tooling of gold grounds" mean?
This was rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "soft style" thing mentioned in the opening sentence of the lead is neither explained nor mentioned in the "style" section- is this an oversight?
Mentioned below now. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Lochner's major works include three large polyptychs, the broken apart Last Judgement and Altarpiece of the City Patron Saints, Nuremberg's Crucifixion and the Martyrdom of the Apostles." I'm struggling with this. Are you listing the polyptychs, here? Which of those named are the three? Are both LJ and AotCPS broken up?
"There are two surviving wings from an altarpiece with images of saints in the London's National Gallery and the Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne." Reference?
Cited now to the NG. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"1450s "Prayer book of Stephan Lochner" now" Shouldn't that be italicised? Same with Anholt.
Um, not sure, I've gone with "non italics", as these are collections rather than individual images, or something. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Manuscripts are objects, not works, and have names not titles, and are not italicised. See WP:VAMOS. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's an inconsistency between "c 1500" and "c. 1500". I don't know which is right, but consistency would be good.
made consistent - "c." and no spaces between the years. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the last sentence of the first paragraph of "influences", but I still think it could do with a little smoothing
Rephrased this. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"He seems to have borrowed a number of motifs and compositional elements; most especially the Ursula and the central Dombild panels quote passages from van Eyck's "Soldiers of Christ"." You lose me after the semi-colon
Text after the semi-colon has been cut. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Does "quote" mean something in the history of art beyond its usual meaning?)
Rephrased this. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know the "rule" against starting sentences with prepositions isn't as clear as some claim, but is starting a paragraph (in "Influences") with "yet" ideal?
"Albrecht Dürer knew of him before his stay in Cologne. van der Weyden saw his paintings during his travel to Italy" Is the capitalisation correct here?
Linked. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling with your "New Findings Concerning ... in Cologne Cathedral" source. What is that? A pamphlet?
Clarified the description now. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many of your journal sources lack page numbers. I'm not familiar with your citation style, so I don't know if they should be included, but at least one has them.
These are given page nrs in the specific inlines. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps consider spelling out the particular chapter in the Wellesz/Rothenstein edited collection? Again, I don't know your citation style, but citing the particular chapter in an edited collection is standard in all the citation styles I've come across before.
(Consider, also, that you refer in your footnotes to "Wellesz", while the bibliography entry would normally be "Wellesz and Rothenstein".) On a similar note, could you perhaps include the editor and publishing location (and, for consistency's sake, ISBN) for the Faries source?
I clarified this - book is entirely written by Wellesz; Rothenstein is the series editor. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps shift the Commons link to the external links section.
Ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added this. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really interesting article. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was checking you edits as you went. These points are all salient and highly informed. Thanks so much! Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update:All addresses, except am digging re Wellesz/Rothenstein, and I think soft style, ie int gothic was covered, though if you didnt follow then I'm not being clear. Re journals, the specific inlines have the pg nrs. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support (cautious because I'm not as confident with the subject matter as I could be). I made some more edits (please double-check), and as a last few comments:
"As secular works grew in demand and religious works became unfashionable in later centuries, 15th-century polyptychs were often broken up and sold as individual works, especially if a panel or section contained an image that could pass as a secular portrait." Reference?
"The Crucifixion is also an early work and reminiscent of late medieval painting. It has a heavily ornamented gilded background and the smooth flowing quality of the 'soft' Gothic style." Reference?
"acanthus scrolls" Is a term that is surely too unfamiliar to go unlinked/unexplained.
You twice mention Chapius in the text, but never introduce him
Thanks. The final points now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
PD-Art defaults to a life+70 tag - use life+100 instead
File:Rogier_van_der_Weyden_-_The_Altar_of_St._John.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Stefan_Lochner_Triptych_with_the_Virgin_in_the_Garden_of_Paradise,_c._1445_–_1450.jpg needs a US D tag
I went through the Stefan Lochner cat on commons and added the US and +100 tags. Have Dropped Altar_of_St._John, wasn't really necessary to include. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Johnbod
"... was a German painter working in the late "soft style" (schöne stil) of the International Gothic..." Note that (from International Gothic) "the style is sometimes known in German as the "Schöne Stil" or "Weicher Stil" ("Beautiful style" or "Soft style").[10]". "schöne" = beautiful, not soft.
Ok, removed the German. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"which often feature fanciful and black winged angels." - aren't their wings actually dark blue?
Yes, mentioned now. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...echoes of his panels can be seen in works by Rogier van der Weyden." Is this referenced? one might have thought any influence would have been the other way, as indeed is said and referenced later on.
The sources seem contradictory. I would think Rogier influenced Lochner, but digging. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to explain better about the Dombild/Altarpiece of the City's Patron Saints, which was not well done. More might be needed, and you might explain somewhere that "Dombild" = "Cathedral picture". - well, I've stuck that in, unreferenced, as it is basic German. The work is then called by various names in the rest of the article. It might also be said that the main subject is the Adoration of the Magi, and I think it is sometimes referred to by this.
Sure. I switched the article to using Dombild as title, which is less confusing for a casual reader of a bio, espically given the notname. The title Adoration of the Magi is mentioned in the lead caption cited to Weiss. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"a name inscribed on the sheath of a figure on the right" - Huh, "sheath"? Means Scabbard?
"Later, Johann Dominicus Fiorillo discovered a 15th-century record that read "in 1380 there was an excellent painter in Cologne called Wilhelm, who had no equal in his art and who depicted human beings as if they were alive".[1]" How does this fit in? Red herring?
^Eodem tempore 1380 Coloniae era pictor optimus, cui non fuit similis in arte sua, dictus fuit Wilhelmus, de pingit enim homines quasi viventes. See Chapuis, 33
Its In 1380 there was an excellent painter in Cologne called Wilhelm, who had no equal in his art and who depicted human beings as if they were alive. Ceoil (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"He was probably born in the early 15th century in Meersburg" but the detailed section seems pretty dubious about this. Soften? But then later: "On 16 August 1451 the council of Meersburg was informed by officials in Cologne that Lochner would be unable to attend to the will and estate of his parents." which seems more solid.
Have added a section on the hist records, but the page, yes, dioes need to firm up on what is know and what is supposed. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"He moved to Cologne" - unclear if he came for the Imperial decorations, or was already well established there. Both seem to be said.
We obviously not know but will add clarifiers. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"forty marks and ten shillings" - links?
marks linked, no appropriate article for 15th c shillings that I can find. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"possibly to avoid paying the 12 guilder fee; unbeknown to him the guild did not require it." Confusing, and how do we know he was unaware? seems unlikely frankly. "However, he was obliged to act as Ratsherr, and on 24 June 1447 he became a burgher of Cologne" - why "However"?
Hedged this. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"He painted with oil and typically placed the canvas below the ground or support" Normally, the canvas is the "support", with the ground on top, then the paint. Did he in fact paint on canvas? This would have been most unusual at this date, and worth mentioning if so. All the image files that specify a support (not many) say panel. Ok, I see from Billinge that putting canvas over the panel was done in Cologne, or Germany. Worth clarifying, and using this very clear account more. The canvas is above the panel, which for my money should be regarded as the "support".
I need help with this. I did try and figure out, but was unable. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll get on it. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tinkered a bit. Is that ok? Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, explained much clearer now. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In the underdrawings for the Last Judgment..." - explain how we know this? X-rays etc
Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the technique could be clearer. Billinge et al might help.
It think you mean because it was a bit wordy not because it lacked detail - I tried to simplify, can you look again. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a mix of ENGVARS - center, colour, modeled, etc.
Umm. Removed these instances, but spelling is not my forte. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Lochner's major works include three large polyptychs,..." 4 with the Dombild, surely? I don't know about all these redlinks.
Now reading as four. Redlinks have been reduced. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"As secular works grew in demand and religious works were seen as constricted and out of step in later centuries.." doesn't seem the best choice of words somehow
Reworded this. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Hans Memling was exposed to his work during a visit to Italy. The influence of Lochner's Last Judgement can be seen in the latter's Gdansk altarpiece, where the gates of Heaven are similar, as is the rendering of the blessed." Dubious (mainly the first bit). Memling seems never to have visited Italy, and would he have seen any Lochners if he had? Do you mean Cologne, where he may have trained? Again "Van der Weyden saw his paintings during his travel to Italy." - his trip, in 1450, is somewhat speculative, and were there any Lochners in Italy? Do we mean his travel took him via Cologne, which is very possible?
Most likely. Removed for now, will dig out hopefully later tonight. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Later, Johann Dominicus Fiorillo discovered..." Are you sure it was later (than 1816, when Fiorillo was already 68). I only ask; presumably it was in his second blockbuster, published 1815 to 1820, but no doubt covering many more years of research.
(Per: Levey, Michael , The German School; National Gallery Catalogues, p. 60, 1959, National Gallery, London) the Dombild was commissioned for the chapel of the Rathaus (Cologne City Hall) and only reached the Dom later (presumably before the Allies flattened the Rathaus in WW2). Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, working through....Ceoil (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant points sorted Johnbod (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last point I haven't got her book, but Iris Schaeffer's video (2015, the article's EL) suggests that the new examination of the underdrawings of the Dombild, suggests that SL worked as a student/junior with the Master of the Heisterbach Altarpiece, whose works are I think now re-dated to the 1430s. Shouldn't this be mentioned - c. 30 mins in. Johnbod (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and lecture is based on the findings Eng trans here. Thanks very much for the additions and edits; will revisit the sources re workshop. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had mentioned Research in 2014 into the underdrawings of the "Dombild Altarpiece" established two guiding hands, presumably Lochner and an exceptionally talented pupil from Schaeffer but not made the connection with the Heisterbach. Need to revisit and make explicit. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
Leaning support. Just a few things:
Lede
" combine that era's tendency towards long flowing lines and brilliant colours while incorporating". I think there's an issue here with "combine", I keep waiting for a "with".
" illuminated manuscript" Why the singular?
"Lochner's identity and reputation was lost" was should be "were", surely?
" He was probably born " this feels like the start of a new paragraph.
Identity
The third sentence of the first paragraph could usefully be split.
"under whom he had studied" You could probably drop the "had"
Cologne
"artists concentrated on more personal and intimate and sunkects and forms" I don't speak Art, but it strikes me that this could use clarification.
"and he was forced remortgage the homes" a missing "to" after "forced"?
"possibly to avoid paying the 12 guilder fee; unbeknown to him the guild did not require it" given that we're not certain of his motivation, can we really say what is known or unknown to him?
Plague
You may wish to mention, either inline or in a footnote, that January 1451 was after December 1451 and why.
Style
"The grounded these passages in lead white" should "The" be "He"?
Other formats
"draftsman" earlier "draughtsman"
Influences
"new developed" "newly developed"?Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for the feedback, have most of these now; looking into January 1451. Ceoil (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain re Jan 1451 - is it an error in the article - I dont see from 1451 that the calandars changed. Ceoil (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see it implied that January 1451 followed December 1451 and assume the date changed in March.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just waiting on this last one, Ceoil--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Wehwalt, slow on the uptake but I'm just not seeing it. My understanding of the outline is re-election late 1450, plage in 1451, sick in August of 51, city appropriates property nears his in September, creditors act in Dec, taking full control of the estate in Jan 1452. Would be the first time I've typ-oed something like this so....asking. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you fixed it somewhere along the line. Support well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had the pleasure of reading this today and fixed a few odds and sods where I saw fit. I offer these comments in good faith and will not be offended if you decide not to adopt:
Identity and attribution
"The determination of his identity took place in two stages. First, in an article published in 1823, J. F. Böhmer identified the Dombild (meaning "Cathedral picture") or Altarpiece of the City's Patron Saints with a work mentioned in an account of a visit to Cologne in 1520 in the diary of Albrecht Dürer, during which the notoriously thrifty artist paid 5 silver pfennig to see an altarpiece by "Maister Steffan", some seventy years after Lochner's death." -- Two things here: Would a semi-colon work better by coming before "First, an article published in 1823"? Secondly, there is no "second", which one would expect after your "first". Some, and in that I include me, may also opine that this entire sentence is a bit long for comfortable reading.
"The German philosopher and critic Friedrich Schlegel..." – I am a huge fan of the definite article, such as you have here, although elsewhere in the article you use the preferred American format of omitting "the".
Early life
"Georg and Alhet Lochner were citizens and recorded as having died there in 1451." → "Georg and Alhet Lochner were citizens and were recorded as having died there in 1451."
"However, there is no archival evidence that he was there, and his style bears no trace of the art of that region." → "However, there is no archival evidence that he was there, and his style bears no trace of the art of that region." -- in that region, surely?
