Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2017

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2017 [1].

Battle of Rossbach[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration, this article is about a crucial battle in the Seven Years' War. About 1000 infantry and the Prussian cavalry of Frederick the Great's army routed the combined French and Reichsarmee forces during a 90 minute battle. It was critical in forcing France out of its support of Austria's strategic goals. As always, I appreciate your ideas and suggestions. As usual, I've used what Ealdgyth considers a funky annotation system. It's what I know and have used since 2009. auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Pbsouthwood[edit]

(on general intelligibility to a lay reader}

Terrain and maneuver

  • What is the relevance of the plateau elevation? Is this the elevation above the general altitude of the lower lying areas, which would have obvious military relevance, or above sea level, which would not? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • general relevance to the type of terrain -- a rolling plateau--. It measures above sea level, of course, but within that there was very little elevation change. This influenced how the battle was fought, obviously. No hill was higher than 120 meters (390 ft), which influenced how and where troops could move, and how visible they were from the highest observation points (usually the church towers, sometimes well-placed manor houses). auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the elevation of the low-lying areas known? the relative elevation would be far more relevant to tactics. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read through again, and now understand that the battle was fought on the plateau, which had an altitude ranging from 120 to 244m, so the variation of altitude on the battlefield was not more than 124m and may have been less? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, thanksw for re reading....is the article clearer now? auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be better to explicitly state whether the battle was on the plateau. The map does not clearly show steep sides to the valley, but suggests fairly steep hillsides, which is not supported by the text or photos. I am not getting a clear impression of the terrain where the actual fighting took place. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've stated in the text, there were no steep hill sides. The entire region is rolling hills--none of them higher than 120 feet above the general altitude of the region. It's all relatively flat. I've tried adjusting the text, and moved the images of the terrain into that section. auntieruth (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to nitpick like this. The section now reads more clearly, but I remain uncertain whether the elevation of the plateau is between 120 and 244m, or lower than this with peaks up to 120 to 244m above the base altitude of the plateau. (which is more than 120 feet as stated above) If I understand correctly, the 120 feet is a typo, and the altitude of the plateau including its rolling hills is between 120 and 244m. I made and reverted an edit which would clarify this point if I got it right. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The elevation of Rossbach is 104 meters (341 ft). Braunsbedra and Reichertswerben are the two closest villages and they are, respectively, altitudes above sea level of: 120 meters (394 ft) and 131 meters (430 ft). The site of the battle field is rolling hills and plains between 120–244, mostly between Braunsbedra, Rossbach and Reichertswerben. But the entire topography outside the villages, where the battle took place, has changed since the mid-20th century (and earlier) because of lignite mining. The steepest hillsides are in Merseburg at the river crossings, and then only in a few places where the river cut through sandstone. If you look at Mapcarta here you can see that the location of the Janus has been completely excavated. There is really no way of telling exactly how high or how steep it was in 1750s. Carlisle, who was there, says the hills were slight. Frederick and Gaudi, who were there and observing from the manor rooftop, could see most of the French troop movements--this means that the hills were not high enough to obstruct the view. The vintage maps do not indicate steep hills, simply "hills" or elevation changes. Better? auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mapcarta gives Rossbach elevation as 124m, your sources may differ, otherwise good. I see what you mean about the topography having changed. The explanatory note does help. Thank you for your patience. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbsouthwood: Oh, the whole area looks different than it did 200 years ago. But that's what happens over time. Will you support now? auntieruth (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within the scope of my review, in that it makes sense to a non-expert, and is well written and interesting, yes, and good luck with the rest of the review. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:The_Imperial_German_Army_1890_-_1913_HU68455.jpg: if the author was a German court photographer, why a UK tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what it looks like in the documentation on the photo, the German court photographer took the picture. The German king gave wrote on it and gave it to Hugh Lowther, 5th Earl of Lonsdale, apparently, because that's the collection it came from.
  • Okay - unless there was a transfer of copyright involved (?), this wouldn't be a UKGov work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in the UK Imperial War Museum. The template doesn't accommodate the specifics of this particular instance. Something created by German court photographer, given by Kaiser to someone; from that person's collection it apparently went to the UK Imperial War Museum, which provided it. So I don't know what to do about it, and if you don't know what to do about it, I suggest we leave it as is, because it was uploaded under auspices of the UK museum, and it had been given by the Kaiser. Perhaps we should accept that the transfer of the photograph as a gift is sufficient? The museum provided the provenance. auntieruth (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er... the museum provided the provenance and their own IWM licensing; I don't see that they provided anything to support the tags used. Given available information I would think a German/EU tag would be more appropriate. Open to other opinions though if any other reviewers want to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problems with a change. What do others think? auntieruth (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • maps are scaled, although I don't know how to do that for the ones in the gallery. auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "moved up the Rossbach itself": What's "the Rossbach"? I'm aware "Bach" is "brook" in German, but I'm not aware that you've mentioned that, unless it's "a small stream [that] ran between Rossbach and Merseburg". okay, fixed.
  • "The fighting soon dissolved into man-on-man combat": Not wrong, but I might say "the columns dissolved", or "the fighting devolved". fixed.
  • "muskets shouldered": Did you mean to repeat that? I only see it once.
    • Sorry, the other occurrence is: " Frederick ... boasted that the victory had come while most of his infantry had its weapons shouldered." - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Really good writing. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

Another impressive article. I find this set of three fascinating even though they are far afield from anything I write about. I have a few suggestions and questions, as follows.
General
  • Lead image needs alt text. yes, it was there.  :)
Yes and no. When I rolled over the image with my mouse, the alt text showed as identical to the image file name. The fix was to look at what you'd done with the Battle of Leuthen and to imitate. I believe the problem is fixed, but please doublecheck. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference between Battle of Leuthen alt text and this one.  ??? auntieruth (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gallery images need alt text. WP:PIC in the Galleries subsection shows a way to add alt text using table syntax. I think I did this right
  • I think you can scale the gallery maps if you use the table format that you'll find in the same section of WP:PIC. I think I did this right
The toolbox (dispenser.homenet.org) has been down for a week or more, but you can still check the alt text by mousing over the image and looking at the popup. The table method described at WP:PIC looks like a workable option, but I've never used it. Some experimenting might be in order, or perhaps User:Nikkimaria or another image reviewer knows the preferred solution. Finetooth (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could also use {{multiple image}} Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added alt text and upright= to all the images. Does this work now?
I see that you have added the parameters. However, if you mouse over the images, you'll see that the alt text does not appear. (You have to have navigation popups turned on in your Preferences/Gadgets user menu to be able to see the popups.) That suggests to me that the template is not configured to recognize the alt-text parameter. I'd like to fiddle around in a sandbox with the {{multiple image}} template that Nikkimaria suggested. I have rarely added galleries to anything, hence my lack of immediate insights. Finetooth (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use galleries a lot, so when you fiddle, please send me a link, so I can see what you've done....:) auntieruth (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The layout of the gallery at the bottom of the article looks odd to me because of the 3-4-1 arrangement. Suggestion: use one panorama rather than two. That would give you a more balanced 3-4-0 arrangement, which would look better if you centered the line of 4 images. They will center properly once you remove the bottom line of 1. Alternatively, a table might give you more options than the existing two separate galleries at the bottom. I took out one
  • To avoid bumping against second-level subheads or from displacing the Battlefield today head, I would suggest moving all of the maps to the right. ?
Seven Years' War
  • ¶1 "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war with Austria." – Maybe it would be more clear to say "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war between Prussia and its allies with Austria and its allies." tweaked some, see if this is better
Hmmm. "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war in which Prussia and Austria were a part; in parts of the globe, it had no impact, and its influence among the European powers it was, however, no better than a truce." – This revision doesn't make sense to me. Maybe leave out "in parts of the globe, it had no impact" since the conflict wasn't global, and maybe adjust the last clause (which has a grammar problem) to say "among the European powers it was no better than a truce."?
  • The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war in which Prussia and Austria were a part; its influence among the European powers was, however, little better than a truce. Frederick II of Prussia, known as Frederick the Great, acquired the prosperous province of Silesia, but had wanted much of the Saxon territories as well. Empress Maria Theresa of Austria had signed the treaty to gain time to rebuild her military forces and forge new alliances; she was intent upon regaining ascendancy in the Holy Roman Empire. Better? auntieruth (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That looks good. Finetooth (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Terrain and maneuver
  • ¶1 "The story of the battle of Rossbach is as much the story of the five days of maneuver leading to the battle as it is those famous 90 minutes of battle, and the maneuvers were shaped by the terrain." – Since the "famous 90 minutes of battle" has not been mentioned in the main text before this mention, perhaps modify to say: "Five days of maneuvers, shaped by the terrain, preceded the battle of Rossbach." Or something like that. It was in the caption under the lead photo, and I've added it to the lead
  • ¶1 "at the confluence of the middle Saale from the Buntsandstein" – Some confusion here. Confluence refers to the meeting of two streams, but the Saale doesn't seem to meet another stream at Weissenfels. A map embedded in the Thuringian Basin article shows Weissenfels lying just outside of the basin, so perhaps the intended meaning here is "near the emergence of the middle Saale from..." Another possibility is that the confluence referred to here is the meeting of the Unstrut with the Saale upstream of Weissenfels near Naumburg.
  • ¶1 "in the so-called Weißenfels-Jenaer Saale valley..." – Delete "so-called"? sorry, that's a Germanism....
  • ¶1 "this influenced the troop movements leading up to the battle..." – Delete "up"? done
  • ¶6 "Until that point, Soubise had done nothing." – I had to go back to an earlier part (Situation in 1757) of the article to see who Soubise was. ok. did some tweaking there.
Initial battlefield positions
  • ¶1 "The French general, the prince of Soubise," – He's referred to simply as Soubise in the last sentence of the preceding section. Maybe "the French general, the Prince of Soubise" could replace "Soubise" in that earlier sentence, and you could use plain "Soubise" here. fix parallel construction
  • ¶2 "under the command of Charles, Prince of Soubise and Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen" – Here they are identified again in a slightly different way. Integrate them somehow? Maybe add "Charles" to the first mention of him in the Situation in 1757 section and just go with ""under the command of Soubise and Saxe-Hildburghausen" here. Not quite sure. fixed, I think
I'm still a bit confused. Are Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen and the Duke of Saxe-Hildburghausen two different people, or is this the same guy? Yes. Eventually he was "Prince" but at the time, he was "Duke" I've taken out his titles and just referred to him and Soubise by their family names.
I changed one additional "Duke" to "Saxe-Hildburghausen" in this same section. Looks good. Finetooth (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trap
  • ¶5 "When the Allied cavalry came striking distance..." – Missing word, "within"?
  • ¶5 "still in echelon" – Link to Echelon formation?
  • ¶7 "Seydlitz led his cavalry in their third assault." – A minor question. I'm not sure how these things are formally counted. I would have said "second assault". I suppose this is the third if the 20-squadron charge counts as one and the 18-squadron charge counts as the second. I assume the combined squadrons take part in the third assault. Maybe a bit of clarification here? tweaked some for clarity
Aftermath
  • ¶1 "Impressively, the Prussians took..." – Not sure you need "impressively". don't
  • ¶4 "While he did owe his position to his good relationship..." – Maybe "rank" rather than "position" since at first glance that might be interpreted to mean his battlefield position. Absurd interpretation on second glance, but still... "
Battlefield today
  • long quote: "set up his field bed in alcove" – Word missing? Maybe "an alcove"? got it.
  • long quote: "Hauptmann [Franz Leopold] von Funcke" – Missing comma after Funcke? fixed
  • "(Kreis roadway)" – I'm assuming that this means something like a side road or crossroad or secondary highway. Maybe a brief explanation or a link since it probably has clear formal meaning to Germans? Ah, yes, county highway.

@Finetooth: I think I've got them.  :) auntieruth (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to support on prose, as noted above, regardless of how the alt text questions play out. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for comments, contributions and support. Re alt text, it's weird, sometimes the proper box shows up with alt text and the whole stuff on the image, and sometimes it doesnt. auntieruth (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it anywhere, I think we still need a source review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

I am sure that in terms of reliability and authority, the sources are impeccable, but I found the arrangement of the section very muddled and confusing, with several inconsistencies:

  • What is the purpose of repeating detailed information in the citations that is given in the sources? Why not be consistent in the use of short citations? some people only go as far as the citation. It's listed in full in the first instance and in short form afterward.
  • It seems like a waste of time and space, but I won't press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sources you prioritise surnames, in the citations you prioritise first names, which makes cross-checking difficult. I understand this. Bibliographies should be organized by surnames. Footnotes start with first names. This is standard Chicago Style.
  • The section headed "Alphabetical listing of sources cited" contains uncited sources: Jeremy Black; Robert M Citino I took Citino out. Jeremy Black is in fn 2.
  • Several other sources are not cited in the texts but are mentioned in the "Notes" in the "See..." format. These should be properly formulated as citations. (Karlheinz Fischer; Kapp & Bancroft; Hellmund Meinholf; Mitteldeutsche Zeitung; Poten & Mayer) They are cited in the note. I don't see the point in adding them to citations as well. If I were writing a print article, this is how I would do it.
  • I think you are not understanding my comment. The "See..." format is an informal method of citation, with the same purpose as regular citations, i.e. to indicate the source that supports the text. These "See..." citations should be converted to regular form. Thus, for example, "See (in German) Bodart, p. 220" should be converted to <ref>Boden, p. 20</ref> What you might do with a print article is not relevant - this is Wikipedia. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I guess I understand. Notes are converted to citations. auntieruth (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spencer Tucker and Frederick King of Prussia appear in the citations but are not listed as sources. Frederick was there, spencer Tucker is added.
  • Ref 32 is not properly formatted. What is the nature of this source, and in what way does it support the text? These are standard links to the German webpage.
  • They are links to the German webpages, but where do they reference the inscription that you have cited in the text? The inscription in given in English – is this the language on the stone? And in any event these links need to be properly formatted as references, with publisher information etc. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Ref 33 is properly formatted, either.
  • In your "Notes" section, Note 1 is unsourced. In Note 3 the sources are not included in your sources list and lack basic information such as publisher, access date and so on. this is fixed.
  • Note 1 is 'not fixed; you have added two external links, but these need to be properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a few minor formatting errors. Those that I see:
  • Ref 2 needs full stop after pp done
  • Ref 7 needs space after p. done
  • Ref 18: page range inconsistent done
  • Ref 20: missing pp. done

The section is in need of considerable attention. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brianboulton: Thank you Brian, I've responded above. I realize that this can be a nuisance, but I don't see another way around it. I find the short notation style very difficult to follow when I read because I have to refer down to the bib to see the whole thing (publisher, etc). I've at least started to use the shortened references, a, b, c , d etc. which I find confusing in text, but am amenable to making life easier for editors. auntieruth (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what it is that you "don't see another way round". If it's just the question of your use of short citations, well OK, I'll go along with your preference. But I've raised other sources questions, most notably the need to regularise the formatting of citations. These need attention.Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brianboulton:, they are all consistent now. First mention is author/title/publication/page number. Subsequent citations are short, or shorter (a,b,c,d,etc, using the ref/ref template). Thank you. auntieruth (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and I've converted the notes to citations, so the formatting remains consistent. auntieruth (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've basically used this as my bible for footnoting since 2009 and 2011, when I was convinced to start adding the refname= tag. auntieruth (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Brian, how is this looking from a sourcing viewpoint now? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit of a mess, I'm afraid. The nominator has misunderstood some of my comments, and her efforts to comply have made things worse rather than better. She seems to be relying on fixed views and practices which are outside the FAC requirements for the organisation of sources. Someone needs to give a helping hand – it's basically to do with proper and consistent formatting, not the reliability of the sources themselves. I don't think my further participation will be helpful, as I seem not to be getting through, but my original and follow-up comments should clarify the problem. For example, I was not saying that all footnotes should be converted to citations, merely that footnotes needed to cited in the same style as the text, not via an informal "See..." formulation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brianboulton: I've reverted all the notes back to notes and changed the citing style to be exactly the same as the citations. I'm going to ask one of the MH coordinators to also have a look. I don't know what else I can do to make it consistent! auntieruth (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ruth, I had a quick look at this on the w/e and have a couple of initial thoughts, just give me a day or so to come back to you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, Ruth, I have made a suggestion with this edit: [2]. I have self reverted, but if you feel it helpful, I'd suggest implementing across all of your notes. Brian, would that type of change help address some of your concerns? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking a look at this, Rupert, I'm willing to do it for the notes (not the citations), but I'm not sure how that will help, other than to separate the note itself from its citation (if I've read it right--I could only see the intext change, not how it looked :( ). auntieruth (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Rupert. well, I'm not sure how that help by separating the note from the citation. butI can do it if that's what Brian wants.....? @AustralianRupert: @Brianboulton:

auntieruth (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like what Rupert has done with Note 1; can the same be done with 2, 3 and 4? And you should lose the POV chit-chat in 3: "who usually got these kinds of details right".
  • There's an outstanding problem with ref 38. I ask again: How does this source verify the English translation of the inscription on the stone? Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I didn't realize you were questioning the translation. I translated it. auntieruth (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My questioning was of the source to which your translation was apparently cited, not the translation itself. According to WP:TRANSCRIPTION: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research", so you're OK on that point. But I'm still puzzled by Ref 33: what exactly is this source verifying? How does the link page [4] help the reader? Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under SchlossBergwerben: In Burgwerben zog das Grenadier-Bataillon Fink ein und der König selbst bezog im Schloß Quartier. Weil alle Zimmer des Herrenhauses mit gefangenen, verwundeten französischen Offizieren belegt waren, begnügte sich der König mit einem Dienstzimmer, das noch heute im historischen Zustande erhalten ist. auntieruth (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. That resolves most of my issues with the organisation of sources. On ref 38, which I've mentioned previously, this provides a list of links. Can you please say which of these links leads to the source information? This guidance should then be included in the citation. Finally, its not a good idea to have "Resources" and "Further reading" under the same level-2 heading, as further reading does not form part of the article's sourcing. Suggest two separate level-2 headings. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: ok, fixed level 2 headers. Added Schloss Burgwerben to the citation and Resource entry. auntieruth (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All sources issues now resolved to my satisfaction. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Jackyd101[edit]

As always with Auntieruth55's writing, I think this is an excellent article about a complex battle - a very fine piece of work. I am very close to support with this article, but have a few minor comments for discussion below before giving the thumbs up. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Russians were not yet able to take Königsberg" - this sounds like they took it soon afterwards (as they did in 1758), but this isn't explained elsewhere in the article. I suggest "the Russians were unable to take Königsberg" since it is accurate as far as that specific campaign is concerned and as a little clearer to an unfamiliar reader. fixed
  • "Although previous experiences in wars with the Ottoman Empire had exposed these problems, the Russians had not solved the challenge of supplying the army at a distance from Moscow" reads a little awkwardly. Perhaps "Although experiences in wars with the Ottoman Empire had previously exposed these problems, the Russians had not solved the challenge of supplying the army at a distance from Moscow"? fixed
  • "His army covered 274 km (170 mi) in only 13 days" from where to where? it was in the paragraph, but I've reworked it.
  • "they were still eager to face the Allied forces." - this feels like opinion? Can you source it? cannot find it in the article! but if iit's there, it's source.
  • Its in the third paragraph of "Terrain and maneuver". Bodart is the nearest source, but its not on that particular sentence. Is this Bodart's opinion?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frederick's tactics at Rossbach became a landmark in the history of military art" - what is meant here by "military art"? This feels like paintings. Do you mean "the military art"? yes, linked
  • " Both men possessed the much coveted coup d'œil militaire, the ability to see at a glance what must be done to tactical advantage" - This is definitely an opinion. Who said this? Was it Frederick? Can you clarify? I see from the quote that it was, but I would clarify it at the start. sourced to their biographers
  • "flooding the old lignite mine with water" - this is out of sequence. I suggest incorporating the footnote into the main text so its clearer where this lignite mine came from. fixed
You're welcome! See reply above and take a look. Once that is done I'm happy to support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, another triumph!--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2017 [5].