Move to Cologne, success
"Cologne had a long tradition of producing high quality visual art, and in the 14th century its output was considered equal to that of Vienna and Prague." -- I think I saw Johnbod above say that such claims don't necessarily need to be attributed, and that it can be relied on that before a certain date, one can take such claims to belong to art scholars. Is this correct, or have I got this wrong? Just checking, as normally I would like these claims attributed, but if you chaps have a certain way of doing things, I shan't stand in the way of consistency. CassiantoTalk 19:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions, and agree re the definite article. Now implemented, and thanks for the c/e's this week. Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're more than welcome. CassiantoTalk 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly: I said that when statements or views are attributed to individuals, they only need a describing epithet if they are not art historians, as that is the default type of expert in an article like this. The statement you quoted, at the least the first bit, is certainly true, and any book covering the art of the period will say so, so attributing it to a single scholar as though it was somehow controversial or a personal view is not really appropriate. As to the second bit, Vienna was at this point a much more minor centre, but Prague was the Imperial capital and very important in the late 14th century, so that bit is more capable of dispute. But that bit refers to contemporary 14th-century opinion, so is more of a factual matter. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake, thanks for that. CassiantoTalk 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"By the 1430s, painting in Cologne had become conventional and somewhat old fashioned, still under the influence of the courtly style of the Master of Saint Veronica, who is known to have been active until 1420." -- Again, and one can refer to my comment above for this, the fact that this was "known" by someone may require you to say who knew this. Also, "which was" could be inserted between "old fashioned" and "still under" if you are talking about Cologne, which I think you are.
How about 'conventional and somewhat old fashioned, and still under the influence of the courtly style'. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that conjunction works just as well, if not better, I'm embarrassed to admit! CassiantoTalk 19:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again this is presumably a factual matter relating to surviving documents (or paintings with dates on them), so doesn't need tying to individuals here. If only we had an article on him, all would no doubt be made clear ....Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Germany suffered an outbreak of plague in 1451..." – I'm sure Germany the country didn't suffer all that much; I would say: "There was an outbreak of the plaque in Germany in 1951..." or thereabouts.
Have used your wording. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" It is presumed..." -- by who?
Art historians! Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Style
"Yet he was widely regarded..." -- A rather uncomfortable sentence starter.
Yes, but the yet is needed given the preceding statement - help needed! Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with it, but it is too closely linked to the first sentence for a full stop to be used. One would expect to see a semi-colon used, or maybe, and perhaps more preferably, a comma. CassiantoTalk 20:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a better formulation. Done, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Lochner was renowned for his rendering of flesh tones. He grounded these passages in lead white, to achieve a porcelain appearance Probably... -- Either we are missing a full stop, or we have a pesky caps typo.
Gaa. Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Lochner seems to have prepared on paper before approaching his underdrawings; there is relatively little evidence of reworking..." – I think the sentence would work just as well, if not better, by omitting "relatively" here.
We have a touch of déjà vu. In the second paragraph we have: "He was innovative in his rendering of flesh tones, which he built up using lead whites to give pale complexions with almost porcelain qualities." Meanwhile, five paragraphs down, we have: "Lochner was renowned for his rendering of flesh tones. He grounded these passages in lead white, to achieve a porcelain appearance."
Got it, phew, good spot. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the article appears to be in great working order and I can offer nothing further. Good work! CassiantoTalk 19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, I think these are all addressed, if you could check. I have a few o/s issues from Johnbod that I am working on. Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – all checked with responses satisfactorily addressed by the nominator. I now fully endorse this article's promotion to FA. CassiantoTalk 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Cas Liber - ref formatting all looks consistent. isbns all 13 digit with hyphens etc. all in order. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is another fungal collaboration. Sources have been scoured. Only material not used was highly esoteric and likely of no interest to layperson. Got a thorough GA review. Please read and suggest improvements. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: This is a wikicup nomination for one of the nominators (i.e. me) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"that medieval knights—who revered Tricholoma equestre—knights considered this mushroom fit only for cattle-drovers as it was not highly valued." One "knights" too many? FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with just the link, but I suppose we could just replace with the more layreader-friendly "described" or "created". Cas? Sasata (talk)
I think it's good to keep it specific, layreaders will learn new things, if it can't be explained briefly in parenthesis or some such, I'd say leave it as is. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It is common in Lithuania.[23]" Seems like a very arbitrary statement, unless it is uncommon elsewhere in its range...
I appended ", where it associates with Pinus sylvestris, the only naturally occurring pine in that country." to that sentence, to hopefully make it less arbitrary (i.e., it illustrates a common ecological association). Sasata (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise with the following: "In China, it has been recorded from provinces Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Hunan, Jiangxi, and Zhejiang." Why mention only Chinese regions at length? Or is it not found elsewhere in Asia?
I had the information at hand, so I put it in, but would be ok with trimming this. Will look for other Asian locales and get back to you on this. Sasata (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, also added a source for its presence in Taiwan. This new source suggests that its Asian distribution includes only China, Japan, and Taiwan. Thinking about it some more, I would like to keep the provincial Chinese distribution info, because China is a big place, and it isn't really any more detailed than what is already included about its US and Australian range. Sasata (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me after the other countries were mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My take on it was (is) that China is a big country, so locales within are good to have to narrow down occurrence to readers... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Fieldwork conducted in Sweden pine forests" Swedish?
"Common names include Jersey cow mushroom, bovine bolete, and euro cow bolete. One proposed origin for the name is that medieval knights..." -- The origin of which name? We speak of three names in the previous sentence; I think you mean the origin for the Suillus bovinus name, right?
" A 2001 study found it was not closely related to other European species, but added that all populations tested were more closer to each other than any other and hence it was a cohesive species." -- "but added" adds nothing here and could quite easily be omitted in place of "and".
"In Asia, it has been recorded from Taiwan..." -- recorded in? Maybe even "discovered"?
tweaked..."discovered" does strike me as a tad dramatic though Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Three comments offered which in no way effect my support if you choose not to adopt. This is a good little article; precise, well researched and nicely written. CassiantoTalk 08:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: I note that there's no information in the ecology section about insects, despite the fact that maggots are mentioned in the edibility section; is there a mention in the literature? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added this–not exhaustive, but representative. Sasata (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had my say at GAC. Note to delegates: I was the GA reviewer and have worked with both Sasata and Cas many times. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"From The Doctor to my son Thomas" is a heartwarming video sent from actor Peter Capaldi in-character in his role as the Doctor on Doctor Who, to console an autistic young boy over grief from the death of his grandmother.
Demiurge1000 and Sasata pitched in with some useful copy-edits. Miyagawa reviewed the article and it was successfully promoted to WP:GA quality. The article was helpfully looked over at WP:DYK by Curly Turkey, G S Palmer, Cwmhiraeth, and Panyd. I'm grateful to all for the assistance helping further along the Quality improvement process.
I appreciate your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Johnbod, could you help me copy-edit and make some tweaks? — Cirt (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I've gone through and copy-edited out to switch to British English as best I could, please let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks again for picking up on that ! — Cirt (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm quite grateful to Johnbod for the helpful copy-edits. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments fixed. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments surely the title of 42-second video should be in quotes, not italics? From MOS:ITAL, "Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, named exhibitions, computer and video games (but not other software), music albums, and paintings. The titles of articles, chapters, songs, television episodes, research papers and other short works are not italicized; they are enclosed in double quotation marks".—indopug (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed to quotes. Removed italics. Thank you, Indopug, that's a helpful suggestion. — Cirt (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor adjustments of language, mostly per WP:SAID and to make it more British in style (we don't say "gotten" any more over here, for example).
Done. Removed those three (3) sources. Thank you, John, for the helpful copy-edits. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thank you. I switched out "deceased" which I often find a bit too euphemistic. I would still like one further read over before I support. --John (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, John, thank you for the further copy-edits. Looking forward to it, — Cirt (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made some further edits. --John (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They all look great, John, I've been following it and I thank you for the additional passes of copy-editing, much appreciated ! — Cirt (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I now Support. --John (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the multiple passes of Copy Editing, and the Support -- much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on creating and writing this article. As a person with high-functioning autism I found it particularly heart-warming. Freikorp (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"MTV called Capaldi a most wonderful person for his act.[16] MTV concluded that the video was quite endearing.[16]" – can't you merge this into a single sentence? Especially since both sentences use the same source.
"The Hollywood Reporter noted that the Time Lord character..." – not being at all familiar with Doctor Who, I had to click on the link to discover what a Time Lord was and confirm that The Doctor is "the" Time Lord being referred to. Obviously cleared up once clicking on the link, but a bit confusing just from reading the prose. Just thought you should know.
"Metro commented that the video increased Capaldi's cool factor among his fans" – "cool factor" seems a bit colloquial, perhaps consider a direct quote from the source instead, but up to you.
Are you sure you can't expand the 'impact' section? Have any other autism or mental health sources commented on it? I ask as the fourth paragraph of the lead, comprised purely from information in the 'impact' section, is noticeably shorter than the others, which make it look a bit neglected by comparison. While i'm on the subject, on what basis have you decided to separate 'reception' from 'impact'? I mean, the impact section seems to me to just be the reception of Autism Daily Newscast (which appears to be just another news website like all the ones mentioned in the reception section, albeit this one is dedicated to autism) and Peter Harness. Not asking you to change it right away, just a little confused about it.
As it does not have a wikilink, perhaps clarify exactly what Autism Daily Newscast is.
I'd specify the month of the interview in the sentence "In a 2015 interview with Radio Times".
Thank you, Freikorp, for these helpful recommendations. I've implemented changes in response to all of above, as I think they were all quite useful ideas:
Done. Merged this into a single sentence.
Done. Added info as context for the reader, in a sourced Footnotes subsection. That way, the reader won't have to leave this article for good sourced background context.
Done. Added direct quote from the source instead, per above suggestion.
Done. Expanded Impact section, by switching some balance from Reception section that was more directly about impact info.
Done. Clarified this with a bit more sourced info.
Done. Specified month of the interview in the sentence.
@Freikorp:Hopefully this addresses all of your helpful suggestions, above. Thanks again very much for your participation in this FAC, — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Support now. As a final observation after looking over the article again, perhaps the infobox picture caption could be a bit more specific, rather than just the actors name, but up to you. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added more specific caption to infobox. Thank you for your Support -- and your helpful suggestions. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert. I'm not very good with pop culture articles; I just dropped by to help with basic copyediting and offer a support on prose. I personally enjoyed the article. There's an argument that the article might take too long to say what it's trying to say, but that's not my call. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... a medal that was authorized by Congress and sold to the public for the Norse-American centennial of 1925. Although it is not a coin, it was often collected as if it were one (less so today than in the 1960s and 1970s, when there was much broader interest in medals than there is now in the US. The brainchild of Congressman Ole Juulson Kvale, a Norse-American (surprise, surprise), the medal and the celebrations it was a part of accomplished the difficult task of showing both ethnic pride and assimilation. And, I must admit, as an experienced cruiser, when I read of the voyage of the Restauration (Restoration, not restaurant) all I could think was "party cruise"! Skal!Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like the usual professional job, with an original slant. I've not had the opportunity to review it during preparation, and after a careful reading I have a few mostly minor quibbles:
"Only 53 of the ones in gold were issued" → "Only 53 were issued in gold..."?
"They are sometimes collected as part of the commemorative coin series": Does "they" refer to the whole series, or just to the silver and bronze?
Ole Juulson Kvale: I thought we didn't give birth and death years for linked persons?
The comma after "and in January 1925," seems like one too many
I'm unsure about "accordingly" as a paragraph intro - in accordance with what? The sentence reads equally well without it.
"Kvale noted..." etc – this seems more like a declaration that something which he "noted". "Evale declared..."?
"but then on the 6th,..." Suggest delete "then" and comma after "6th"
I split the sentence instead.
The statement in the second para of the Background section: "Commemorative coins for ethnic heritage groups were unlikely to pass Congress at that time due to..." etc does not seem to be borne out in the legistlative history. The bill seems to have gone through without a murmer.
But it wasn't a coin. It was a medal. Kvale toned it down, eliminated Treasury opposition, and apparently squared his colleagues.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way was Borgium "busy on Stone Mountain"?
I've added a small bit but I don't want to get into that one! I think the links will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Design section: Primarily this deals with the medal design, but in the third paragraph we suddenly have "one of the stamps..." The issue of commemorative stamps is mentioned in the Background section, which is fair enough, but having the stamp images dominating this section is somewhat confusing. It's arguable whether we need these images; if we do, there should be at least a bit more information in the text and/or caption. For example, for the benefit of the nautically challenged, a caption should distinguish the Restauration from the Viking ship. You could also expand the text a little, to remind readers that a stamp issue was an extra factor in the commemoration.
We don't have a heck of a lot of images, so I included them. Fraser did do sketches, but they are not yet PD. I've played with the caption. Regrettably Shultz only goes so far in treating the medal separately.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There was a sales limit of one per person," – doesn't that nullify the opinion expressed earlier, about wanting collectors to buy two medals?
That is a fair point, but not addressed by the sources. I'm not sure if they could repurchase. Sources are a bit thin here and I haven't been able to find any primary sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A total of 47 gold pieces were..." It's was, unless you delete "A total of"
(aside) I wonder if Coolidge wore a Viking helmet at the celebration? He was known to do such things.
God only knows. I have Coolidge third or fourth on my list. There's one image on the Library of Congress website showing him going and one showing him returning. Regrettably they do not seem copyright-free but both show him bareheaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"publicity people" → "publicists"?
Doubtless they were but it's an acceptable phrase in AmEng and it conveys the proper tone.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to the above, looks eminently supportable. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review. I think I've caught everything. Sorry for the delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Thanks for your responses. Ready to go I think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review and the support. Glad to know "ready to go"! Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"He concludes that Kvale would not have supported such a depiction, "he was interested in pure romanticization. he saw a Viking ship and his chieftain in full regalia"." The lower case "he" in the last sentence here should be addressed, but should it be capitalised or is the full stop not meant to one?