Pied butcherbird[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Australia's finest songbird - pretty haunting and weird calls it makes. I have scoured sources and it reads well so have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pbsouthwood[edit]

Images appropriate and all appear to be correctly licensed. Mostly without alt text. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

I'll add comments as I read the article.
Lead

  • link mantle
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • neck is white - it doesn't appear to be.
its the nape that is black forming the hood and there is a white neck collar below that. Better seen in the gould painting in article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • link type specimen
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gould described Cracticus picatus in 1848..." I found this slightly difficult to follow and initially wondered why you were taking about another species - perhaps need some sort of intro on subspecies/regional variants
I did this but are you worried it is too repetitive? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Gregory Mathews
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link nominate subspecies
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link subspecies
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3.7 cm wide) {{cvt|3.7|cm}}
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps link mitochondrial
even better, linked to mitochondrial DNA instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "with short wings" followed by "The wings are fairly long"
removed Amadon's comment on wings Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The neck collar in the female is slightly narrower at around 25 cm (10 in)" 2.5 cm?
oops...fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat

  • link Illawarra
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

  • Who builds the nest? HBW alive has "Nest built by female". (I can send you the HBW text - but I personally prefer HANZAB (Higgins) (I don't own a copy), as it includes cites to the primary literature)
HANZAB does not explicitly specify but talks about the pair building a nest at one point. Will try to see if anything further online Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where HBWQ got their info as no peer-reviewed literature seems to be out there supporting or refuting this. Same with incubation (though I do think that is more likely to be true.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing looks very likely in the HBW article Bibliography. I've come across similar cases before - the HBW author probably thought that he had read it somewhere but with 10,000 articles it perhaps isn't surprising. When the sexes are similar I assume a study using coloured bands is required. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who incubates the eggs? HBW alive has "incubation by female alone"
HANZAB does not explicitly specify except to say "one adult", but one source said two adults out of four attending the nest incubated. Difficult when plumage is so similar. I will chase that source soon added that source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • use cvt for egg dimensions (bizarrely we usually include inches)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For how long are the young fed after leaving the nest. HBW alive has "at least a month"
HANZAB has anywhere from 25 to 33 days Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • mention brood parasitism (it will please Jim): HBW alive has "Records of brood parasitism by Pallid Cuckoo (Cuculus pallidus) and Channel-billed Cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae)."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy

  • "and combined them into a Cracticini clade,[13] which became the family Artamidae in 1994.[14]" I don't like the precise date without specifying who - Christidis and Boles may have made the change in 1994 but other authorities didn't. Taxonomy is always messy. Vol 14 of HBW published in 2009 followed Peters and placed butcherbirds in their own family Cracticidae and Clements still does (in their 2017 list). HBW changed the family to Artamidae in their Illustrated Checklist published in 2016 and didn't make the change online until this year. HBW online have a subfamily Cracticinae containing the genera Strepera, Melloria, Gymnorhina and Cracticus.
Sigh...this opens up a can of worms really as detailed discussion is best left on higher taxon pages. Let me think about it. Open to suggestions... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • " weight of 120 g (4 oz)." -> weight of about 120 g (4 oz). (HBW has weight varying from 105 to 159g)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the responses and have supported above. Well done - excellent work. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

I'll support this now, since I'm going on holiday soon, just a few minor issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • captions and maps should not include the subject of the article
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • its smaller size than the nominate subspecies, and subspecies mellori from Victoria and South Australia on the basis of its larger size than the nominate subspecies.— I'm sure this can be rephrased less clunkily and repetitively
reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are regarded—missing "now"?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • baby grey teal.—"duckling" is better
reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this soon. At first glance, maybe the image selection could be improved? The article has no good photos of the bird in profile, but here are some:[6][7][8] There is also one of a juvenile[9], but perhaps the one you have of an immature is better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the two flickr ones by Graham Winterflood are both subsp. picatus, so a good find. One has been added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gould described Cracticus picatus in 1848 from northern Australia, describing it as" Perhaps say "named" the first time for variation?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was reclassified as a subspecies of C. nigrogularis" When and by who?
not sure yet...it happened pretty early on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The latter subspecies has a broader (3.7 cm (1.5 in) wide) white collar and a more whitish rump, with specimens becoming smaller in the more northern parts of the range." Usually it seems physical description between subspecies are mention in the description section?
in two minds. Putting it where it is helps explain what is different about the subspecies (and hence makes it valid) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When and why was it moved to Cracticus?
It happened quickly as by 1848 Gould had put them in the current genus, but I can't find discussion of where, when or why. Vanga was clearly an initial placement that was wrong but early on genera could be really broad.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Darwin woollybutt" That's a funny name...
yes, it is Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and billabongs" Could be linked or explained, I don't think this term is well-known outside Australia.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "call of an Australian pied butcherbird" Why stress it was Australian if this is an Australian endemic?
agree - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this note, I'm not sure why a section about bird-song has to do with depictions? Cultural significance maybe?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "defend their territory from intruders and mobbing and chasing raptors and other birds" Seems there is a grammar problem here maybe? "And mob and chase raptors and other birds"?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you only give scientific names for plants in parenthesis, and not animals (apart form nest-parasites)? Would probably look better if it was consistent throughout.
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "picatus" mean?
It's not in my Classical Latin dictionary at home - it means "daubed with pitch", hence "black patches" (in Late Latin I think). The two sources to support it are an 1844 book or a website from (notable) dictionaries....@FunkMonk: which source would you prefer I use...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd prefer a book, but the website is more accessible... So I think either would work. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added book ref now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and were sharing incubating duties." Double "ing" may seem a bit repetitive, how about "sharing incubation duties"? Or "shared incubating duties"?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "form a black saddle." Only described as a "saddle" in the intro, struck me as odd...
removed as doesn't really add anything Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The colour of juvenile and immature birds, which are accompanied by their parents, is predominantly brown and white." Not sure what the insert sentence means? Is this mixing behaviour with description? Kind of unclear.
removed - relic of old edit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that's all I had, so looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

In general, sources are fine – of appropriate quality and consistently formatted. Despite my best endeavours I could find little to grumble at, apart from a couple of very minor niggles: ref 30, since it links to an online copy of the article, should have a retrieval date. And ref 45 should also have a retrieval date, since the source is a website. Nothing else. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added (dammit I hate when I miss these on the watchlist! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that the images currently have no alt text. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. But it isn't worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2017 [10].

William Henry Harrison presidential campaign, 1840[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the famous "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" campaign of 1840. The election may be quite old, but there are lessons in it that apply to today's politics. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Moise[edit]

I've checked the 10 images and 2 sound clips, and they are all properly licensed. Tonight or soon I'll check the captions and templates. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now checked all the captions and alt text, and everything is in order. Image review passes. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pbsouthwood[edit]

William Henry Harrison and Tippecanoe:

  • by 1840 the structure had vanished into the mansion that stood on the property - How so?
  • Even so, his military record was quickly controversial, and it remained so in 1840. - clarify "quickly controversial".

Candidate in 1836:

  • ...ran regional candidates for president who would boost turnout, increasing Whig chances further down the ticket - Strange turn of phrase. I do not know what it is supposed to mean. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think I've addressed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

Lede
  • These sentences are a little awkward: "Among other firsts, Harrison's victory was the first time the Whig Party won the presidential election, but he died after a month in office. His running mate John Tyler served the remainder of his term, quickly breaking with the Whigs." I'd do something more like "Among other firsts, Harrison's victory was the first time the Whig Party won a presidential election. A month after taking office, Harrison died and his running mate John Tyler served the remainder of his term. Tyler quickly broke with the Whigs, causing conflict with former allies in Congress."
Background
  • "he bought a large tract of land from his father-in-law" could use a link to John Cleves Symmes.
  • "Hsinh a presidential candidate who was popular locally..." some kind of typo here.
Nominating convention
  • "That state's delegation was run by its Whig boss, Thurlow Weed, who deemed Clay unelectable as a slaveholder, and provided much of Scott's vote through the first four ballots, which were deadlocked, with Clay ahead but not close to a majority." I'd break this up into two sentences, maybe "That state's delegation was run by its Whig boss, Thurlow Weed, who deemed Clay unelectable as a slaveholder. new York provided much of Scott's vote through the first four ballots, which were deadlocked, with Clay ahead but not close to a majority."
Aftermath
  • "He left town, never to see the President again." I think the "he" here is Clay, but it would be best to change it to avoid ambiguity.
Much obliged for the review, those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had a lengthy say in the peer review, and have nothing more to add. The article appears to meet all the required criteria, and for politics buffs it's an absorbing read, too. A sources review will follow shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

All sources are high quality and reliable. I have just one small query related to formatting: the bibliography shows the Kindle editions of both the Collins and the Shafer books. For the Shafer book you show standard page references, but I'm not sure what the Collins numbers indicate. If they are page numbers they need pp.; if something else, a brief explanation would be helpful, e.g. "loc." Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, not all Kindle books have page numbers. I've added a note. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon[edit]

Interesting read, remarkably current. Some comments so far:

  • former allies in Congress -> link Congress?
Rewritten.
  • using his father's connections -> a bit of info of his dad would be good, at the very least enough to spell out his name and make that the link rather than the unspecific "his father"
My objection here is that I really don't want to say "Benjamin Harrison" right here as it is also the name of a later American president and I feel it is distracting to the reader. And WHH's dad is described almost first thing in the body of the ar
Ok, I understand.
  • until he won the office four years later. -> it's getting ahead of itself here, with the next paragraph having to back up to the campaign, so the question is: is there another way to say he never really stopped campaigning?
I had it as "never stopped campaigning after that", but Brianboulton objected to it at the peer review. I think the end of the paragraph provides the opportunity to back up a bit. After all, it's no secret Harrison won the election, we've just told the reader it and it's mentioned in the infobox. Open to suggestions.
I see things are a bit more complicated. I didn't know.
I hope I didn't come across the wrong way there. I was just trying to explain.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • no part in the selection of Tyler -> perhaps better: no part in the selection of Tyler as running mate?
Done.
  • March 1841; his death -> why no full stop?
Because that leaves the sentence about the inauguration too short, and in the case of Harrison the inauguration and the death are close in time and it makes sense to include it in the same sentence.
  • perhaps it could be helpful to say the cause of death in the lead?
We don't mention it in the body, actually. For good reason, see here.
  • at North Bend, on it was a log cabin; by 1840 -> not sure this is the best use of punctuation. I would start a new sentence with the log cabin
Split.
  • Harrison attacked his foes, and in the Battle of the Thames on October 5, 1813 in present-day Ontario. -> i think a verb is missing
Restructured.
  • remained controversial in 1840. -> I found that "in 1840" a bit odd. Until his death, maybe?
But this article is about the 1840 campaign. We already break chronology once to mention Harrison's death in a place where it was very relevant, the selection of Tyler. The cause here is too slight.
  • defeated by the Harrison forces -> forces is perhaps an unfortunate word choice, as I guess no actual fighting took place.
I've changed this, but military language has to a certain extent been adopted in political campaigns.
Yes, but because this article also describes real military action I think it is better not to use military metaphores for non-military actions by the same person.
Alright, I can think of a couple of later points when I do, I'll massage those.
  • Webster dropped out of the race in June 1839 -> maybe add, to be clear, something like "race, months before the convention, in"
The date of the convention ends the previous sentence. I think we're good here.
  • abolitionists -> worthy of link
Done.
  • Alexis de Tocqueville, -> some indication of why his words are worth listening to
Briefly recapped.
  • a Whig army of possibly 5,000 speakers -> I don't think using military metaphors is helpful in an article that also describes real military action
I've changed this one. See my comment above above military language though.
  • The future president spoke -> I assume this is Lincoln, but could refer to Harrison. Maybe better to rephrase.
I've done it, though I'm not certain there was ambiguity there.
  • at 1,275,390 for Harrison to 1,128,854 to Van Buren -> I would make that last to a for
Fine.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've done that except as commented.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry, one more: disappointment of some, like Henry Clay -> what's the rule to use full name versus only last

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's a rule, but I tend to use first names more before a one-syllable name. Just "Clay" seems too abrupt somehow. I've been using Thaddeus Stevens' first name some because I'm hoping that people will remember who he is in an article which has a fair number of names.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok, makes sense.
  • bibliography: New York referred to differently in line 1 and 2, 6

I'm afraid I don't have the sources to do a spot check. But I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review and support. I've removed the state name from NY, NY for consistency.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2017 [11].

Jessica Chastain[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back at this after I had to withdraw the previous nomination a year ago. Hoping for more constructive criticism this time around. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • I looked at this a year ago, so I'm working from a diff since Sept 19. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award nominations and nominations for two British Academy Film Awards" was changed to: "Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations". First, that's wrong: change it to "two Academy Award nominations and two British Academy Film Award (BAFTA) nominations", and use BAFTA after that. Second, if you're talking about where you visited this summer, and you say "I went to London, then Bristol, then Manchester. I visited London twice and Paris twice.", then many listeners will think you visited London three times, because you're talking as if this is an ordered list of your destinations. After you make the change I just suggested, the lead will say: "Her performance as an aspiring socialite in The Help earned her an Academy Award nomination. In 2012, she won a Golden Globe Award and received a second Oscar nomination for playing a CIA agent in the thriller Zero Dark Thirty. Chastain made her Broadway debut in a revival of The Heiress in the same year. ... Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations." Most readers, especially if they're reading quickly, will interpret that last sentence as "two additional Academy Award nominations" (unspecified), because you appear to be presenting an ordered list of her accolades. Don't repeat awards in the lead section. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She is known to prepare extensively for her roles": Some WPian copyeditors automatically change this to "She prepares extensively for her roles", but I think it's worth slowing down and trying to figure out what the source means. If they avoided saying that she actually does prepare extensively for her roles (rather than just being known for that) because they're hedging, then treat it as spurious information, and don't include it at all. If the source said "X said that she prepares extensively for her roles", and some WPian shortened that to "known for ...", then un-shorten that ... in WP articles, it's important who said what, unless you're writing some dusty history article and there really is a consensus of historians we can rely on. That's not going to be true for currently active actors. If the person (or persons) attributed by the source isn't (or aren't) worth attributing, for some reason, then again, that's your cue to leave it out entirely. Bottom line: when you see "known for" or the equivalent in any WP article, check what the source said. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vocal about social issues such as gender and racial equality, and mental health": I don't know what this is trying to say ... is she vocal about social issues in general? Is she only vocal about social issues that are similar to gender equality and the other things? Which issues are like gender equality? Better would be: "vocal about mental health issues and gender and racial equality".
  • "this aspect of her childhood": What is it that she doesn't talk about?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dank. I've made changes to the lead per your suggestions. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gertanis[edit]

  • Am I the only one to find it strange to have a photograph of Mrs. Chastain, where she looks off-page, in the infobox? I'd pick one where she looks to the left...
This is probably the highest quality picture of her on Commons, but having said that, I wouldn't mind a change if there's an equally good image of her facing left? Do you have any in mind? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She played the eponymous protagonist in Miss Julie, a film adaptation of August Strindberg's 1888 play of the same name, from director Liv Ullmann." → by director/directed by
  • I also find it a bit stultifying to only have a dismissive review from the tabloid Hollywood Reporter of that very fine picture. The movie was lauded in serious publications like Reverse Shot and Sight & Sound
I tried to reflect the mostly mixed response that the film received in general. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise support. Gertanis (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, Gertanis. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

I confess that I wasn't clear on who she was from her name, but I do remember her character in Mama and have Crimson Peak on DVD (but haven't gotten to it yet)... Then there are several others I definitely intend to see at some point... Happy to take a look.

  • "Chastain would regularly put up amateur shows with other children" Put up? I'd say put on. Is this a British-American thing?
Changed.
  • Is "adult diploma" a common term?
Added a wiki link.
  • What are "neurotic roles"?
Well, she was typecast in roles in "psychotic roles". Changed to "neurotic characters". Is that better?
  • "which marked her final guest star role in television" Is that in the source?
Nope, removed.
  • "Chastain received her first Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress," I assume you mean to say that this was her first Oscar nomination, and it was for Best Supporting Actress. This is not really what is claimed at the moment
Well, first Oscar nomination, and by virtue, first in the supporting category. Tweaked a bit.
  • "documentary based on her play Salome" her play? What do mean by this?
Based on the production of Salome that she worked on in 2006, as mentioned in the previous section. Tweaked.
  • "the film ranks as her highest-grossing release" Does the source say this?
Added another source.
  • I wonder whether "enhanced interrogation" should appear in scarequotes?
Done.
  • "Peter Travers of Rolling Stone reviewed, "Chastain is a marvel." Can you use reviewed like that?
The usage is quite common IMO.
  • "production budget of $165 million, the high-profile production" Repetition
Tweaked.
  • "She was cast as McConaughey's adult daughter, a role she shared with Mackenzie Foy and Ellen Burstyn; she was drawn to the project for the emotional heft she found in the father-daughter pair" This needs work: both shes are unclear; she didn't play McConaughey's daughter, but McConaughey's character's daughter; and I'm struggling to understand the way in which she shared the role.
Tweaked, and removed the extra info. Not really that important, I guess.
  • "to become Chastain's highest-grossing live-action film" Is this in the source?
Added another source.
  • "in which the city had the highest crime rate" More needed. Worldwide? In the US? In its own history?
In its own history. Added a wiki link to make it a bit clearer.
  • "a small heating-oil company owner" Could small be dropped? It sounds like the owner is small, not the company...
Haha, yes, Removed.
  • "the film became her second top-grossing film in two years" As above
Tweaked.

Down to the end of 2014–2015: Success in science fiction films, and I am stopping there for now. The article reads very well, and I look forward to coming back to it tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Josh Milburn. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, continuing:

  • "whose abilities were on par with the male lead" That should be "with those of the male lead's character", but I appreciate that's a little wordy, so maybe you can come up with a better alternative
Tweaked to "lead male character".
  • "George and Tammy,[125] will appear in Patrick Brice's comedy film Plus One, with Cecily Strong,[126] and will produce and star as the superhero Painkiller Jane in a film of the same name" You have three high-profile films without wikilinks, here; could you add them? Don't be scared of redlinks if the films are notable. (Also, she won't produce the superhero; she'll produce the film.)
Since these three films haven't begun filming yet (and hence don't have their own articles), I guess it'd be better to link them when filming begins.
  • "alternate sexual and gender identities overcome their insecurities" Is "alternate" really the right word? "minority", perhaps? And I'd drop their. (I think that paragraph could do with a few more wikilinks, too!)
"Alternate" is the better word IMO. Provided wiki links for sexual and gender identities.
  • "Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, InStyle magazine published in 2015 that "she’s an adult, which isn't always a given in Hollywood. Unconsciously candid with her answers, she retains a sense of perspective uncommon among her peers and has real opinions"; in addition, the magazine credited her for being the rare actress who is "all bout the craft".[43]" I think you need to check that footnote/reference; something's going very wrong. Also, I'm not really keen on the way you use published, and nor am I keen on the personification of the magazine like that.
Tweaked.
  • "From 2012 to 2014 she was featured in AskMen's listing of the most desirable women,[150] and in 2015, Glamour magazine ranked her as one of the best-dressed women.[151]" Worldwide?
From the looks of it, they feature women working/living in the US or UK, but neither source states that explicitly.

A very well-put-together article. I'm very glad to have read it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the kind words, J Milburn. Much appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: just a gentle reminder. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; please ping me again in a week if I haven't gotten back to this. Things are pretty busy at the moment. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: as directed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies. Taking another look through:

  • "an Academy Award nomination. In 2012, she won a Golden Globe Award and received a second Oscar nomination for playing a CIA agent in the thriller Zero Dark Thirty" I think the links here are a little deceptive. You say her "second" Oscar, but the word "Oscar" is yet to appear (not everyone knows that Oscar=Academy Award!), and the article linked to refers to an award for which she had not previously been nominated.
  • "She first developed an interest in acting at the age of seven, after her grandmother took her to a production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.[3] Chastain would regularly put on amateur shows with other children, and considered herself to be their artistic director.[8]" A thought: Would this not fit better at the start of the paragraph, to keep chronology?
  • "to become Chastain's most widely seen film to that point" Does your source say this?
  • "alternate sexual and gender identities overcome insecurities" I note again that I don't really like alternate, but I'll leave that up to you.
Done, but not really sure about the final comment. I am not fond of "minority", so "alternate"/"alternative" seem to be the best option as of now, unless someone can come up with a better word. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a really great article; one of the best BLPs of a "celebrity" that I've read on Wikipedia. So, with the caveat that I've not looked into sourcing/images and will be watching this review for anything I've missed, I'm happy to support the promotion of this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's such a lovely thing to hear, J Milburn. Thank you so much for such a positive review, and I hope this prompts you to check out more of Chastain's work, especially my favourites: The Debt, The Help, Zero Dark Thirty, The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby, Interstellar, and Miss Sloane. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John[edit]

It's looking pretty good. I think there are still too many quotations in it (I make it 40 at present). Can some be summarised? --John (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. I've paraphrased/trimmed some of the quotes. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: just a gentle reminder. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, and thank you for the edits. I would trim them a little further. I should have time to look properly again tomorrow. --John (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry this has taken a while. Right. Here's what we have now. I'll do it section by section.

Early life and background

  • She considers her stepfather to be "one of the greatest people" she knows, and has said that he was the first person to make her feel secure. I suggest this could just read She has said her stepfather was the first person to make her feel secure.
  • She has said, "I used to cut school to read Shakespeare, not to make out in the park". She has described how she used to miss school to read Shakespeare.
  • "artistic director" Just remove the quotes here I think.
  • Speaking about her childhood, Chastain has said:
    I [grew up] with a single mother who worked very hard to put food on our table. We did not have money. There were many nights when we had to go to sleep without eating. It was a very difficult upbringing. Things weren’t easy for me growing up.     Leave this one.
  • In her first year at the school, Chastain described herself as "a wreck of anxiety"; she constantly worried about being dropped from the program and spent most of her time reading and watching movies. In her first year at the school, Chastain was worried about being dropped from the program and spent most of her time reading and watching movies.