Inserting: I made an edit on this one before I saw this note. - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should be a comma. Dank's edit addresses it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The {{CSS image crop}} template has a parameter for alt text, so this should ideally be used in the infobox images. Ditto for the multiple image template used for the stamps.
One instance of the all caps depiction of the inscriptions ("authorized by...") encloses it in quotes, the other ("Opus Fraser") does not; is this intentional?
It wasn't. Thanks. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall this one seems pretty straightforward, another quality (exo)numismatic article that I'm leaning towards supporting. GRAPPLEX 10:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grapple X Sorry to be so slow. I've done as you've asked. As you've looked at the images, are you in a position to do an image review?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly try. Though I will say I'm happy with the changes made based on the comments already. I'll get looking at the images now. GRAPPLEX 09:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As there are only three, and all with the same OTRS license, it strikes me that it might be a good way to get started in doing image reviews, every FAC needs and everyone likes to see and is grateful for.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the changes made earlier and what I hope suffices for an image review, I'm happy to support this one. GRAPPLEX 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very grateful for the review and image review and am sorry for being so slow to get back to you. Things keep dropping off my watchlist. It's very strange.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support
I think that Fraser interpreted "breastplate" a bit too literally in his design. Earlier commenters appear to have caught all of the various infelicties; I see no issues other than that of the design itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not much I can do about that now :) ... many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
The one cite of Blegen that I could access was fine and AGF assumed for all the ones that I couldn't or weren't online.
The biggest problem was that many sources were locked behind paywalls and need to be marked as such. Like all of the Congressional Record cites.
Cite 19 resolved just fine, but cite 20 needed the session number.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've put in which session number manually as that template doesn't seem to allow for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Smilodon is one of the best known prehistoric mammals, and the best known saber-toothed cat. It may also have been the largest cat that ever lived. We have synthesised most information about the genus and its three species, and explained various controversies. The article is a GA and has been copy edited. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is perhaps the best known saber-toothed cat, and is commonly known as the saber-toothed tiger though it was not closely related to the tiger and other modern cats I don't see support for the "perhaps" in the article; It is one of the best known saber-toothed cats might be better.
I don't think "one of the best" does it justice really. LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine, but you need to support the text in the lead in the body. As far as I can tell you don't. Relentlessly (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two separate issues here. One, Smilodon as the most popular saber-tooth, and then as the best-known by scientists, due to quality of its remains. In the latter category, it is now "only" one of the best known (Homotherium and Megantereon are also known from many, good remains). So we would have to get the original wording back, but add something about general popularity... To what extend? it is also a state fossil and stuff like that, not sure how important that is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added this[7], how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You use the word "restore" in a technical sense without ever explaining it. I know what it means, but it isn't obvious.
Would it help to say "artistically restored"? Paleoart could be linked earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the general practice is in biology articles, but could you explain what the Greek words in the etymology mean?
That are explained in the first three paragraphs of the taxonomy section. LittleJerry (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You give the phrase, but not the individual words. (I've never heard σμίλη as a specifically double-edged knife, but never mind.) If what you have is the normal practice, fine. Relentlessly (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't explain the individual words, so we'd have to source to dictionaries, which might be a bit ORish.. FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it is now considered an invalid nomen nudum, as it was not accompanied with a proper description, and no type specimens were designated This needs clarification. Is it a nomen nudum partly because no type specimens were designated? If so, you need to lose the comma. If not, the sentence should be restructured.
Yes, removed comma. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the diagram in Description. What's the meaning of the arrow?
Good catch, I think it might be a mistake, will ask the uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
dire wolf kills What is one of those?
The article already states the dietary overlap between them and Smilodon. LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many Smilodon specimens have been excavated from asphalt seeps that once acted as natural carnivore traps, wherein animals were accidentally trapped and became bait for predators that came to scavenge, but were then trapped themselves. This is a confusing sentence and needs restructuring.
Split up and rewrote, better? FunkMonk (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, this looks pretty good. Relentlessly (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have read though and nothing else is jumping out as an obvious fix so I think we are over the line WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support and CE! FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The citation formatting needs some work. The samples listed below are just from the first half of the first column of citations (i.e. examples only). Ping me when this work is done, and I'll undertake a full article review. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
author formatting: "Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott" or "McHenry, C.R., Wroe S." (no spaces between initials; comma separator) or "Janczewski, D. N.; Yuhki, N." (spaces between initials; semicolon separator)?
ref #10 (Churcher 1984): pages 57–59 appear to be a bibliography, which does not seem to support the article statement "S. gracilis has at times been considered part of genera such as Megantereon and Ischyrosmilus." unless I’m missing something…
Specified, it was bot generated. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
consider adding open access icons to OA refs
Yeah, might do it once more pressing issues are dealt with (it is a bit time consuming, but not a requirement). FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ref #15: (Ascanio Rincón 2006) what is the journal?
You mean the page numbers? Journal name was already there, but added pages. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ref#60 ("Dagger-like canines …”) needs an author or publisher (American Museum of Natural History?)
Seems to be ScienceDaily, which is already listed (no author). It is probably just based on an AMNH press release... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WIAFA criteria 1a (prose) and 2 (MOS adherence). Although not knowledgeable about the topic–so can't make an educated opinion about 1b (comprehensiveness) and 1c (well-researched)–but the article answered all the questions I had about the topic. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will take a stab at these soon... FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would spot check your sources, but decided that you probably needed further general comments. So here is the only one I examined:
Reference 3, Berta - Four uses borne out by source, fifth I could not find but I am sure it is present somewhere.
What is the missing statement? FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"considered an invalid nomen nudum ("naked name"), as it was not accompanied with a proper description and no type specimens were designated." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is on page 2, under "historical review". FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments, the article reads well but there are a few minor points:
"Cope found the canine to be distinct from that of the other Smilodon species due to its smaller size and more compressed base. Its specific name refers to its lighter build.! - What is "it" in the second sentence?
"ecomorph" - Although linked, it would be helpful to explain this term.
This is a very complex concept that would be almost impossible to explain in a sentence... Not even our article does it justice. How much explanation? The most concise wording I can think of is "animals with independently evolved similar morphological features, as a result of similar ecologies". FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence contains several uncommon words (jargon) making it difficult to understand without clicking through to the linked words. You could omit "an ecomorph consisting of" without losing much. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't think it's a good idea to remove information just because it may be hard to understand. People are here to learn new things, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, but don't propose to make an issue out of it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having given the differentiating characteristic of Homotherini and Smilodontini, you leave out "Metailurini".
Maybe upper arm is meant, but I'll let LittleJerry look at this. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is likely the case. the extensor muscles are forearm muscles (between elbow and wrist). I linked forearm. LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In several places, a pair of citations are not in numerical order, as [8][4].
Fixed that one, though I never heard that was a requirement before. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it mentioned, and it looks more professional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Bony growths where the deltoid muscle inserted in the humerus is a common pathology in La Brea specimens, which was probably due to repeated strain when Smilodon attempted to pull down prey with its forelimbs." - This sentence is a bit muddled, moving from plural to singular and on in a strange way ...
"with one skull showing an unhealed wound, which indicates the individual died as a result." - This seems rather an unproven assumption to me. It could have been injured, become less able to hunt and died of starvation for example.
But then there would be at least some evidence of bone healing. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could have simultaneously ruptured an artery. Having an unhealed skull fracture is not proof that that injury was the cause of death. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's what the source says, what would you suggest? I'd think "indicates" is rather cautious language? "Suggests"? FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Made it even more cautious (seemingly fatal), how does it looks? FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"mammoth steppes in the north. North American Smilodon inhabited" - Its undesirable to finish a sentence with a word and then reuse it at the beginning of the next.
The responses and changes made to the article satisfy me and I am now supporting the nomination on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have additional information on the source of File:Smilodon-populator-pride.jpg? The upload history says Funk cut out the background for potential copyright vio, but there's no clear info on where the foreground came from and whether it's the author's work or not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The author is somewhat notable[8], he uses photomanipulation to create his images; the animals are changed so much as to be "original", but the backgrounds are sometimes iffy... FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My only concern is that the source images used for the elephant, Smilodon might similarly be copyrighted, in which case this would be a derivative work I'm not sure he alone could freely release. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to be safe and remove the image. There are better reconstructions in the article, anyhow. Other than that, all the images are properly tagged and look good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. DR as well? The author can also be contacted. I have replaced the image with a photo of hunting lions. Lions are mentioned in the adjacent text as a possible analogy, and I think the photo looks interesting juxtaposed with the painting. But other ideas are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be great to get that sorted out, yeah, that's just out of the purview of this FAC. The replacement image looks fine, and if that works with what you're going for that that's fine by me too :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
A big part of my comments will focus on sentence construction, so I'll try to explain you case-by-case how I believe the text would read better. Sometimes, I may get bored and just copyedit the article, so I hope you can scrutinise my changes and revert them if you don't agree. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General
I think the article would become richer if the section titles had something more than just year periods. A piece of text that could either sum up the most important moments or highlight a particular but highly relevant event from the club's history during each period.
You often link football seasons to 19XX–9X in English football, which never show any details from the divisions in which YCFC played. In some cases (e.g. Northern Football League), there are season-specific articles that those links should point to. For other leagues (e.g. Yorkshire Combination, Midland League) without seasonal articles, I'd prefer if the links to 19XX–9X in English football were removed altogether than pointing to a page that has no related content. I'm fine with whatever you choose.
Wikilinked as suggested. I'll link to the club season articles as and when they're created. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you use the semicolon mark... a lot. In many instances, sentences are short enough to link the different clauses with a conjunction, and it often makes the read flow better.
This was largely the product of the independent coyedit. Reworded some sentences to reduce the number of semicolons. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid as best as possible to begin sentences with season year numbers. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have reduced the number of sentences that begin with seasons. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"... covers the period from the club's original foundation..."
Goal average should read goal difference, as the link it points to.
The Football League used goal average until 1976, when it was replaced with goal difference (see this). Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion #5: "They were promoted to the Second Division for the first and only time in 1973–74. By mid-October 1974, York achieved the fifth position—their highest league placing—before finishing the 1974–75 season in fifteenth place."
"... the decision was made to form the York City Association Football and Athletic Club Limited.[11], with W. H. Shaw wasbeing elected as the club's first chairman.[11]"
"The club's first season proved disappointing financially, with a loss of £718 reported.[16], and as a consequence Shaw relinquished the chairmanship to Arthur Brown.[16]"
"York's first match in the Football League was played away to Wigan Borough on 31 August 1929; itand finished with a 2–0 victory for Yorkthe visitors.[26]"
"1929–30 brought two meetings with First Division club Newcastle United in the FA Cup third round, and York ranked ina sixth place in their firstYork's Football League debut season.[28]"
"InAlthough the club finished 1934–35, the club finished in fifteenth place,[39] and saw Bootham Crescent stage its first match against First Division opposition when Derby County defeated York 1–0 in the FA Cup third round.[40]"
Place a comma between "regional competitions" and ref #53. Check if other ref tags are not placed after punctuation marks and correct as per WP:REFPUNC.
I don't think the sentence would be improved with a comma there. Per the guideline you have cited, "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space". The reference doesn't necessarily have to follow punctuation. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it does allow that interpretation, although it's more clear in WP:CITEFOOT. Still, it only says it's normal practice to place ref tags after punctuation marks, not a guideline. It's just I rarely see such tags being placed freely within text that I felt the need to point it out. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice also the punctuation mark changes in the following suggestion: "... on a wartime footing.[54] York decided to carry on playing,[55]Yorkand were placed in the North East League, where they rankedranking eighth in their section of eleven clubs.[56]In the final weeks of 1939–40, Yorkthey competed in the Football League War Cup in the final weeks of 1939–40."
Break up long sentence: "After completing eighteen fixtures in the Football League North, York competed in the league-organised qualifying stage of the War Cup, but were eliminated after ranking thirty-third of fifty-four clubs, failing to qualify for the knock-out stages by one place."
"The team reached the FA Cup third round, where they were beaten 2–0 at home by First Division Stoke City"
Not sure if "where" is the best word to use here, as we're not referring to a location. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to use "where" in the case of competition rounds/stages, but maybe I've been wrong. Hey, you're the native speaker... Parutakupiu (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The team drew 1–1 at home with Aston Villa in their opening Second Division match on 17 August 1974, with Barry Lyons scoredscoring for York."
"York finished the season in fifteenth place,[149] andbut the season's highlights included..."
I'm not sure about using "but" here; it implies the league finish was poor, when it's in fact the club's best-ever ranking... Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, true but they were fifth at some point, so it must've felt a bit disappointing to end up ten ranks lower. But yes, in terms of final classification, you're right, so nevermind. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Satisfied with the changes, so here's my approval. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I haven't reviewed the above comments in detail, so I'm sorry if anything is copied or mentioned up there.
In the lead: "The club was reformed in 1922 and was elected to play...". Next sentence: "they were elected to play in the Football League for 1929–30, and were placed...". Is there any reason why the team is singular in the first sentence and plural in the second?