2004–2010: Early roles

  • She initially found the process difficult, remarking that "being a redhead and not having very conventionally modern looks, it was confusing for people and they didn't know exactly where to put me". She initially found the process difficult, which she blamed on other people finding her difficult to categorise as a redhead with an unconventional look.
  • She said, "I played a lot of girls who had something off. Maybe they'd been the victim of some horrible accident. Or they were crazy." She played unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill.
  • Her performance was not well received by the critic Ben Brantley of The New York Times, who thought that she "somehow seems to keep losing color as the evening progresses" Keep.
  • Writing for Variety, the critic Steven Oxman criticized her portrayal in the play: "Chastain is so ill-at-ease with Salome, not quite certain whether she's a capable seductress or a whiny, wealthy brat; she doesn't flesh out either choice". Keep.
  • Writing for The New Yorker, Hilton Als commended Chastain for finding "a beautiful maternal depth in Desdemona". Hilton Als in The New Yorker commended Chastain for finding "a beautiful maternal depth" in the role.
  • William Thomas of Empire termed the film a "smart, tense, well-acted thriller" and noted that Chastain "pulses with strength and vulnerability" in her part. Keep.

More to come. --John (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Done, except for that small quote mentioning Shakespeare, which I believe should stay. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Thanks for that. --John (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually come back to this one, I'm afraid. I don't think we can have the wikilink in the quote as we discussed, and I'm not sure how good a source Marie Claire is for such a quote. Could we reconsider summarising it? --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011: Breakthrough

  • She considered her part to be "the embodiment of grace and the spirit world"; in preparation, she practiced meditation, studied paintings of the Madonna, and read poems by Thomas Aquinas. Keep, I suppose.
  • Justin Chang of Variety termed the film a "hymn to the glory of creation, an exploratory, often mystifying [...] poem" and credited Chastain for playing her part with "heartrending vulnerability". Keep.
  • Chastain was drawn to her character's anti-racist stand and connected with her "zest and love for life"; ... Chastain was drawn to her character's anti-racist stand and connected with her energy and enthusiasm.

2012–2013: Rise to prominence

  • The film received generally positive reviews from critics, with Richard Corliss finding Chastain to be filled with "poised, seductive gravity". Keep.
  • Brantley was disappointed with Chastain's performance, writing that "curiously for an expert film actress, she is guilty here of oversignaling the thoughts within. And her delivery of dialogue sometimes has a flatness that I associate with cold readings of scripts." Brantley was disappointed with Chastain's performance, saying that she was "oversignaling the thoughts within" and that her delivery was sometimes flat.
  • The difficult subject matter made it unpleasant for Chastain to film, and she later considered it as "the worst experience" of her life. The difficult subject matter made it unpleasant for Chastain to film.
  • She suffered from depression while working and said, "[one day] I excused myself, walked off set and burst into tears". She suffered from depression while working and once walked off the set because she was unable to continue.
  • Peter Travers of Rolling Stone thought that Chastain played Maya "like a gathering storm in an indelible, implosive performance that cuts so deep we can feel her nerve endings." Leave. The good quotes like this will stand out more when we trim and summarise the humdrum ones.

2014–2015: Success in science fiction films

  • The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney thought that the production lacked relevance despite Chastain's "nuanced work". The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney thought that the film lacked relevance despite the subtlety of Chastain's performance.
  • Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix found the film to be "ambitious and amazing" and took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part. Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix praised the film and noted how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part.
  • ...and Mark Kermode, writing for The Guardian, found Chastain to be "terrific" in a part inspired by Lady Macbeth's character. Fine.
  • Del Toro cast her in the film to lend accessibility to a part he considered "psychopathic", but critic Peter Debruge of Variety found her "alarmingly miscast" and criticised her for failing to effectively convey her character's insecurity and ruthlessness. Fine.

2016–present -

Personal life and off-screen work

  • She considers herself to be a "shy" person, and describing her routine in 2011, she said, "I walk the dogs, I play the ukulele, I cook. I’m not a girl who goes to big parties". She considers herself to be a "shy" person, and said in 2011 that she enjoyed domestic routines like dog-walking and playing ukulele rather than partying.
  • Among other issues, she is vocal in her support for equal pay in the workplace: "I think people know, if they’re going to hire me I’m not going to just be grateful. There have been situations where I have lost movies because I’ve said, this is not a fair deal, and I’ve walked away." She strongly supports equal pay in the workplace, and has rejected offers of work that she thought were unfair.
  • Having suffered through the suicide of her sister, Chastain aims to create awareness on depression, saying, "If I can do anything to help someone move through any darkness that they’re in, I’m gonna do whatever I can to help" Having suffered through the suicide of her sister, Chastain aims to create awareness on depression and support sufferers.

Media image and acting style

  • Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, Roy Porter of InStyle magazine wrote in 2015 that "she’s an adult, which isn't always a given in Hollywood. Unconsciously candid with her answers, she retains a sense of perspective uncommon among her peers and has real opinions"; in addition, Porter credited her for being the rare actress who is "all about the craft". Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, Roy Porter of InStyle magazine wrote in 2015 that she was mature, candid, and had perspective and craft in her work.
I think this is a good quote. Paraphrasing makes us lose the essence of it. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evgenia Peretz, an editor at Vanity Fair, considers Chastain to be "the most sensitive and empathetic actor" she has interviewed. Fine.
  • She believes in extensive preparations for a role: "[I] fill myself up with as much history of the character as I can". She believes in extensive preparations for a role and studies the characters intensively. Is this even worth saying about a professional actor though?
I think she's talking about creating her own "history" for the character she plays, as opposed to simply "studying" the character intensively. This should stay IMO, unless there's a better way to paraphrase this. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guillermo del Toro (who directed her in Crimson Peak) believes that she is "interested in being chameleonic" and that she brings authenticity even to bizarre situations. Fine.
  • Sarah Karmali of Harper's Bazaar opines that "she goes for total immersion, sinking so deep into character that her face seems to change shape with each one".
  • Lea Goldman of Marie Claire compares her craft to that of actresses Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett and believes that her "looks are always an afterthought". Lea Goldman of Marie Claire compares her to Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett, and writes that she values her craft over her looks.
  • Vogue has described Chastain as being "excessively luscious [with] pale Botticelli features wrapped around a bone structure that has a touch of the masculine, right down to the cleft in her chin". Keep.

Acting credits and awards -

It should go without saying that some of these summaries could potentially be further improved; think of them as a starting point. But we need to summarise rather than quote where we can. That way the article is more readable and encyclopedic and the quotes we do use stand out more. --John (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I've paraphrased the quotes per your suggestions, with some minor tweaks. Thank you for taking the time out to do this, John. Your suggestions have vastly improved the article. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

  • Her highest-grossing releases came with the science-fiction films Interstellar (2014) and The Martian (2015), as she continued to draw praise for her performances in the dramas The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby (2013), A Most Violent Year (2014), and Miss Sloane (2016). The chronology makes this sentence confusing and arguably self-contradictory.
I don't think so. The "as she continued..." part makes it clear that both "events" took place simultaneously. I don't see why it's confusing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "as" that I struggle with. Could we replace it with "and" or even just a semi-colon? John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "and". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her sister Juliet committed suicide in 2003 following years of drug abuse. "Committed suicide" sounds wrong here; was it a crime where she did it? "Killed herself" is better but maybe "took a fatal overdose" (if that was the MO, haven't checked)? "Following years of drug abuse" is a bit tabloidy too.
I can say died by suicide though, if that's acceptable. The details of the suicide aren't known, but the "years of drug abuse", while sounding tabloidy, is true, per the provided source and some other interviews that Chastain has given. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much preferable, thank you. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With too many absences during her senior year in school, Chastain did not qualify for graduation, but eventually obtained an adult diploma. What does "eventually" mean? A date would be better I think.
Exact year is not known, so we need to go with "later"/"eventually". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I might prefer "later" as being more NPOV; "eventually" sounds like a criticism. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Directed by P. J. Hogan, the pilot did not perform well and the series was never picked up for broadcast. Per User:EEng/Principle of Some Astonishment, we could credit our readers with intelligence and just say: The pilot was directed by P. J. Hogan, but the series was never picked up for broadcast.
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later that year, she appeared as a guest performer on the medical drama series ER, playing a woman she described as "psychotic", which led to more neurotic characters for her. She played unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill. Later that year, she appeared as a guest performer on the medical drama series ER, playing a woman she described as "psychotic", which led to her getting more unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill.
Done.Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After struggling for a breakthrough in film, Chastain had six releases in 2011, getting wide recognition for her roles in several of them. Chastain had six releases in 2011, getting wide recognition for her roles in several of them.
Useful to note the "struggling for a breakthrough" bit, because she did struggle for a breakthrough since 2004. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems self-evident from reading the preceding part of the article and the section title. I'm not sure we need to state it. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better to IMO. Some might say why does the header say breakthrough when there is no mention of it in the text? I've heard such complaints in previous FACs. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following several delays, the film premiered at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival to a polarized reception from the audience, although it was praised by critics and won the Palme d'Or. "A polarized reception from the audience" sounds euphemistic; if the source talks about cheering and booing, we should say so.
Not euphemistic at all. When a film receives good and bad reviews, we say it received "mixed" reviews; if an audience reacts with cheers and boos, then it represents a "polarised reception". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. Let me think some more about this. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chastain was cast as Maya, an emotionally hardened CIA intelligence analyst who helped capture bin Laden. Captured? I'm pretty sure he was killed and, though I haven't seen the film, I'm pretty sure he is killed in the film.
Captured and killed, yes, of course. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just killed, not captured. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zero Dark Thirty received critical acclaim but was controversial for scenes of "enhanced interrogation" techniques that were shown providing useful intelligence in the search for bin Laden. I don't like the scare quotes. Our article enhanced interrogation techniques correctly says this was a euphemism for torture, and we should call it what it is. More importantly, the controversy (as I understand it) was that the film's implication that the torture yielded useful intelligence was counter-factual. We should spell this out, without entering WP:COATRACK territory.
The quotes were inserted due to a previous reviewer's comment. Since the article on torture is called "enhanced interrogation techniques" and not "torture techniques", I think we should go with that, even if it is a euphemism. (I remember this led to an edit war during the previous FAC; and this is the version that has remained stable since) Also, the fact that it may or may not have been counter-factual is up for debate; hence the controversy. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's called that, but the fact that it's a euphemism is noted in the article and it might be better to use a more neutral term. We should definitely not mention the controversy without explaining why it was controversial; it should be easy to source. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "torture" for now. Let's see if other's agree on this. As for explaining the controversy, it's way too complicated to describe in an actor's biography. The explanation is better suited in the film's article, so I've provided a wiki link to it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still thinking about this. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film received a limited theatrical release and was not widely seen. The film received a limited theatrical release.
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a highly positive review, Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part. Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part.
Why should I remove the highly positive part, when it was indeed a highly positive review for a much-admired film? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:EEng/Principle of Some Astonishment again. We're really saying the same thing twice here and there is no need. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • She collaborated with costume designer Kasia Walicka-Maimone to work on the character's wardrobe, and reached out to Armani for clothing of the period. ...and contacted Armani who provided her with clothing of the period.
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the character's misdeeds, Chastain approached the part with empathy, and in preparation read graveyard poetry and watched the films Rebecca (1940) and What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? Chastain prepared by reading graveyard poetry and watching the films Rebecca (1940) and What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
"Despite the character's misdeeds, Chastain approached the part with empathy" is important to note. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Are we implying that she previously only played morally upstanding roles? Is there a source for that? It sounds like editorialising to me. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It was a clear-cut villainous part on paper (the Hollywood idea of a vixen, if you may), and instead of approaching it as many do such roles, it's important to note that she played the part with empathy. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source has: Though Lucille is ostensibly the film's villain, Chastain approached the character from a place of profound empathy, reading graveyard poetry and watching films like "Rebecca," "Misery" and "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" to get in the proper mind-set. "I'd never played anyone who was so intensely lonely," she said. "I don't see Lucille as a monster. I have compassion for how she became what she is." I'd like to see a more encyclopedic summary of this before I could support. An encyclopedia summarises the best quality sources. I stand by my version as opposed to what we have. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: i've tweaked it; don't know what else to do. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...headed by a team consisting exclusively of female executives. headed by a team of female executives.
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • She also researched on the world... She also researched the world...
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was a pescatarian for much of her life, but following health troubles she began practicing veganism. She was a pescatarian for much of her life; following health troubles she began practicing veganism. This is not a "but" situation.
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vogue has described Chastain as being "excessively luscious [with] pale Botticelli features wrapped around a bone structure that has a touch of the masculine, right down to the cleft in her chin". We aren't supposed to wikilink inside a quotation. We could summarise this one and leave the link.
"We aren't supposed to wikilink inside a quotation". Could you please provide a link for this guideline? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LINKSTYLE, fourth bullet point. And MoS compliance is a FA requirement.
Thanks for the link. Of course it is, I just wasn't aware of the wiki link in quotes rule. I'll keep it in mind now. :) Tweaked it according to the guideline. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time magazine named Chastain one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2012. That same year, she was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was hired as the celebrity endorser for an Yves Saint Laurent fragrance called Manifesto. In 2012, Time magazine named Chastain one of the 100 most influential people in the world, she was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and she endorsed an Yves Saint Laurent fragrance called Manifesto. --John (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too long. Tweaked a bit, though. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: thoughts? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, Krimuk2.0. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the edits. Just a few more to go and we'll be there. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

@John: changed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy response. Does the Vogue source also support: "She has said that her stepfather was the first person to make her feel secure"? --John (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The NYDN took the quote from there. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source doesn't seem to back up The play tells the tragic story of its titular character's sexual exploration. In the play, Salome is a 16-year-old, but Chastain, who was close to 30 then, was cast for the part. --John (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: which part?; the source says: The original Salome was supposed to be about 16-years-old but Chastain, who was 32 at the time, does not think that her being twice Salome's age mattered in the casting. She said: "The play still shows the themes - it's a woman discovering her sexuality and trying to test its boundaries. It was a very dark, different play for Wilde to write compared to his other comedies." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it. I think "32" would be better than "close to 30" in this case. --John (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since she was born in 1977, she would have been 29 in 2006, and not 32 as the source states (which is weird, because they got her age at that time right; she was 37 in 2014). So I guess, close to 30 seems fair. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no decent source capable of doing the simple calculation correctly, I think it would be OK to do the maths ourselves and give her age correctly as 29. It doesn't say much for this source though that they are unable to get something as simple as this right. --John (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, that. It is the BBC though, and the article does have some very good material. Anyway, I've changed it to 29. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I've another nit to pick up above, though. --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I took out a "would" and moved the discussion of her birthplace to the footnote. Hope that's ok. --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's perfect. Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really did like the Shakespeare quote, but it's okay, I've taken it out. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the work and your collegiate spirit of compromise. I still wish we could take a couple more quotes out, but I reckon it's easily at FA level at this point. I therefore support. --John (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, John. This has been a lovely experience. I'm much obliged for your help and patience in shaping the article to be the best that it can be. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we are nearly there now. Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need an image review. Also, while John has looked at the reliability of sources, I think we still need a check of source formatting. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Requested. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've improved the alt text for the second image. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

For formatting as requested

  • Ref 4's publisher is linked to a television series.
Yep, Biography.com redirects to Biography, the tv series, which is its official website.
  • It's IndieWire not Indiewire.
  • Ref 15 - The NY Times needs to have a wiki-link.
  • Normally I see the publisher for a Roger Ebert review linked to Chicago Sun-Times.
  • .com is not part of Vulture's title.
  • Slate needs to be wiki-linked.
  • So does Screen Daily (FN 111).
  • And also The Washington Post (114).
  • Ref 119 and 153 - Reuters should be linked on first instance.
  • Variety needs to be de-linked (127).
  • Ref 130 ^^
Ah, so this one is The Daily Telegraph (Australia) as opposed to the The Daily Telegraph of the previous sources
  • Ref 129 and 150 - I think you know what to do here.
  • E! needs to be linked (134).
  • Ref 153b - Zap2it is now called Screener [link]. Also remove |deadlink=no since the link is now dead.
  • Ref 157 - link Women's Wear Daily. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for taking the time out to do this, FrB.TG. Really appreciate it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting now fine. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: source formatting and image reviews are now done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that there are quite a few duplinks in the article. Possibly, they are all justified, but it is worth someone checking after this has been promoted. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2017 [12].

Rochdale Cenotaph[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another war memorial! This one's in Rochdale, a large town in the north west of England that most non-Brits have probably never heard of, but it has an impressive war memorial. The article has had an A-class review at MilHist and I've tinkered with it slightly since then so I believe it meets the criteria. Nonetheless, I'd be very grateful for any feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review. All images appropriately licensed. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review and spot check. Information in the article appears to match that in publicly available sources. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Meets all the criteria. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support (my review "disclaimer" here). A very interesting article. Two very minor comments from me, neither of which affect the support, but are worth considering:

Commissioning
  • "Thiepval Memorial to the Missing (the largest British war memorial in the world..." Isn't Thiepval a Commonwealth memorial, rather than solely British?
  • Yes, good point.
  • The last two "Lutyens" in the section could be swapped for "He" and "him" respectively, if you wished.
  • They could, but for flow and clarity I think it's better as it is.

Aside from these very minor bits, an excellent article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'm glad you liked it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support But a few comments to prove that I've read it.

  • Public subscription raised £29,443 10s, covering the £12,611 cost of the memorial. Any idea what happened to the rest of the money?
    • My guess would be hospital beds or a war widows' fund but weirdly the sources don't say.
  • many other memorials in Britain and the Commonwealth. Suggest linking to Commonwealth of Nations. (I always trip over that term, because in Australia we use "Commonwealth" to refer to the Federal government.
    • Done.
  • The recumbent figure is described as a "soldier" in the lead, but a "human figure" in the article. Is he dressed in a uniform?
    • He's covered by a coat up to his neck, but he's definitely a soldier.
  • Since we are noting Samuel I 25:16, I would point out Ecclesiastes 44:14: "Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore."

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That second quotation is from Ecclesiasticus in the Apocrypha (e.g. KJV), not Ecclesiastes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.186 (talk • contribs)
It actually has a slightly more complicated provenance in this case. Rudyard Kipling recommended it to the IWGC and Lutyens adapted it for several of his British memorials and it became almost ubiquitous with war memorials (there's probably enough to support an article there; I might even write it one day if nobody beats me to it), but that's probably too much detail for this article. Whereas the other verse was chosen specifically for this memorial from suggestions by local people so it seems more worthwhile to include it. Thanks very much for the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with minor comments:
  • "Consensus was that the town..." - is there a word missing here? ("The consensus was..."?)
    • I don't think so, but perhaps I've got too used to the way the word is used internally on WP
  • "He designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall..." - he hasn't done that yet in February 1919; "He would design..."?
    • Done (with "went on to" rather than would).
  • "The plan was abandoned when Alderman William Cunliffe, a former mayor, bought the Manor House or the Orchard, a dilapidated 18th-century house and donated the site for the war memorial." - felt like it needed a comma after house, as the sentence becomes a bit hard to follow otherwise.
    • This has been bugging me for while, so I rewrote the sentence.
  • "the building was used as a recruiting station during the war." - "had been"? (imperfect tense feels odd here)
    • I'm not so sure about this, but done.
  • "light grey Cornish granite " - any chance of a link? (at least to granite)
    • We don't have an article on Cornish granite (I always link Portland stone, which Lutyens used a lot) but I can link granite.
  • "another Lutyens design" - should that be "Lutyens'"? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

  • 1. You've got: "He went on to design the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations and went on to design the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing on the Somme in France and many other memorials in Britain and the Commonwealth." Notice anything wrong?
    • That's me rewriting the first half of the sentence without paying enough attention to the first. Fixed.
  • 2. You've got: "The flags flank a second, smaller tier with a semi-column at either end and culminates in a smaller plinth supporting a catafalque on which is a sculpture of a recumbent soldier draped with his coat" So, the flags .... culminates. Subject-verb agreement.
  • 3. Do the flags really "culminate" in a smaller plinth (supporting a catafalque on which ...)? From the photo it looks as though the pylon "culminates" thus. The flags appear not to reach the same level as the catafalque. Surely this upper plinth is a design feature of the pylon rather than the flags.
  • 4. RE: "on which is a sculpture of a recumbent soldier". Better might be: atop which, laid upon which, supporting a sculpture of, etc.
    • I've rewritten the entire sentence to fix all three of these (it's the tiers that culminate, not the flags).
  • 5. RE: "Painted stone flags appear in several of Lutyens' designs. They were rejected for Whitehall's Cenotaph in favour of fabric flags, but appear on several other memorials". Notice anything?