Association football articles generally use the rule of thumb: "club = singluar, team = plural", although the lines can become blurred. One example is History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959), which was recently promoted to FA status. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1908–17: You probably don't need a World War I link, since that is such a common item and doesn't provide much utility in a football/soccer article.
Removed the wikilinks to the world wars. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1922–39: "with Jock Collier taking over as player-manager." This is a noun plus ing type of sentence structure, which tends to be wordy and not the best prose possible. You could substitute "named" for "taking over" to fix this.
Support – The extensive review from Parutakupiu above is what really got this article into good shape. I believe that it meets the standards, so I'll support it. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can't see any prose-clangers outstanding and feel this article passes WRT prose and comprehensiveness. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images all have appropriate licencing apart from File:Charlton20618news1.jpg. Surely this isn't "own work"..? And is not 75 years old, so maybe Fair Use template is needed? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: using this version to reference FN numbering, in case of further change.
Regarding reference formatting, decide whether you're using sentence case or Title Case. Appears to be the latter, in which case there might be some (like FN 27 and 46) that need capitalising. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been loyal to the casing used by the sources, except when they use all caps. Should they all use the same case? If so, is there any preference? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One option is all Title Case, other is Title Case for books titles and sentence case for journal articles. As long as the same type are consistent. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN 2 and FN 3 check out - source material supports text.
FN 35 checks out - source material supports text.
FN 121 checks out - source material supports text.
FN 134 checks out - source material supports text.
FN 148 checks out - source material supports text.
Earwig's tool negative.
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.Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, known today as the CampingWorld.com 500 for sponsorship reasons. This is my fourth attempt to promote this article to FA status, the last three failed mainly due to prose issues and a lack of response. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I maintain my previous stance on this article from the previous three nominations. The quality of the article is much improved since it was copy-edited by the GOCE. There is only two minor points I raise after going through the article:
You should ideally add a plainlist template in the ratings section of the infobox per UBLIST.
Furthermore, it would be a good idea to archive links to those that do not have it to prevent link rot (except for Racing-Reference which does not have links stored at the Internet Archive because of robots.txt) Z105space(talk) 18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Z105space: Thanks! I used the template and have been archiving all the links used in the article as I've been going along. Once the links die, I'll replace the links. Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose–I'll take a deeper look into the article later but at a glance I noted a major 1b issue: How do we have an article about a race and not include the finishing times? Note: I realize NASCAR scoring is more complicated than just the finishing times, but I believe that is a basic detail that should be included. –Grondemar 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Grondemar: If you mean the margin of victory, there was none, since the race ended under caution (if you follow F1, this is the equivalent of the safety car). If you want the amount of time the race was completed in, I can look into that further and see if I can find a source, but again, NASCAR scoring, as you noted, is more complicated so I'm not sure I can do much with that. Still, thanks for the review! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible at least to include something in the text and table indicating that since the race finished under caution, no finish time nor margin of victory was recorded? I will try to perform a full review of the text this weekend. –Grondemar 03:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, I'm busy at the moment as well. I'll see what I can do this weekend. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Grondemar: I tried adding something into the post-race section. Better? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've struck my oppose above. I still haven't had the chance to dig through the article but will try to do so this weekend. Sorry for the delay. –Grondemar 19:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). I see the article has had three (3) previous FAC nominations and it looks like the nominator has taken those to heart and improved upon the writing quality since then. Minor quibbles only here: I'd recommend trimming down the use of quotes but particularly in the sect Post-race comments which is over reliant upon them. Try paraphrasing instead, and/or trimming down total size of quotes used. Also, strongly recommend using archiveurl= and archivedate= fields in cites to archive hyperlinks to Internet Archive, to improve posterity of article in long term. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Will comment where I can. Digging through EBSCO I've found a few print sources that may provide some valuable pre- and post-race coverage:
Livingstone, Seth (October 10, 2006). "Hendrick keeps testy drivers focused on 'the big picture'". USA Today. Gannett Company. p. 7C.
Livingstone, Seth (October 9, 2006). "Vickers gets first win in fiery finish". USA Today. Gannett Company. p. 11C.
Long, Dustin (October 9, 2006). "Putting 'I' in team: Brian Vickers spins Jimmie Johnson and Dale Earnhardt Jr. to win his first Cup race". The Roanoke Times. McClatchy-Tribune Business News. p. 11C.
Haven't checked to see how much of this is repeat coverage, though I'm sure Engle 2006 might help to expand the background section. The Grey Lady is also a good source to have, in general. 23W 19:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I supported an earlier FAC but missed repeating that support last time round; sorry about that. I've done some more copyediting; please revert if I messed anything up. Still looks good enough for the bronze star to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias and Grondemar: I hate to pester, but this is now the third-to-last article in the "Older nominations" section and I will NOT be very happy if I need to renominate this after a two-week waiting period for a fifth time. With that, I am asking that you both comment and support if you believe the article is in good enough shape. @Laser brain: It appears by his user page that Ian is not yet fully back, so I'm not asking for a full review, but please let me know if there are still any minor additional tasks I need to complete before promotion is considered. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – images and sources remain sound, as in my previous review. The prose is slightly repetitive in places, but that's more due to the format of the race itself than the quality of the writing. Sorry it's taken me so long to put pen to paper; I have been looking over it. Harriastalk 06:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: It has literally been a month since this was touched. Is my only choice now to repeat the process for a fifth time, or has this garnered enough support for promotion? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article got a detailed GA review. It's not very big so am confident I can deal with issues promptly. I scoured everything I could for info, so gaps reflect gaps in real knowledge....have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The smooth toadfish (Tetractenos glaber) is a species of fish in the pufferfish family Tetraodontidae native to shallow coastal and estuarine waters of southern Australia, where it is widespread and abundant. As an opening sentence, I think this is too much. I'd suggest The smooth toadfish (Tetractenos glaber) is a species of fish in the pufferfish family Tetraodontidae. It is native to shallow coastal and estuarine waters of southern Australia, where it is widespread and abundant.
Raised levels of arsenic, cobalt, cadmium and lead in gills suggested the fish were absorbed these from the surrounding water. This doesn't quite make sense. You need to drop "were", I think.
Fieldwork in Sydney waterways showed raised arsenic, lead, cadmium and cobalt corresponded with decreased lipid levels in liver and gonadal tissue, and raised cobalt and nickel correspond to increased protein levels in muscle, liver and gonadal tissue. I find "raised" a slightly difficult word here. I think "higher" or "increased" would both make the sentence easier to parse. I would also suggest including "that": Fieldwork in Sydney waterways showed that higher arsenic, lead &c.
However, it is a nomen nudum as it does not provide enough detail or information to diagnose or properly describe the species,[7] Duméril having only written a (French) translation of the genus name—αφανης qui nе parait pas, ἃκανθα, épine ("with no thorns"). This sentence is also hard to parse. This is principally because of the dangling modifier. Further difficulty comes because it is not obvious that the dash is introducing a quotation. I'd suggest something like this: However, it is a nomen nudum as it does not provide enough detail or information to diagnose or properly describe the species,[7] since Duméril had only written a (French) translation of the genus name—"αφανης qui nе parait pas, ἃκανθα, épine" ("with no thorns"). Trying to work three languages into a sentence is never going to be easy, I know.
yes...I have a predilection for participles from Latin ant Greek ad school..changedCas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With a total length of anywhere from 3–16 cm (1 1⁄8–6 1⁄4 in) One of my pet hates: introducing a range with "from" but then going on to use a dash. You want {{convert|3|to(-)|16|cm}}
a nice find! I never knew one could do that with that template...and I know a few places I need it...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise this is a good article, speaking as a non-specialist. Relentlessly (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all this done, I'm happy to support. (I have a similar eagerness for ablative absolutes and have to proof-read everything I write to remove them. What Cicero did to me...) Relentlessly (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This confusion in scientific literature with the closely related common toadfish" But the previous sentence does not mention such a confusion, only that the fish was recorded again by other writers? FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"published the species as Aphanacanthe reticulatus... in the new genus Aphanacanthe" Seems a bit repetitive, perhaps it could be stated that the genus was new without naming it again?
"With a total length of anywhere from 3 to 16 cm" Are both adult sizes?
well...yeah, sort of. Fish gradually grow all their lives so fish that are to all intents and purposes mature and capable of breeding can be these sizes. Most I have seen are at the smaller end of this range...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since confusion with the common toadfish is emphasised, perhaps mention the differences between the two?
I did in the last line of the description section. have added a word to clarify they look similar.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are the spines for, when they are always within the skin?
for toadfish/pufferfish, spines are defensive. No idea why they have devolved in this species and seen nothing written on it. Given they are dangerously poisonous, probably unnecessary...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"However, its lack of spines makes it easier to handle" Easier than what?
SupportCas Liber, I completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I find that it most certainly meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral and stable; and I assess that its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media used in this article is properly licensed, and the standard captioning works well. While I'm a proponent of Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, this is only suggested and not a requirement at FAC. Also per WP:DUPLINK, Tasmania can be de-linked in the "Distribution and habitat" section, seagrass can be de-linked in the "Conservation" subsection, and gonads can be de-linked in the "Feeding" section. Otherwise, I concur with the comments and assessments of FunkMonk and Relentlessly above. I can find no other aspects of the article that would inhibit this article's progression to Featured Article status. I commend you on your hard work on this article, and congratulate you on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
suggested links delinked. thx for support...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Certainly not very big but that is not a criterion for FA. I believe the article is pretty comprehensive and covers possibly everything that should be for an article to be an FA. It's an excellent article, satisfying other criteria. A trivial comment: I have seen most of the alt texts of images having full stops at the end. Also, the first letter starts with a uppercase one. However, that is not mandatory and I leave it on you whether to resolve or not. Otherwise, as I said above, it meets FA criteria. Great job! -- Frankietalk 13:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I capped and full-stopped them as I turned the last two into sentences as well...first one was but I forgot. good catch. thx for supportCas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mention tetrodotoxin in the lead and once thereafter. Since this chemical is named for this family, and you specifically mention its effects on humans, I think it is worth mentioning both that this chemical is found in this family and that it is named for it.
found and added some general material. yikes, didn't see the naming bit...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of "two small nipple-like structures." Stating it this way could refer to appearance or function, so you should change it to nipple-like in appearance or function or maybe find a better way of stating this.
"Smooth toadfish grow steadily larger as they grow older" - most fish have indeterminate growth which you should at least link to and maybe specifically state here.
Ahaaa, thanks for that...didn't recall the name. have made a link now.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IUCN Red List includes changes in populations as a critical part of its assessment, so include that with "Its large range and abundance"
By that you could simply say "stable population"
good point/added - I altered the emphasis of the next segment to make it less repetitive-sounding..Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link to "shellfish" and "lipid" the first time they are mentioned.
pondered that....'murder' and 'manslaughter' aren't..so I guess not (forgot I'd left them capped :P)Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Aside from these minor details, the article reads well and I think it meets the featured article criteria. (I made some copyedits and added links here) Sasata (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One reservation I had about the article at GAC which I did not mention was the discussion of the historical poisoning cases. I think the stories are fascinating, and potentially the sort of thing which would be picked up in the literature (popular or scholarly) on the fish, but I wonder whether you have come across any more recent sources which mention these old events? That would put my mind at ease...
there were a couple that mentioned them in passing, which is how I went looking for them in the first place. Will re-check which...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be great if you could throw in those citations; you could introduce it with something like (off the top of my head, I'm sure you can make it more elegant) "Several cases of poisoning were recorded in the 19th century.[cites to recent peer reviewed literature]"- the current approach comes across as a tiny bit OR-y; it's borderline archival research. (Again, I'm bringing this up here rather than at GAC because I think it's only a very small issue.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found it (again). It's on page 61 of this. The author is one of the main fish scientists too.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some more comments on that section:
Is it worth breaking the Scott quote out into a blockquote? I think it would read better and help break up that long paragraph.
Why Accidental Death and not simply accidental death?
I was deliberating about whether capped or uncapped and could have sworn I'd uncapped them before...anyway..done now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Warnings about toadfish were subsequently issued", it makes it sound like this is related in some way to the previous event. Is this what you want to imply? The long gap between the sources suggests that there is unlikely to be a relationship.
Yes - warnings were issued after the hobart case, according to a latter sourceCas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! The fact that this more recent (though still not hardly current!) source mentions the Hobart case limits my OR worries. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A great article overall, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Baryonyx is a well-known dinosaur, and one of the best preserved animals of its kind from the UK. It is also the first dinosaur that showed direct evidence of having eaten fish, and its physical features were considered very unusual at the time it was discovered. I have summarised most of the scientific literature about the animal, and presented both sides of various controversies surrounding it. It is also the first dinosaur of its kind (spinosaurid) to have its article nominated for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on comprehensiveness and prose....as a wikiproject dinosaurs member though I haven't really edited this article. I reviewed this at GAN and tried to be as nitpicky as possible. I think we're there and if not it's pretty close. However my familiarity with the stuff might mean I miss accessibility issues. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Casliber that the quality of the article Is really excellent, but I have noticed a few things that could use correcting. IJReiddiscuss 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It may also have been an active predator of larger prey and a scavenger, as it also contained bones of a juvenile Iguanodon" also is redundant.
Which one? Both, or the last one? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First. How about "It may have been an active predator as well, as ..." IJReiddiscuss 00:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason for the first "also" is to underline that it did not only eat fish, but may also have actively hunted larger prey. Also because it is not sure whether the Iguanodon was hunted or scavenged. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yah I guess, leave it as is then. IJReiddiscuss 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps others will bring it up... FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A previous estimate was 10 m (32 ft)" seems a little short, any info on when? maybe merge with previous sentence?
"...of the dentary of the mandible..." of the is redundant, maybe "...of the dentary bone, in the mandible..."
Replaced with "in". FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The alveoli of the dentary..." should be "The alveoli of the remainder of the dentary..." as the rosette was part of the dentary.
Doesn't the rest of the sentence explain this: ", but the first four were larger than the rest" First four: those in the rosette.
I'd move this sentence above the detail on the rosette then, so it doesn't break up the flow. IJReiddiscuss 03:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've rejigged the sentence, but it is placed where it is because the prior text is about alveolus size. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Except for the mid neck vertebrae, all the skeletal elements of this specimen are also represented in holotype NHM R9951" the wording here makes it seem like the Iberian remains are more complete, with the holotype lacking mid-neck vertebrae. Is this correct?
Other way around, will try to reword... FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Baryonyx BW.jpg - I read up a bit about the artist Nobu Tamura, but as a layman I am still not sure: is this an "artistic" or a "scientific" restoration - or something in-between? Maybe worth clarifying in the image caption.
All images are CC or PD and have sufficient source and author info - OK.
Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review. Both are anatomically correct, and art and science are not mutually exclusive, by the way... See paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prose is clear, seems complete and well organised. I haven't noticed any major problem, so I believe this article is FA worthy. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few duplicate links throughout; User:Ucucha/duplinks is a handy way of rooting these out but it can throw up false positives so be careful.
Removed a bunch, except for those in the cladogram. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image caption "Size of spinosaurids (Baryonyx in orange) compared to a human" identifies the image in terms of colour alone, which is best avoided. Perhaps "Size of spinosaurids (Baryonyx in orange, second from right) compared to a human" would work?
"the mature animal may have been much larger (as attested by the size of the related Spinosaurus)" -> A quick size comparison may help here, clicking through it seems Spinosaurus reached 15m, perhaps note this within the brackets, after "Spinosaurus".
There seems to be a bit of inconsistency with how proper anatomical terms are used—at times, you use the proper term then bracket a common name afterwards ("scapulae (shoulder blades)", "pleurocoels (hollow depressions)"), but it's also seen the other way around ("a large claw (ungual bone)", "reduced its weight (skeletal pneumaticity)"). I don't see this as a particularly troublesome point, however.
Yeah, the order is a bit arbitrary, as I felt it would "flow" best... FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I'm happy with the article, and can support it in its current state, as most of my critiques are minor. GRAPPLEX 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will fix the issues now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
So, after a bit of a hiatus, I'm back into the MILHIST articles... This is an A-Class article from a couple of years ago, that has only needed minor improvements since (It's complete & stable). It's one of my favourite WW2 deception stories, completely off the wall and probably had limited use - but it has the sort of drama and panache you expect of wartime secret ops! Errant(chat!) 15:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tweak (good idea) & support :) --Errant(chat!) 07:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Suggest scaling up the map size
File:Clifton_James001.jpg: can you explain why we believe this is a UK government work, if the author is unknown? The source given doesn't suggest that
File:Bernard_Law_Montgomery.jpg: source link is dead, file is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've scaled up the map & replaced the Montgomery image with a better one. Hunting for a better source for the other now. --Errant(chat!) 11:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: sadly I can't source that image for now! I've replaced it with the map image, which is consistent with the other articles I've written in this series :) Thanks for the review! --Errant(chat!) 21:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well written. From the bibliography, refs 1 & 3 (National Archives & Howard) are not used - place in further reading. I'm not seeing much else to complain about from a single read through. Re comprehensiveness, the Polish article is FA and about the same size. Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the article would benefit greatly if a licence was found for Clifton_James001.jpg Ceoil (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to say!! I've not be able to source that image (though I would be shocked if it wasn't Crown Copyright I simply can't find it at the National Archives) I HAVE managed to find another pic that is PD-UK :D Now added to article. --Errant(chat!) 20:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The resemblance is remarkable, and the addition bring the article further to life. Many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A second look-alike was found, but soon afterwards was injured in an accident. - gosh, leaves me curious...any further info?
Can we add who Joshua Levine was as a descriptor? Otherwise there is nothing to indicate why we should value his opinion....
"high-pressure" - dunno that I like this adjective (a bit informal?)...sorta prefer "stressful" or "highly stressful"
SupportOtherwise, reads fine and looks on-target for comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish! Very little else to add; I've clarified that it was a leg and a motorbike accident, but sources are coy on further information
Done
Reworked with stressful.
Thanks for the review! --Errant(chat!) 13:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting little article. Sorry, but I couldn't find anything to criticise. I tried! I added a link, and I could move some commas or dashes around, but there's nothing wrong with it as it is. It's engaging, it's objective, it's comprehensive (as far as I can tell—it doesn't leave me as a reader with unanswered questions)... My curiosity was peaked by the British government allowing the publication of the book, though. Do we know if it went to the censor and was approved or if it just slipped through? Ten years after the event is quite soon for the censor to be approving the publication of war secrets, but then there were a lot of books by ex-servicemen being published at around that time. If you had any details I'd be curious, but it's not necessary. Also, my preference would be to add in a citation for the two works in the "further reading " section and incorporate them into the bibliography, but that's just me; different editors like it different ways. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry :D I've removed one of the further reading because, although Howard is an excellent book, it doesn't add much to make it worth citing. And it's not really specific enough to be further reading - I think it was a hangover from not using it in the article. As to the other link: I don't have a copy of the source any more so I am not really sure what to do about it. BUT it's the primary source for the operation so would be interesting to anyone who likes that sort of thing. Regarding to book; I'll dig around and see if I can pull anything else out. But it's mostly a footnote in the source material. No real commentary on its publication, I agree it is dangling something in front of the reader.. will dig around. Thanks for the review again! --Errant(chat!) 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the 1995 sci-fi action comedy film that polarises viewers. This is my second nomination of this article for FAC, having now addressed all the concerns brought up at the first one, including putting the article through a thorough copyedit courtesy of the guild of copyeditors. Freikorp (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose. I have four supports now, and the images haven't been changed since the image review at the first FAC. Is there anything I need to do to have this promoted? I wouldn't ask except I've got something pretty huge going on in my personal life and there's a good chance i'll be taking an extended wikibreak from November 8, so I've got just over a week to address any concerns in order to have this promoted. Thanks in advance. Freikorp (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Make that five supports now. Just a reminder after posting this message I will be unavailable to edit wikipedia for an indefinite period of time, so unfortunately I will not be able to address any further concerns. If there are any minor issues i'd appreciate it if you could just tweak them yourself. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support—supported at the last nomination and see no reason not to do so again. —Cliftonian(talk) 18:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've read through this a couple of times...it comes across as comprehensive. The prose is okay and I did spot some things that could be improved when I read it on my smartphone.....and now I am having trouble finding them...hang on. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Rippers, mysterious warriors, slaughter guards... - This flows oddly. I'd just say "The mysterious Rippers slaughter guards..."
bring the weapon's crates back - It'd be "weapons' crates" anyway but maybe just say "bring the weapon crates back"...?
whose wounds had been reconstructed - err, you'd either say " whose body had been reconstructed" or " whose wounds had been repaired/fixed/whatever" - reconstructing wounds is I suspect not what was meant...
I'd link "establishment", "introvert"
Nothing else prose-wise is jumping out at me, which is a good sign....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Casliber. I've addressed all your concerns. Let me know if you find anything else. Freikorp (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think in that case it's a tentative support from me. There might be some other prose-smoothing but I can't see specific examples of same. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Bollyjeff - It is better than before, but I going to make a few suggestions first:
Many of the references give an error message from the archive. Then when I click on the "archived from" link it works. How could everyone else not notice this? A) Make sure all archive links work or else remove them. B) If the original link is still alive, make it the default using the |deadurl=no option. BollyJeff|talk 12:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made sure every reference has the deadurl parameter. I'm not getting an error message from any of the archived links however. Maybe try with a different browser? I've found Safari seems to have problems with the internet archive website sometimes. Freikorp (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The archives are working now from home, maybe the problem is at work. Regardless, some archives do not match up with their originals. For instance, look at 47 and 48. Please check them all. BollyJeff|talk 02:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I mixed those two up as I was fixing them both at the same time. Checked all the rest and didn't make that mistake elsewhere. Freikorp (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They have the titles swapped though. BollyJeff|talk 12:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Tank Girl was released on 10 April 2001." - No source, and please say which media type and company, since you mention another company in the next paragraph.
The article is mixing date formats, dmy and mdy. Since this is American English, probably mdy is preferred, but I don't care; just pick one and stick with it.
Thanks for your comments Bollyjeff. I've attempted to address everything. Let me know if you find anything else. Freikorp (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its looking pretty good now so... Support — BollyJeff|talk 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TenTonParasol
"Based on the British post-apocalyptic comic series of the same name by Alan Martin and Jamie Hewlett that was originally published in Deadline magazine, the film stars Lori Petty, Naomi Watts, Ice-T and Malcolm McDowell." That feels awkward and very dense to me? And it feels weird to have these two clauses together, they aren't related ideas. But that's my personal preference.
That wording was actually chosen by previous reviewers of this article, so i'd rather keep it as is unless you can come up with a specific alternative. Freikorp (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. No worries about that. It's a comment coming more out of my personal taste in this kind of thing. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Winston's studio wanted to work on the project so much that they cut their usual prices in half in order to meet the film's budget." 'So much' feels a little too colloquial in my opinion, though I can't think of a way to reword it that isn't awkward.
Noted, but I can't think of a way to reword it either. Freikorp (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"[...] Tank Girl recouped only about $6 million of its $25 million budget at the box office, and received mixed to negative reviews from critics." I don't think the comma is being used correctly here? Everything after 'and' is not an independent clause, so I don't think the comma should be there. If it is, ignore the other mentions of such a use below.
"Despite the negative critical reception, and box office failure of the film, it has been cited as an example of a comic book film with a cult following..." I would just remove that first comma and make it a singular clause.
"Kesslee uses Tank Girl to lure the Rippers into the open, but they gravely wound the W&P boss and let Tank Girl and Jet Girl escape." Is "the W&P boss" someone other than Kesslee? I'm a bit confused there.
"...and her life is in danger from the rising water." Would it be better to go "...and her life is endangered by the rising water"? I'm on the fence regarding that.
"...the film sets her up with "classic western generic" emotional and moral justifications for her liberation and revenge on W&P, after she witnesses the slaughter of her boyfriend and her "trusty steed", sees one of the commune's children abducted, and is herself captured and enslaved." I'm not sure what it is about this that confused me. I think it has to do with the "after". I personally would just replace the ", after" following W&P with a colon. There's probably a more elegant solution, though.
"According to Mainon, the film makes fun of female stereotypes, as shown by Tank Girl's repeated emasculation of Kesslee with witty comebacks, as she is being tortured, and..." The flow feels weird. I suggest "...as shown by Tank Girl's repeated emasculation of Kesslee with witty comebacks while she is being tortured..."
I can't determine, but does this article observe Oxford comma? In some places it does ("MGM held open casting sessions in London, Los Angeles, and New York for the role of Tank Girl."; "She later dropped out, her character's scenes were re-written, and the role was then given to Ann Cusack."), and others it does not ("The device provides seductive clothing and tells Tank Girl to remove her body hair, wear make-up and a wig.") Either way, but it should be consistent.
Ah! That's not an Oxford comma instance, regarding the sentence beginning "The device". But, the sentence is stilla little confusing at the end. I would rephrase to something in the vein of "...and tells Tank Girl to remove her body hair and to wear make-up and a wig." ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm going to be honest with you, I wasn't even familiar with the term Oxford Comma. Copyediting is not my strong point. Freikorp (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Talalay read the comic between takes, and was interested in directing a Tank Girl film." Same as earlier, I don't think the comma is used correctly.
"The studio was unhappy with Hardwicke being chosen over more experienced designers and Talalay had to meet with the producers to persuade them to allow Hardwicke, who was relatively unknown at the time, to work on the project." I would much the clause "who was relatively unknown at the time" up to the first sentence.
" According to Talalay, some were skeptical of the open casting, thinking that it was a publicity stunt. This was true to an extent, as she had been asking the studio to cast a well-known English actress, Emily Lloyd, who was replaced after she refused to cut her hair for the role." I'm personally not sure how that makes it in part a publicity stunt. Is it possible to clarify? I might just be a little dense.
Well Talalay was lobbying for a well known actress. That's what her first choice. If the studio gave her what she wanted it would have made the public casting redundant in terms of finding an actress, though it was still good advertising for the upcoming film itself. Does that make sense? Freikorp (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"favourably" to "favorably" for American English; it appears twice in the article. The same sentence has "flavour" but it's in quotes, so I'm not sure what to do there.