Support - I'm not seeing any real issues here, and enjoyed reading. A few small comments

  • Some of technicalities of listed buildings seems unnessesary, eg Grade II is applied to structures of "special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them", about 92 per cent of listed buildings.
  • Actually, I included these as a result of suggestions in reviews for previous articles, and I think it's worth noting that grade I listed building status isn't trivial (of England's thousands of war memorials, only a couple of dozen have that status).
  • Public subscription raised £29,443 10s will be incomprehensible to non-British Isles under 40s; link old money pounds and shillings signs
  • Done.
  • Can you check that Tomb effigy = recumbent effigy
  • Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean but the sources all use "recumbent".
  • Does the the leading English architect of his generation need to be quotes.
  • I suppose the punctuation isn't absolutely essential, but that is a direct quote.
  • Grand, but quotes should be avoided as much as possible; the claim is strong enough and could be couched as "widely regarded as", or something. Not something I'd loose sleep over however. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • country houses for wealthy patrons, as English country house is linked, is "wealthy patrons" necessary.
  • I quite like it because it gives context but if you feel strongly it can go.
  • Naa...your the boss for these preferences, and I did say these were minor quibbles only. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last thing: By raising the figure above the ground on the pylon, Lutyens gives him anonymity - how so? As worded, I would have thought the opposite. Above the ground rather than in the grave? Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harry, I don't think this last point was acknowledged or actioned, but OTOH I don't think we need hold up promotion while you consider... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KJP1[edit]

Support - Very nice article on one of the most impressive of the memorials. Just a few thoughts/comments:

  • Listing date in Infobox - I've puzzled over this one before. Does one put in the date of first listing, as here, or the date when the listing was most recently modified, in this case to Grade I on 28 October 2015? I really don't know.
  • I've always gone with the date of first listing. There's normally no reliable way to tell the date of the upgrading, only the date of the last (non-minor) amendment.
  • "He designs the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London" - I know you've been round this, but the present tense reads oddly. "He later designed"? You could replace the second "later" in the sentence with "subsequently".
  • If I have to rewrite that sentence one more time I might cry. I don't think the average reader would be as worried about it as we've been. Ceoil changed it from "went on to design" to "designs" and I've just changed it back (sorry Ceoil!). I'm generally wary of "subsequently" because it's widely misused, but this seems like a legitimate use for it.
  • "the river flowed openly through the town centre but has since been culverted." - And subsequently unculverted [13]. Might be worth a brief mention? Although a little way from the war memorial, it has dramatically improved the town hall setting.
  • I didn't know about that, but I only mentioned the culverting because Lutyens' first proposal was a bridge over the river.
  • "The memorial was constructed by Hobson Limited of Nottingham" - a cite for Hobsons [14]?
  • It's already cited, and mentioned in multiple sources already being used. Much as I love the IWM's project, their entries don't go into any detail that isn't included in the books or the NHLE entry.
  • "The design for the column is based.." - I got a bit confused, thinking that the "column" was a separate feature. "The design for the pylon or cenotaph"? You use both earlier.
  • Pylon works. Done.
  • "allowing onlookers to impart their own emotions onto the memorial" - is this a direct quote from King? I think I know what's meant - the anonymity of the figure allows onlookers to see him as their father/brother etc. Could it be more clearly expressed?
  • It's not a direct quote. What King is suggesting and what Lutyens was aiming for (which I couldn't source until I was looking for something else in King) is that the relative plainness of the memorial and the anonymity of the figure serve as a blank canvas, both for those who lost someone in the war and for everyone who wants to reflect on the war (100 years on, there aren't many people left who lost a close relative in the First World War). If you have a suggestion for improvement, I'm happy to look at it.
  • "Derby was....." - Rather a lot of things; DG, SoS War and Ambassador. Do we need a cite or two for this? You could take them from Lord Derby: King of Lancashire, Randolph Churchill, Heinemann, 1959, oclc=477556332, [15], if you agree. Page 187 gives you DG; page 241 gives you SoS War and page 349 gives you the Paris Embassy.
  • The details we need for this article are all in Skelton (and some of the other existing sources) so I don't think another one is really needed.
  • Wrong Boorman but right Borg. Added.
  • Cite 14 - shouldn't this be Hartwell, Hyde and Pevsner, rather than just Pevsner? And in my 2004 edition , page 56 forms part of the Introduction. The entry for the War Memorial is on page 597. Typo?
  • It's only there to identify the relevant book in the bibliography, and for the one surname (Pevsner being the best known) is sufficient. Fixed the page number though.
  • "The surrounding memorial gardens" - while we're on Pevsner, is it worth mentioning that the gardens, or part of them, form Rochdale's Second World War memorial? (Hartwell|Hyde|Pevsner|p=597)
  • Done.

Hope these are helpful. Nothing to stand in the way of Support. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you would say what you said re. the listing date. I've always gone for the first and the prospect of going and changing them was very unappealing! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2017 [16].

Emily Davison[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Davison was an interesting woman. Highly intelligent (Oxford educated in the time before women were awarded degrees), she joined the militant suffragette movement in 1906 and became one of the more active and high profile of its members. Always with an eye for high-profile activities to promote the cause, three of her arrests followed her hiding in Parliament over night.she is, of course, best known nowadays for her death following being struck by a horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby. Elizabeth Crawford, a historian who has written extensively on Davison, has been kind enough to read the article and to provide comments, directions and corrections where necessary; Dr June Purvis, another notable contributor to the literature about Davison, has also agred to read through the article, and I am awaiting any comments she comes up with. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick update: June Purvis has got back to me with warm comments on the article. There is one addition to make regarding the suicide, which I will do shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add and fill infobox. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that would be advantageous. There is no requirement to have one, and this article has been without one for some time, without any loss of understanding of the subject. Are there any thoughts you have on the body of the article? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

Per the peer review --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts there; they were much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support, per my comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your earlier assistance. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

I commend you for taking on such an important topic.

  • I find the ordering of the lead a bit odd; jumping from talking about her funeral to her early life is a bit odd. I understand your desire to have her death in the first paragraph; I think I'd be inclined to do it a little more like this, but it's up to you.
  • Similar comment: I personally like infoboxes, but understand the concerns about them, and have no great objection to this article not including one.
  • "Emily was the third child born to the couple; she had an elder brother, and a younger sister who died of diphtheria in 1880 at the age of six." An elder brother, a younger sister, and another elder sibling? Slightly confusing?
  • "After her release she wrote to the Votes for Women newspaper "Through my humble work in this noblest of all causes I have come into a fullness of job and an interest in living which I never before experienced."" I can't help but feel that there are a couple of words missing, here. How about "After her release she wrote to the Votes for Women newspaper, saying that "Through my humble work in this noblest of all causes I have come into a fullness of job and an interest in living which I never before experienced.""
  • "her suffragette colleague, Constance Lytton threw hers first," This doesn't read as well as it could. How about "a suffragette colleague—Constance Lytton—threw hers first,". Relatedly, it might be nice to note whether Lytton was jailed for her actions.
  • Perhaps you could introduce Votes for Women as the WSPU's newspaper on its first mention?
  • "for The Suffragette—the official newspaper of the WSPU—" So what was the relation between The Suffragette and Votes for Women?
  • "35 miles (56 km) an hour" Would per hour not be more accurate?
  • "as at 2017" of?
    • I think "as at" is the correct British version of the American "as of"; perhaps I could ask Tim riley to comment on this point to clarify? -SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the moment, yes, but the American usage will displace the English one before long, I fear (cf "on So-and-So Street" rapidly supplanting the long-established "in So-and-So Street"). Tim riley talk 21:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Collette also sees a more current trend in historians, "to accept what" Is that comma necessary?
  • Could something about her Christianity be added to the lead? It was a surprise to see it first mentioned so far down the article. (Same for socialism, actually.)
  • I wonder if it might be worth mentioning some key biographies/other texts foscussed on Davison in the legacy section? And who was the playwright for Emily?
  • The playwright's name added; let me think on the first point. I've added it for some articles I've written, and not for others, and I'm always in two minds about them. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I quite understand the choice to place the paragraph on socialism in the "Legacy" section rather than the "Approach and analysis" section.

My first impression is that this is an excellent article, and one that will prove a highly valuable resource for readers. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Josh. Unless mentioned above, your comments have all been acted upon in these edits. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Highly commendable. I'm watching the page and may chip in with further thoughts, but I am happy to offer my support in the mean time. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Josh - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edwininlondon[edit]

I often pass the house where she recovered from her hunger strikes. It feels wrong for me not to review this...

  • I don't see a link to Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom. Would the link Women's suffrage in the first sentence be a good one to replace with the more specific UK article?
  • After a church service in Bloomsbury, her coffin was taken by train to the family plot in Morpeth, Northumberland. -> I'm not convinced this is important enough to be included in the lead
  • The lead doesn't say anything about her controversial position in the WSPU
  • Maybe one to think about: add to the lead when the UK women were allowed to vote
    • Let me think about this one. The final decision to grant suffrage was less to do with ED and more to so with Emmeline Pankhurst's strategy during the war, and the war itself. SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • she went to a day school then -> I would add a comma: she went to a day school, then
  • When she was 13 she attended Kensington High School and won a bursary -> was she 13 when she won a bursary?
  • Activism: is there no source that says anything relevant in the lead up to joining the movement? Or why the WSPU and not the non-militant
    • No, there is no information on why she joined, or why she joined the WSPU, rather than the NUWSS. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Activism: Just one sentence on the start of the suffrage movement in the UK would be good for context. When did the NUWSS start?
    • I'm not sure we need to go back as far as that. We've got the start date of the WSPU, which is the key one, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • which prompted Sylvia Pankhurst -> bit of context here would be good, that she is a founding member of WSPU
    • She wasn't the founder - Emmeline was, but I've added some context for SP. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • publicising her message to the wider public -> is there anything on how that public responded to this?
    • Not to Davison. There is to themiltant campaign in general. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davison was not one of the 122 people arrested -> was she part of the 300 women with the petition?
  • Jones suffered a -> I wonder if it flows better if details of what happened to Emily come first. Move the bit about Jones to maybe after the queen's comment?
  • the Derby or walking -> and instead of or?
  • A flag was gathered ...measures 82 by 12 inches (210 x 30 cm) -> I don't think this is in the right spot. It breaks the flow of what happened. Not sure if it even warrants proper mention. Maybe better off as footnote?
    • With apologies for butting in on someone else's review, maybe the information about the flag could be moved to the legacy section? The fact that it hangs in the Houses of Parliament, whatever its provenance, is important. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries about butting in. Yes, I agree that is important. Not sure about all the auction stuff though.Edwininlondon (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's best left where it is. The 'flag on horse' theory is widely known, and we deal with it all in one paragraph here; ditto the choice of the king's horse, which we do in the next paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Interesting to read you have enlisted experts to help. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Edwininlondon. Unless I've commented otherwise, I've dealt with your points in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Edwininlondon. No rush, just making sure this didn't fall off your radar. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim Riley[edit]

The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view. It gives the reader a balanced, comprehensive study of the subject. The sourcing is impressive and the text is highly readable. I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 21:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim - your earlier comments were most useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from caeciliusinhorto[edit]

  • "studied at Royal Holloway College, London, St Hugh's College, Oxford, and the University of London": which college at the University of London? By the time she graduated, Royal Holloway would have become part of the university. Was it there?
    • Yes, it was. It is probably slightly misleading to have it and Holloway there, so I've removed it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "£20 in 1892 equates to approximately £1,961 in 2017 pounds": approximately, to four significant figures? I am always dubious that to the nearest pound inflation calculations are actually as meaningful as the level of precision implies at >100 year remove.
  • Was there any particular reason that Davison was targetting Walter Runciman in 1909? It is striking that she tried to throw stones at him twice in two weeks...
  • "Davison spent a night in the Palace of Westminster in June 1911.[22]" it is not clear to me what the relevance of this footnote is...
    • Tweaked slightly. We make a big deal of the other two stays in Parliament, and state that she stayed there three times, so we have to refer to it, even though the sources don't really give many details. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently the article implies that the only difference in eligibility to vote after the Representation of the People Act (1918) was the age difference (21 for men vs. 30 for women). Might be worth making it clear that the property qualification for male voting was abolished in 1918.