Done for "favourably". I don't think we are supposed to change direct quotes. Granted the quote is technically just how the author spelt out what McDowell said, but McDowell is English so would use British English anyway. Freikorp (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"These scenes were filmed instead in a tunnel back at the abandoned mine." The "back" sounds a bit colloquial. I advise simply taking it out.
"It was purchased from the government of Peru about twelve years prior to filming, and had already been used in several films." As earlier, I believe that to be improper comma use.
"was recorded specifically for the album, after Love approached Weiland asking if he would like to contribute a song." Again, I question if this is correct comma use.
"The single's cover showed the torso and thighs of an animated character resembling Tank Girl, and also featured the tracks "Ripper Sole" and "Girl U Want" from the album." Same as above.
"In the US it peaked at No. 27 on the Mainstream Rock chart" I'd add a comma after US. United States is typed out elsewhere in the article, do the same here.
"However, Ron Hancock of Tower Records stated that sales of the album were disappointing, and attributed this to the financial failure of the film." Again, I think the comma after disappointed is improperly used, and I advise to remove it.
"theatres" I'm not sure what to do about this as I'm relatively sure that "theater" is the American spelling, but I believe the actual usage is mixed. Bringing attention to it regardless, even if I don't have a clear idea on it.
"Theatres" seems to be present in many good and featured American film articles I looked at. Freikorp (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Tank Girl opened in 1,341 theatres in the United States bringing in $2,018,183 in its first weekend, and $2,684,430 at the end of its first week of release." The usual comma correction regarding the ", and" in this sentence.
Well, I would italicize Tank Girl in the Rotten Tomatoes consensus summary and throughout the critical reception section, but I'm not sure if it's acceptable to edit quotes in that way?
You're right. I've italicised the RT mention. The only mentions I haven't italicised because they are referring to the character Tank Girl, rather than the film. Freikorp (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Owen Gleiberman gave the film a C– rating, praising Petty's performance, but added it was the only good part of an otherwise "amateurish" film." Add 'he' after 'but'
"Jeffrey Kauffman from Blu-ray.com gave the version four stars out of five for audio and video quality, and three stars for special features." My usual on teh comma here.
"To boost its declining readership, Deadline featured Tank Girl on its cover many times in 1994 and 1995, in anticipation of the film's release." I'd advice drop the comma after 1995.
"Subsequently, Tom Astor said the release of the film: "was very helpful, but it did not make up the difference[;] it lost some of its cult appeal without gaining any mainstream credibility."" The punctuation feels odd in this sentence? I would drop the colon.
Replaced with a comma. Freikorp (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The music video for Avril Lavigne's 2013 song "Rock n Roll" was heavily influenced by Tank Girl, right down to the styling of Lavigne's hair." The phrase "right down" feels too colloquial.
Shortened sentence by removing that. Freikorp (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...Petty was asked why the she thinks the film still resonates with fans, and replied:" There's a stray 'the' in the middle and, per usual comments above, I think that comma shouldn't be there.
Despite the length of the list, they're small things. Mostly the same comment about a certain usage of comma. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also! There was a discussion at WikiProject Film about making clear how aggregate sites, including Rotten Tomatoes, create their scores. While the discussion hasn't entirely moved into the direction of implementing anything, really. I thought I'd put it forward as a suggestion here. Ah, the article mentioned in the discussion, The Martian, has a sentence: "The website [Rotten Tomatoes], which categorizes reviews as positive or negative, surveyed 260 critics and determined that 93% of the reviews were positive with a rating average of 7.9 out of 10." I suggest considering adding this to the Tank Girl article, as it better explains what the number means and gives a arounder picture, in my opinion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for your comments TenTonParasol. I've replied to all of your concerns. Let me know if you have any more. Freikorp (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I can't find anything else to be concerned about. So, I support. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest change subsection header Plot to Plot synopsis.
Recommend Bibliography be its own two-level-sub-section.
Legacy and related media - I think the blockquote could be directly integrated into the article body text in paragraph format, as it's a shorter quote and is a bit jarring to suddenly go to blockquote format there.
I very much like the use of in-line-citations in the article, even for the list of Other songs in the film, very well done here !
Production -- this section is a bit long on its own, recommend breaking up into a few daughter sects within parent sect Production, some recommendations at WP:MOSFILM of how to title those sub-sub-sects.
Good job with the lede intro sect, quite nicely done here !
Image review: Recommend formatting two images File:Tank girl poster.jpg and File:Tank Girl film tank.jpg with better fair-use-rationale templates, the former with movie poster and the latter with standard fair-use-rationale template. Otherwise, keep the listed fair use rationale argumentation itself and add it into the fair-use-rationale-templates, as it is very good for both.
External links - is there an official website for the film? the film's production company may have one?
External links - is there a link that could be added to AllMovie with {{AllMovie title}} perhaps?
Very well done on NPOV. Article is neutrally worded, with matter-of-fact tone, throughout. Nicely done here !
Set in a drought-ravaged Australia, years after a catastrophic impact event, it follows the antihero Tank Girl (Petty) as she, Jet Girl (Watts), and genetically modified supersoldiers called the Rippers fight "Water & Power", an oppressive corporation led by Kesslee (McDowell). -- a bit too many commas in this sentence -- could the sentence be split apart in two?
Writing in the 1997 book Trash Aesthetics: Popular Culture and Its Audience, Deborah Cartmell states that while the comic showed Tank Girl to be "unheroic or even [an] accidental anti-hero", the film sets her up with "classic western generic" emotional and moral justifications for her liberation and revenge on W&P; she witnesses the slaughter of her boyfriend and her "trusty steed", sees one of the commune's children abducted, and is herself captured and enslaved. -- a bit of a long sentence with lots of commas -- could this be broken in two? Or copyedited to be worded better and more succinctly?
Several uses of word "also", perhaps some of these are superfluous, and could be removed with only improvement in writing style?
About twelve (12) uses of word "but", maybe some of these could be copy-edited, or removed, to improve writing quality?
I spot-checked cited sources 35, 56, and 65. All checked out okay.
Summary: Very well done, very high quality article, about an underrepresented topic on Wikipedia. Excellent work overall. Just a few minor quibbles and then should be good to go. :)
NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Thanks for your comments Cirt. I've attempted to address everything you mentioned except the following:
I'll get around to archiving the remaining citations later today
Every FA film article i've seen (including the 3 i've previously successfully nominated for FAC) uses 'plot' instead of 'plot synopsis'
The film doesn't appear to have an official website.
Point 16: copyediting isn't my strong point, so i'd rather leave this alone unless you have a specific suggestions. All I could think of was replacing the comma splice withe a period, or removing the information about her "trusty steed", though this relates directly to the comments about it being "classic western".
Let me know if you have further concerns of if I need to put more work into any point i've addressed. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good so far, with those 2 examples, easiest way might be try breaking each up into two separate sentences for each example. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Cirt. I've archived those sources (one couldn't be archived due its formatting) and separated that text you mentioned into two sentences. I've also re-fromatted the image licensing, which is the only other thing I forgot to do in my first round of addressing your concerns. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My thanks to Freikorp for the most impressive Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, especially on a topic improving our high-quality site coverage related to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. — Cirt (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about... Final Fantasy Type-0, a game in the Final Fantasy series released for the PlayStation Portable (PSP) on October 27, 2011. It was produced and published by Square Enix, and forms part of the Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy subseries. The original PSP game was not released outside Japan, and relevant information for its localized HD remaster Final Fantasy Type-0 HD has been given its own article. The article was nominated for and passed GA review in September of this year. It has undergone copyedits from multiple editors, all references are as clearly formatted as possible and archived using sites that enable the archived pages to work as best as possible. I feel that this article is ready to be submitted to FA review. ProtoDrake (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still don't get this. You mean the relative size of the characters to the environment was the same as in Final Fantasy XII? Were the characters abnormally big or small, or something like that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tried my best here. I was using the successful FAC edits for Final Fantasy XIII-2 as a reference. Also saw the thing in the lead, and fixed that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck this, since it's clear now, but I'm curious to know why this would even be mentioned. Do most games not have a lifelike scale? I'd have thought this was universal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is a Trinity Attack the same thing as a Triad Maneuver?
"the game features recurring monsters in the series such as Cactuar, Malboro and Tonberry": I don't think the names are worth giving without a little more data or at least a link to a description. A reader who knows nothing about the game doesn't gain anything from just the names. Can you add a couple of words of description of either their appearance or typical behaviour to each one, as you did with chocobos and moogles?
"the summons are dismissed" and "each summon has variants": these read oddly to me -- you're using "summon" as a noun, meaning the war god summoned. Wouldn't it be more natural to say "the summoned gods are dismissed" and "Each summoned god has variants"?
What does "canonically, they refuse" mean?
It was "canonically" that I didn't understand. I understand what canonical means in the context of a complex imaginary world, but I don't see how that's a relevant usage here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "Vermillion" or "Vermilion"? You have both spellings for "Vermilion Bird". The English word is "vermilion", but a quick web search makes me think that the game uses two "l"s.
Since the game uses an alternate spelling to the most common one, it seemed better to just underlay the game's spelling with the link to the article rather than go through the rather long process of moving it, then changing the spelling used in the article, then going through Wikipedia pages correcting links. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have "mortally wounded" twice within a couple of sentences.
"Gala uses his army to wipe out humanity the moment the conflict among the nations ends and create a flood of souls to break it open": I don't follow this. What creates the flood of souls? What breaks open?
"Unveiled at E3 2006": what is E3?
OK; I suggest putting "(E3)" in parentheses after "Electronic Entertainment Expo" so you can use the abbreviation later in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly clearer, but now I wonder about "mainline" -- does that have a technical meaning? Can you just say "equivalent to a console title", or does that omit some shade of meaning? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of that statement was that it was equivalent to a mainline numbered Final Fantasy. To leave that out could make it equivalent to something like Dirge of Cerberus or suchlike. Since I couldn't use the direct quote, I did my best with paraphrasing without going into a long-winded explanation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but I'm just wondering about the word "mainline". I've never seen it used in the way you're using it. Is it standard jargon in the gaming industry? Are you using it to mean that Type-0 is a branch off the main Final Fantasy game tree, and mainline refers to something that is not a branch? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best with that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In contrast, due to technical restrictions, the game's artificial intelligence for playable characters needed to be limited to healing, survival and other minor actions." Why "in contrast"? What's the contrast with the preceding sentence"?
"Consequently, the final story was darker": why "consequently"?
"After the game's release, Tabata commented that he would have liked to be more thorough when writing the story, along with making it easier for players to understand." I don't think this quite works. How about: "After the game's release, Tabata commented that when he was writing the story he would have liked to have been more thorough, and to have made the story easier for players to understand."?
The first paragraph of the Music section needs copyediting. I'll come back to it after I've completed the review and see if I can clean it up.
"The album reached #25 in the Oricon charts and remained for seven weeks": how about "The album stayed on the Oricon charts for seven weeks, reaching a high of #25"?
""Zero" was released on October 19, 2011. It was released as a single instead of being part of the main soundtrack, receiving both a limited and standard edition. The single reached #2 in the charts and remained for thirty-two weeks": it's not clear if this is a Japanese or US release and chart.
After reading more of the article it looks like the game has not been released outside Japan. If that's so, perhaps a statement to that effect could be added to the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assue the tracklists are sourced from the CD releases, which is fine. Is there anything in the tracklist that is not sourced from the CDs? E.g. the literal translations?
"ensure the product's quaity" is a clumsy phrase. Can we be more direct? I assume the intended meaning is something like "because there will still bugs left to fix".
"During its development, Tabata stated he was trying to appeal to North American players in the direction of the game". I don't follow this. I assume we're talking about the collectors' editon; what does "in the direction of the game" mean? What about the collectors' edition was intended to appeal to North Americans?
"Despite a localization being confirmed as in development in the game's Ultimania": what is Ultimania?
What is the Vita? A game platform? Can it be linked?
I found the paragraph about the fan translation confusing, and I think it's because you give the information in the order that fans became aware of it -- first the translation, then the cease-and-desist, and then the backstory. Can you give the information in the underlying chronological order, instead? I think that would make it easier to follow.
Much better. What does the last sentence add? Isn't that already implied by the take down date and the statement that the take down followed the request from Square Enix? That sentence earlier said that the takedown occurred after the announcement of Type-0 HD; did you intend to change the meaning when you cut that phrase? It now says the takedown occurred in the weeks following "its" release, which in this context can only refer to the fan translation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little clearer. Am I right in thinking that the connection to Type-0 HD is that since that was going to be translated into English for official release, the fan translation would interfere with sales, so Square Enix wanted it stopped? If so, is there a source we can use to say that? If not, it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't any information anywhere surrounding the exact reasons surrounding their exchanges, only speculation. Square Enix did not and has not commented on the story.
"supervised by Tetsuya Nomura": I'm not sure what supervised means here. Can this just be cut? Or is it an important piece of information about the manga?
The novel adaptations are described a little clunkily. How about doing it like this (you'd have to move the sources around): "Square Enix released two novel adaptations, in April and June 2012, depicting an alternate version of Type-0's story: [first title] and [second title]." And is there any reason the authors of the novels are not named?
"It was also the store's best-selling PSP title of the year, after Monster Hunter Portable 3rd and Dissidia 012 Final Fantasy." If it was the best-selling title, why is it "after" any other title?
"praised the game's volume": what does "volume" mean here? It sounds like it might be standard terminology in game reviews; perhaps there's a link you could add?
Is PlayStation Lifestyle a title? If it's a magazine it should be italicized. Is there a suitable target link?
What does it mean to say the camera "easily caught on the environment"?
I found the first paragraph of the Legacy section difficult to follow. I think it's because it covers several unrelated facts without any narrative connective tissue; I kept thinking a sentence was going to be a continuation of the information in the previous sentence, and it would turn out to be about a different fact. This is difficult to fix. You could try splitting this into separate paragraphs for unrelated items of information, but a couple of the paragraphs would be just one sentence. A bullet list is usually a bad idea in a prose article. Do all these snippets of information really need to be here? Are any of them really just trivia, or would they be better placed in other articles?
"Its service is due to end on November 30, 2015": what does "service" mean here?
Better, but if it's going to be taken offline, then it's presumably an online game, so can we say that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best with that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"eight-generation": should this be "eighth-generation"?
The first couple of sentences of the second paragraph of "Legacy" have three forms of "develop" close together; can we rephrase one of them?
"After Type-0 's release, Tabata stated in an interview that he wished to explore the distant history of Orience after being freed of its cycle": need to be rephrased; as it stands "Tabata" is the subject of "freed".
"He hopes to continue": I see why you switched to present tense, but I think it's a mistake. I'd suggest either adding an "as of" statement if you want to leave it in present tense, or changing it to reported speech and past tense: "he said that he hoped" or something like that.
-- I'm done with a first pass. I'd like to do some more copyediting but I'll hold off till some of the above points are addressed. And of course please revert if any of the copyedits I've made so far have screwed anything up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've done my best to address all the issues you raised, and done some copyediting on the first paragraph of the music section. The tracklist thing was done using translations found on VGMdb (which includes localized titles, translated titles, and Japanese). Most of the work was done by another editor, and since VGMdb is not a favored source, I didn't include it. The plot problems I've tried to smooth out as best as I can, but I fear it's an issue with the plot not being very clear in the first place. I've also done some work on the "Legacy" section, trimming out a couple of things and trying to make it flow a little better. I also did some expanding on the fan translation, getting things in order and such. Looking forward to a second runthrough. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let the source reviewer comment on VGMdb; for the data on what's on the CDs I think it might be OK, since it's not exactly controversial; for the translations I would guess it's not a reliable source. But let's see what others think. The music paragraph is improved. I'll do another copyedit pass after you're taken care of the odds and ends remaining, but I think it's looking better now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've done what I could. For those points that either need more discussion or have been fixed as best as they could within the restrictions of the sources, I've left comments. One minor thing: I thought I'd fixed the Ultimania thing you mention. I changed it to a guidebook interview without being more specific. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck some more points. Just a couple left, plus the translation question which we'll have to leave to the source reviewer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best with the few points remaining. The fan translation issue is a little messy from the start, and as I didn't want to include speculation, there are some gaps in the information. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The plot of Type-0 is the same in its original version and the high-definition remaster". Is "the high-definition remaster" the same thing as "Type-0 HD", first mentioned later in the article? If so, I'd make this something like "The plot of Type-0 is the same in its original version and in Final Fantasy Type-0 HD, the high-definition remaster", and link FFT0HD.
I'm not sure there's anything you can do about this, but I thought "l'Cie" had an initial upper-case I, not a lower-case L. It was only when I noticed "a l'Cie" that I realized it had to be an L. I'm sure other readers will be similarly mistaken, but I don't see how to make it clearer.
Actually, that's how it's spelt. In the XIII games and Type-0, the word uses a lower-case "l". So sorry, that was the developers, not me. I thought it would be better to remain true as far as possible, even to the slightly silly terminology. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Severely weakened by the trials, and seeing Machina and Rem's condition, Class Zero are unable to defeat the Arbiter. Machina and Rem's spirits give them the strength they need to defeat the Arbiter and halt Tempus Finis." The second sentence directly contradicts the first. Do you mean something like "and demoralized by seeing M & R's condition, Class Zero are initially unable to ..."?
"who have returned to human form and allowed to remember the dead along with the rest of Orience": assuming that this means that the rest of Orience is also allowed to remember the dead, I'd make this "who have returned to human form and, along with the rest of Orience, allowed to remember the dead".
"...and to make it available in its entirety upon release as opposed to an episodic release. Developers had been planning a release on..." Can we eliminate one of these uses of "release"? Perhaps "planning to develop a version for"?
The third paragraph of the Development section gives no dates other than "Later", and then gives a 2011 date followed by a 2009 date. Can this paragraph be reworked a little to get things into chronological order?
The fourth paragaph of Development is a bit of a jumble of disconnected factoids. Some at least is clearly worth keeping, but perhaps belongs elsewhere -- for example, could the note about limitations on the AI be put into a footnote on the first mention of AI in the gameplay section? Whatever you leave here should read like a connected description.
Did my best with this. Might still need a little work in its present form. I also found that I'd made a massive bobo concerning the multiplayer, so I found an appropriate reference and corrected it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ishimoto asked the opinions of both Tabata and Nomura regarding its concept and genre, while basing the music around themes of war, life and death." This is really too close to the original: "I asked for Tabata's and Nomura's opinions regarding concept and genre... The overall music themes for the game are war, life, and death." Since he doesn't say what Tabata and Nomura told him, I think you can cut this sentence, and make the next sentence "Ishimoto gave the music a dark and heavy feel, describing the themes as "war, life, and death", ...".
@Mike Christie: I've done my best to address everything. I await further comments. Oh, and to a much earlier point about specifying character-to-environment sizes, there are actually RPGs today that use skewered scales. And since this game also used a world map, I thought it needed mentioning. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Note to the coords: I only looked at a couple of sources, and found one case where the phrasing was a little too close to the original, so a source spot check would be a good idea if this gets close to promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is a bit long, isn't it? I couldn't imagine reading through this all in one sitting, unless I was really into the game. Are there sections we can trim a little bit to make the article more summary? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article was even longer when it included information about Type-0 HD. I admit that it is large, but it would be difficult trimming it down further than it has been without missing out some of the cited development information. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I was just thinking about that. Bastion (video game) also has a lot of information, though it's short enough to skim through without being fatigued. It has FA status, and is one of the newer inductees. We can scrutinise the article for necessary information, especially around the plot and character sections. An article like Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door (GA status) has necessary information without going too into detail. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it, and I managed to trim down the plot section considerably. The gameplay section, I feel, is as small as it can sensibly get. I've also done some alteration work to the development section to make it less of a continuous read. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It really is shorter now, thank you. It now appears to me the weakest portion is the release section. Is it necessary to create a new article for the fan translation patch? If there's enough meat surrounding it, it would make for a fine new article (another day another story). --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All that's there is all I could find. And it's odd, you asking for it to be trimmed or something. The reviewer above asked for a bit of elaboration. I've also done some trimming to other parts of the release section. I guess I can have another look when I've finished with the set of comments below to see if it can't be trimmed further. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the release section is reasonably sized. If it were expanded, I would suggest to split it and the development section into their own article, but right now it seems fine to me. The synopsis section, however, I do have trouble with. ~Mable (chat) 20:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God, this is a long article. *ahem* I didn't actually read any of the above comments, so excuse me if I repeat comments made by other people. Very few of these comments are actually big issues, and a lot are probably more like "I would do it this way instead," so take everything with a grain of salt ^_^ Maplastrip/Mable
Wouldn't it be "the PlayStation Portable"? The lack of the word "the" in this sentence seems jarring to me. NOTE: Later on, "the PSP" is used frequently.
The second sentence of the article, noting its release date, seems awfully short. It could be combined with the sentence following it like ". Released in Japan in October 27, 2011, Type-0 is..." It's hardly important, though, and a short sentence might actually be easier for the reader.
"PSP" is used near the end of the lead, but it has never been established that this initialism stands for the PlayStation Portable.
"Hajime Tabata" can be wikilinked in the lead section.
"Further games related to Type-0 have also been developed, but the original game was never released outside Japan." – How are these two statements related? Have these "further games" been released outside of Japan? Is it supposed to be surprising that game that has never been released outside of Japan got sequels? (because that simply isn't true)
"...navigated via a world map and..." – how about making it "...navigated via both a world map and..."? I was confused, thinking the world-map itself was a lifelike scale.
"...to freely navigate the world map after defeating..." – not really important, but how about "...to freely navigate the world map with after defeating..."
"New Game+" can be wikilinked.
"There is no limit placed on how many times..." – is the lack of this limit notable? I think this phrase can be removed.
There is a "Plot" subsection in the "Synopsis" section. It also seems incredibly large, which I suppose makes sense for a Final Fantasy game, but it really is too long in my opinion. In combination with the gameplay section, the in-universe content makes up a huge wall of text. I won't push too much on this point as I am usually rather strict on in-universe content, but I highly recommend another trim...
"The decision to make it a mobile game..." – at this point, I was not aware that it was originally supposed to be released for mobile phones, making this section confusing. I assumed it meant the PSP with "mobile," but this was not the case.
"Agito XIII was decided upon after..." – I forgot how this sentence started when I reached the end and had to read the beginning again.
"Kosei Ito, the producer of Before Crisis, was also originally involved" – why did he leave this project? What role did he play? If any of this information is known, of course.
"It began development the same year" felt weird to me, as it seemed to me that the game was already in development; thus its unveiling at E3. I suppose it is possible for a game not to be in development when it is unveiled, but it is usually assumed that it is.
"Agito XIII was described as an online RPG with a "massive" plot." – this does not seem like something that has changed or would be considered improbably for a mobile game."
It was intended to have fully rendered 3D graphics similar to console games" is worth stating, but the "massive plot" aspect seems like a given to me.
"Other concepts being developed..." – were these concepts implemented in the final game, or did they not survive the change in platform?
"...mobile version of the game as they did not..." – unspecific "they"; use "the developers" or something similar instead.
"The name was later changed..." – specific year for this? It is a very unclear "later," see it would be interesting if it was "between 2009 and 2011," for example.
Could "weight of life" be wikilinked to some ethics-related article? It seems like a common concept in ethics, though I don't know the article for it.
"a offshore Japanese island he had visited" – grammar mistake in first word. Also, when did he visit this island? Currently, it reads as if he visited this island specifically for the game, perhaps during his time at the military.
"He also used an incident where..." – did he literally portray this aspect of the game with a dead cat surrounded by other cars, or did this experience influence this aspect of the game? (I haven't checked the source on this, but I assume the latter is meant)
"Despite the title being for the PSP, the team did not want to hold back..." – I assume the reason the team could have "held back" would be because of hardware limitations, but the current phrasing makes it seem like they "did not hold back" from "recording a quantity of tracks unusual for a spin-off Final Fantasy title" instead. Is this correct? If so, what does the fact that it is on the PSP got to do with it?
"They were brought in after the platform move onto PSP" – Inconsistent lack of "the" ("The PSP").
"...the band were able to..." – "band" is singular, thus: "...the band was able to..." Mistake is repeated later on in this section.
"...under the catalog number SQEX-10281~3." – are catalog numbers relevant in prose? Is there a better place for this data?
"...in an standard edition, and a limited edition..." – the words "as well as" might fit here better than "and".
"It received both physical and digital releases." – though obviously referring to the game, placing suggests it was the soundtrack that got physical and digital releases. Therefore, "the game received both..." Seeing as the sentence is really short, it could easily be combined with the first sentence of the paragraph. Might improve flow.
Ultimania is a series of guidebooks by Square Enix, but here it is implied that it is some form of synonym to "official guidebook", which is incorrect.
Fair use of images is in order, I really like the use of Japanese-language notes, and the external links and boxes below it are all very nicely implemented.
I haven't checked on the sources. I did not notice anything problematic, but that doesn't mean a thing.
This article is definitely Featured class and I would already support it, but seeing as how many small things I have mentioned, I'll wait for most of those to be resolved. Very few of these actually stand in the way, though. Amazing work on this article, it is incredible! ~Mable (chat) 20:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all the issues above, as best as I can. As to the plot section, they're usually that big or bigger in GA and FA Final Fantasy articles. Responding to above comments form Kiyoshiendo, I have already trimmed it down to about two thirds of what it was. I can't really trim it any further without compromising its accuracy in some way. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am very fond of how you improved the article. I've just noticed a small grammar mistake in "The soundtrack was released in an standard edition," which I missed earlier, but other than that, I give a very strong support to this becoming a Featured Article! Great work ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 21:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're ready to vote for a promotion. Support, based on Protodrake's strong editing and the more pallatable length while still having as much encyclopedic information. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source 11 is used to support "The game world of Orience is navigated via both a world map and environments built on a lifelike scale relative to the human characters". This isn't mentioned in the source; in fact, the word "Orience" doesn't even seem to appear in the source.
Source 96 and Source 97 are used to support "The patch was initially announced for an August 2015 release". This isn't mentioned in either of the sources, although Source 97 mentions that it was announced for a release on 8 August 2014; perhaps this is just a typo in the article.
Source 125 and Source 126 are used to support that Final Fantasy Type-0 HD was "Developed by Square Enix and HexaDrive". I can't find any mention of HexaDrive in the sources (although this may be due to translation issues, as Source 125 is written in Japanese).
Everything else I looked at is good. Bonus points for archiving. – Rhain1999(talk to me) 09:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've sorted out the issues you pointed out, I think. The Fan Translation thing was a typo on my part. The Hexa ref was also a mistake on my part, now corrected. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I figured this was the case. I just took another look; everything checks out. Support on sources. – Rhain1999(talk to me) 10:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Half a dozen British composers have been successfully steered through peer review and FAC to Featured Article status, and the present candidate is about one of England's finest and best loved. It has had the benefit of a splendidly thorough and helpful peer review, and I hope it will now be found worthy to join Elgar, Britten and their colleagues as a Featured Article. – Tim riley talk 12:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support—had my say at PR. Amply meets the FA criteria in my opinion; a wonderfully written biography article that I could find precious little to quibble about. —Cliftonian(talk) 15:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support also had my say at PR, meets FA criteria, the usual sound job from TR.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, gentlemen! Your input at PR and support here are gratefully received. Tim riley talk 20:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Suggest scaling up both the score and the Job engraving. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Nikkimaria, and for the suggestion, which I'll go and experiment with, as best I can (SOS message may follow). Greatly obliged! Tim riley talk 11:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wow. A real achievement and a joy to read. We need an additional dozen Tim rileys. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! No nits to pick. Well done! Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Satisfied with the article at PR stage. Very well done. Frank Sinatra's favourite composer, probably too trivial to mention in the article though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ceoil, Johnbod and Dr. Blofeld, for your very kind comments and your support. I am most grateful. – Tim riley talk 11:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another happy punter from the PR. A further read this morning shows this is stonger than it was then. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SchroCat, for your support here and your contribution at the peer review. Very much obliged. Tim riley talk 08:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Superbly written highly instructive. I have a few very minor points to add to those I raised at the peer review:
Was Mary Vaughan Willims Darwin's only niece? If not, it should be "a niece" rather than "the niece".
"After the armistice" – perhaps add the date for the benefit of the historically challenged?
"warmly friendly" – hmm, double adverb?
"air-raid": I doubt the hyphen, and the OD of E agrees with me.
Consider these two statements:
"The seventh—officially unnumbered, and titled Sinfonia antartica—divided opinion; the score is a reworking of music Vaughan Williams had written for the 1948 film Scott of the Antarctic, and some critics thought it not truly symphonic." (from "Second marriage" section)
"The seventh symphony, the Sinfonia antartica (1952), is a by-product of the composer's score for the 1948 film Scott of the Antarctic, and reworks much of the music used for the film. From the outset, critical opinion has been divided on whether the piece can be properly classed as a symphony." (from "Music" section)
The two statements are very similar – maybe the second could be abbreviated.
In regard to VW's operas you state that "success in the operatic field eluded him". This is certainly true, relatively speaking, but should it be said unreservedly? There is evidence (you provide it) of some critical success (succés d'estime, as we learned francophones say), so you might consider modifying the absolute, slightly.
Otherwise, no fault found. A great addition to our composer biography collection. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All these points addressed – satisfactorily, I hope. Thank you, BB, for these suggestions, and those at peer review, and for your support and kind words here. – Tim riley talk 12:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Missing bibliographic info for Kennedy 1984, Sackville-West and Shawe-Taylor, Cox
FN39: which Adams?
Schwarz or Schwartz?
Grove Music Online is sometimes italicized, sometimes not - should be done consistently
FN65: page?
FN140: think you're missing closing italics
FN161's title doesn't match that given in the link. More broadly, I'm not sure WorldCat is the best source for this sentence, at least not alone - it shows the existence of these recordings but not that these are the only studio recordings that he did
Gramophone recordings now sourced from Kennedy 1980. Tim riley talk 20:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ralph Vaughan Williams Society or The Ralph Vaughan Williams Society?
FN186: missing work title for the last article
Alan or Alain Frogley?
Date for Dibble?
"Oxford & New York" or "Oxford and New York"? Should be consistent
I see two TNA pages in External links, but one is listed as "UK National Archives" and the other as "The National Archives"
Don't think the final EL warrants inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Nikkimaria, for reviewing. I'll work through the points today. Tim riley talk 14:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now all attended to – satisfactorily, I hope – with the exception of the discographical point you mention (seventh bullet point, above) in re WorldCat. I'll have to dig in the sources to find a citation for the (certain, I think) statement that the ones mentioned are the composer's only commercial studio recordings. Tim riley talk 15:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is part of the Texas Revolution series of articles, and covers what happened in between the Battle of the Alamo and the surrender of Mexican president and military general Antonio López de Santa Anna several weeks later at the Battle of San Jacinto. The civilian population fled in terror from the Mexican army, as did the government of the Republic of Texas. Texian commander-in-chief Sam Houston took his troops on the move, looking for a site to train his raw recruits, causing many to accuse him of being a coward on the run. Santa Anna lost Texas because he also believed Houston was afraid of him, and let his guard down.— Maile (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Not much to add here after looking over the two (2) prior A-level WP:MILHIST reviews. Just incredibly well referenced and researched. One can tell a lot of effort went into writing, documenting, and citing this article. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this. — Maile (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMaile66, following my review of this article, I find that it easily meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as it is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched; and its lede, structure, and consistent citations all follow Wikipedia style guidelines. I also completed an image review as follows and found that all media is good to go. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 48: To what does "Efficient in the Cause (Stephen L. Harden)" refer?
The Poyo book referenced (and in the References) is a collection, with each chapter written by a different person. "Efficient in the Cause" is the chapter, and Stephen L. Hardin is the author of the chapter.
Ref 73: "House" not "House"
Ref 92: space after "144,"
Ref 105: Error in source title
Ref 147: Error in source title
Ref 154: Source title does not appear on the link pages, so it is not clear what source we are reading
Ref 157: space after "264,"
Ref 165: "Yellow Stone" – two words
List of sources: Spencer C Tucker is styled "Dr" – no one else is recognised in this way.
Subject to the above, references are properly formattedm and the sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Everything is taken care of, unless you have a different method of referencing a chapter within a collection. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably I'd put inverted commas around the chapter heading, otherwise fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inverted commas done. Thank you for your time on this. — Maile (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Do you have anything else to add, or are your finished with your comments here? — Maile (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time for a full review, but sources are OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with the usual disclaimer that I haven't checked the sources, however I've no reason to doubt accuracy). My usual comment on these Texas Revolution articles, that it would be useful to know if Mexican sources have the same perspective on events, stands; however, in light of the fact that es-wikipedia doesn't even appear to have a corresponding article, I'm willing to believe that the sources don't exist or aren't readily available in this case. ‑ iridescent 13:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Although this hurricane remained mostly offshore, it prompted widespread evacuations with its uncertain track and caused historic flooding in Cape Hatteras on its closest point of approach. I started working on the storm's meteorological history and mostly finished, until User:Hurricanehink took over and conjured an impeccable amount of info on its preparations and impact. After a successful GAN and some extensive cleanup and fine-tuning on my part, Hink and I believe the article is up to standard, ready for its bronze star. Enjoy! Auree★★ 02:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Hurricane Emily, a seemingly innocuous storm that was, for most people, very forgettable. However, it threatened most of the Eastern United States and had an unusual track (sound familiar?). It was very memorable for a 17 mile part of the Outer Banks, where record floods left 25% of the population homeless. I confirm the co-nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Radar image could be scaled up
File:NCbarrierislandsmap.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed these, I believe. Thanks Nikki! Auree★★ 17:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"caused record flooding in the Outer Banks". Specifying off North Carolina would be helpful to signal the general area.
Specified Auree★★ 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Although part of the eye passed over Hatteras Island". It would be helpful to say "Hatteras Island in the Outer Banks" for people (like me) who do not know the geography.
Done per your suggestion Auree★★ 02:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Emily produced strong winds that coincided with a full moon," Are you sure that all readers will understand that full moons cause spring tides?
Changed to "coincided with high tides from a full moon" Auree★★ 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"At the time, it was moving toward the northwest about 800 miles (1,300 km) east-northeast of Puerto Rico." I think I see what you mean but "At the time, it was about 800 miles (1,300 km) east-northeast of Puerto Rico, and moving toward the northwest." might be clearer.
Moved stuff around Auree★★ 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No change needed, but do stronger hurricanes have larger eyes?
Nope, it's usually the opposite case. A very small and symmetrical eye indicates a very tightly wound (and intense) hurricane wind field. Auree★★ 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Emily maintained much of its intensity through early on September 2". "through early on" sounds odd to me.
Removed "early on" Auree★★ 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The evacuation was completed within 12 houses" Do you mean 12 hours?
Oops, yeah! Auree★★ 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"previously used after the Great Flood of 1993" during the Great flood?
"Severe flooding from the storm affected a 17 mi (27 km) portion of Hatteras Island" 17 sq mi or 17 mi of coast?
The source says "Severe flooding occurred from Avon south to Hatteras Village, a distance of 17 miles." So it's just 17 miles. That make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC) ♫[reply]
How about "stretch"? "Portion" suggests to me an area which should be measured in sq miles. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Officials at the Dare County Emergency Operations Center fled due to intrusion of floodwaters" fled sounds POV. How about evacuated?
Reworded Auree★★ 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"older homes or structures not up to code" I assume building code - could this be linked?
Yep, linked! Auree★★ 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Sinkholes developed along the route, some of which were large enough to contain three cars." Why did the hurricane cause sinkholes? (No change needed. I am just curious.)
Major flooding tends to cause sinkholes, and this storm caused its share of flooding! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" then-governor Jim Hunt declared a state of disaster for North Carolina,[42] while then-president Bill Clinton" I would delete "then". It is not needed as all governors and presidents are "then" when they are in office.
Removed all "then-"s Auree★★ 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A first class article. These points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments! I've addressed most of them; will leave the other ones to Hink. Auree★★ 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. And see one suggestion above. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Auree★★ 18:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — thorough without excessive detail, easy-to-understand, relatively well-illustrated (I might have chosen to look into uploading a fair use damage picture, but I can understand why you'd want to avoid that), and meticulously sourced. I made a few minor edits to the article to improve flow, but if I inadvertently changed the meaning of anything, feel free to revert. Just a few comments/suggestions/random thoughts:
There were two possible tornadoes in the Outer Banks region. – I know the preliminary report doesn't help much, but it would really be helpful if we had some indication of why tornadoes were suspected (visual reports? damage patterns?). Not a huge deal if you can't find anything else.
So I found some more. NCDC mentioned "waterspouts" in Brunswick County, but that's far away from where any of the damage was, and it's in the section right above Hurricane Emily, so I don't know if it's related to the storm. The way they formatted the document was confusing. I also found this website called the Tornado Project, which says one tornado affected North Carolina, but I don't know where they got their data from, and I'm uncertain how reliable it is. So the only definitive link from a reliable source is the Hatteras NWS saying the possible tornadoes, which is why I left it as it is. Hope that's OK. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the south side of Hatteras Island, the storm incurred high tides,[15] producing a peak storm surge of 10.2 ft (3.1 m) in Buxton. – I'm not entirely sure what this means. I think "incurred" is probably the wrong word here.
Reworded Auree★★ 01:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Buxton, the waters rose 3 to 4 ft (0.91 to 1.22 m) per hour at one point, [...] The waters—1 to 2 ft (0.30 to 0.61 m) higher than the predicted 100-year flood... – Since the foot values are approximate, you should find a way to avoid such precise metric conversions. I'm no whiz with the {{convert}} template, so I'm not sure how to best accomplish that.
Went ahead and fixed this myself. Template parameter to adjust this is "sigfig=#", with # being the desired significant figure expression. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Within two weeks of the storm, businesses resumed as cleaning work neared completion, and the island was reopened to tourists.[41] Clean up operations in the region lasted weeks to months. – It's a little confusing to say that cleanup was nearing completion within two weeks, but lasting for months...
Tweaked this a bit Auree★★ 01:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any merit to giving ppm conversions for the chlorine concentration info? That's how I'm accustomed to seeing this kind of thing.
Otherwise, not much to complain about. Nice work, guys. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, it appears that 40 mg per liter is equivalent to 40.05 ppm. I'm really not sure how to proceed. I can add it if you want, but not sure how to do it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits, suggestions and support, Julian! Addressed two of your comments; will leave the other two to Hink. Auree★★ 01:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, thanks for the review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – powerhouse editor combination yielding a stellar article. I honestly have nothing to add to this. Awesome job, Auree and Hink. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CB! Appreciate it Auree★★ 01:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider adding alt text to any images; it seems that the image templates used such as {{Storm path}} have fields enabling this as well.
Apart from that, I'm happy with its quality. I'm in no way capable of judging prose to an adequate level, however, but I'd be happy to support on all other grounds once the access issue is seen to. GRAPPLEX 12:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Provided alt texts, I believe. Thanks for reviewing! Auree★★ 20:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per improvements. GRAPPLEX 10:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements! Auree★★ 10:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and thanks for your help at TFA, Auree. Feel free to complain about anything that doesn't look right. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
to OA refs
Ref 34 add (subscription required) template