These are all really nitpicky little details, though, and I'm happy to support promotion as the article is now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Caeciliusinhorto. Very useful comments, and I've acted on them all, hopefully to your satisfaction. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to this review close to a month later, I just wanted to explicitly note for the closing co-ord that I agree with SchroCat's decision not to change the lead as Vanamonde suggests. I don't find the way it is currently presented jarring at all, and not mentioning the manner of Davison's death in the first paragraph of the lead – the thing she is best known for today to the general public – would, in my opinion, be jarring and confusing to readers. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Sarastro1[edit]

Support: Recused as coordinator for this one (I was just looking through, and this caught my eye!). An excellent, comprehensive article which I think gives the context particularly well. Just a few very minor points which do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suicide attempt: We give her description of what happened, but this makes it a little vague. "as soon as I got out I climbed on to the railing and threw myself out to the wire-netting" does not make it clear where she was or what the wire netting was. I'm assuming inside the prison, but I think we can make it clearer as not everyone will know what a British prison would have looked like before WW1.
    • Yep, good point. I've added a short explanation before the quote, which should cover it. Let me know if you think it needs more. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Davison towards the end of her life, showing the effects of hunger strikes and force feeding": This is a caption for the photograph which says it shows her near the end of her life. But I think we need a source to give the interpretation that she is showing the effects of hunger strikes and force feeding.
  • We give an overview of modern opinion of her, mentioning the plaques, etc, but I wonder is there anything more to be said about how views of her have changed. Obviously, she was a pariah when she died for daring to interrupt a horse race but she is now officially "approved". How and when did this opinion of her change? And has anything been said recently about her place in the grand scheme of things? We talk about how the tide turned for the suffragettes but we avoid saying how much of how little Davison and her death played a part in this. (I know some of these are unanswerable and that the reply might simply be "no idea", but I just felt the questions should be asked!)
    • I'm afraid I'm going with the 'no idea' answer! It's not a point the modern sources pick up on: it's just taken that it is. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Activism section, we have four consecutive paragraphs that begin with a date. Perhaps a little variety could be added here?
  • The images do not have alt text. I am aware it is not a requirement, but I always feel that FAs should demonstrate best practice.
    • Argh - my constant blind spot (no pun intended). I'll sort those now. -SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now done - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, this is one of the first articles I've seen for a while where there are no duplinks! Which can only be a good thing. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks Sarastro1 - you're thoughts are much appreciated. All done 9except fo thealt text, which I'll do now) - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: I checked to see what academic literature was available on Davison, just to see what was out there, only to discover that everything I found was in here already! All sources high quality, no question, so we are clear on 1b) and 1c). I have not performed any spot checks. Just two minor formatting points. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 19 (Pankhurst 2013, 6363) does not make it clear what the number refers to. Is it a page or a kindle location?
  • In the source list, the Gullickson article does not give page numbers while all other journal articles do. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the SR too: both these now addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I very much welcome this article on a notable pioneer in the women's suffrage movement, and hope to see it as TFA on a suitable date. My concerns were raised and answered during the peer review, and the article has benefitted since then from other comments made in this review. So I have no hesitation in adding my support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Brian - I found your earlier comments extremly useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Very impressive work here, just a few minor comments. Feel free to revert any tweaks I make. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find the phrase "where she was more settled" a bit vague. If no detail is available, you might omit it altogether.
    • I think it's probably OK - she was more settled there than her previous place, which is fine. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the descriptor "militant", particularly in the first paragraph of "activism"; I agree that the word is necessary, but I'm not certain it needs to be used three times in the paragraph. It would also be helpful, given the current tendency to throw the term around, to explain in a sentence what actions made those women militant, rather than just saying that they were.
  • Is obstruction, in the legal sense, something that could be linked?
  • "Actions of throwing stones": action?
  • "before the police managed to stop her." unclear who the "her" is.
  • "She used her court appearances" Again, "she" is ambiguous, as Lytton was the last one mentioned.
  • "publicising her message to the wider public." Slightly redundant?
  • I wonder if the sentence beginning "A question was asked" might flow better as "Davison's treatment prompted such and such to ask a question.."
  • "have brought the vote to a million women" I think slightly more detail may be helpful here; as I read it I wonder "what about the other women?"
    • I think we would be in danger of swamping too much superfluous detail into what is supposed to be a biography of Davison: the link to the Conciliation Bill is there if people want to find out more. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the link it does not seem that way: all you need to say is "property owning women" or something like that.
      • OK, I've added, but it's slightly misleading in such a bald way, as there are other criteria involved too. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the WSPU put in a temporary truce on activity" better as "the WPSU temporary halted its activity"?
    • Let me mull on this one. "Truce" is what the WSPU called it, and what the reliable sources tend to call it too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. It's a very odd phrase, but not, as far as I can tell, incorrect.
  • "Davison was not one of the 122 people arrested, but was incensed by the treatment of the delegation and broke several windows in the Crown Office in parliament. She was arrested and sentenced to a month in prison..." So she was arrested: was it later? I'm guessing some chronological information is missing here.
  • "12 in The Manchester Guardian between 1909 and 1911." But this is before the campaign you mention...
  • "the home straight" could this be linked? Most readers are unlikely to be acquainted with horse racing.
  • Collete needs to be named in full at the first usage.
    • We sort of do - it's in a footnote that would have been dropped down on from one of the earlier sections, but I've repeated the information in the main body. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no knowledge of the source material; does any of it discuss her impact on the movement as a whole, an aspect not really mentioned in the article?
    • Nothing prior to her death; after her death we get the 'suffragette martyr' angle (which we cover), but the First World War and WSPU truce bring an end to any longer impact she may have had. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the (possibly uninformed) impression that her profile rose because of the manner of her death; is this true? Is it worth mentioning?
    • Profile with who? She was well-known within suffragette circles, and her profile rose hugely to the general public on the point of her death because the news of her death was in the worldwide press, but we sort of cover this anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had some concerns about lack of coverage in some other places, but I see you have addressed those above.
  • I'm a trifle dissatisfied with the lead. I think it ought to mention her writings, for one thing; for another, it seems to jump back and forth a bit. A format I've seen used with success elsewhere is to have a brief first paragraph merely to establish who the subject was and what their claim to notability is, followed by one or two paragraphs for biographical details, and a final paragraph for legacy/influence/assessment. Your final paragraph seems fine, but for the rest we're going "Intro-activism-early life-activism" which is a bit odd. Of course, this is all optional, as there aren't guidelines for the lead beyond the basics.
    • We go 1: details and notability; 2 & 3: reflecting the same run as the article - Biography, Approach and analysis and Legacy. It's a format I've used several times before with biographies, and the lead repeating the same order as the article seems a sensible one

Many thanks for your comments. If I have not commented on a specific point above it's because I have dealt with it in one of these edits. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck most of my comments. Let me think a little further on the lead: I still think stone-throwing coming before college and joining the WPSU is strange. There's a couple of other points. Vanamonde (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's to do with her notability. The first paragraph sums up everything someone who wants to learn about her in 30 seconds: her militant tactics are a key attribute to her notability; her attendance at university is not. As you say, there are no hard and fast rules on the the order of the lead, and the approach I've used is a recognised one. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have thought further about the lead, and I am still rather unhappy about it. I accept your point that the fact that Davison was a militant activist is important to her notability, and I am okay with the second sentence being given over to that. But, in that scheme of things I would strongly suggest crafting a new second sentence referring to her militant activism, and breaking the rest of the paragraph off to be inserted with her activities with the WPSU. I appreciate that you have somewhat more experience with FAs than I do, but even as somebody who has read a lot of political biography, I find the lead hard to follow. Not only is her activism broken up; information about her death is in three different places; information about her ideology is in two different places. This is roughly how I would organize it. Vanamonde (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will have a closer look later, but my first impression is deeply unfavourable. Davison is notable because of the manner of her death - something the sources all agree upon. If we remove that from the opening paragraph then we do the readers a great disservice. I find the opening parargraph of your auggested version rather anaemic in not actually telling us why she was important. I'll have a closer look at the remainder of the suggestion a bit later, but RL intervenes this afternoon. – SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take your time. FWIW, I'm happy for you to mess with that second sentence: it's more the rest of the shuffling that I wanted. Additionally, I do think that if her death is what she is primarily known for, and that is why you feature it prominently in the lead, then you should say so; "she came to national attention for the manner of her death after stepping out in front..." or something to that effect. Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't say that because it's not true. She is notable to history because of the manner of her death. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then say that. The typical "why are they notable" sentence is self-evident; this one is not. Vanamonde (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. There is no need to spoon feed readers as if they are children. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going to support this, because I am unhappy with the lead. It is scattered and incoherent; it's structure is such that details of Davison's militant activities come early in the lead to no purpose. Intentionally or otherwise, in my view this perpetuates a problem in coverage of civil rights movements; that of emphasizing a critique of method at the expense of purpose. I am not going to oppose this either, because most of my points have been addressed, and I'm not interested in haggling over details when the nominator has shown a marked disinclination toward taking serious feedback. The coordinators can make of my review what they will. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the nominator has shown a marked disinclination toward taking serious feedback". I do not accept that at all. I have accepted the majority of points in your review, and disagree only over your personal view of the lead - something about which there are no hard and fast guidelines, making it your opinion against mine only. I have said I will look over the remainder of your suggestions to the lead, and I will do so later, but I will not treat our readers as half wits or children. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was grumpier than I needed to be, and I apologize: It's been a long day. Let me amend my statement, which I have stricken above. I feel that you have an all-or nothing approach to comments; if you agree, you implement it, if you disagree, you do not. I don't think you have shown a willingness to meet me halfway on the issues on which we disagree. The rest of my comment above still applies. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an opinion I do not share, and which is not borne out by the number of your comments I have accepted, despite reservations. As it stands there are only two of your comments I have not followed through on, and I have given reasons. FAC nominators do not have to follow every suggestion if they think it does not improve the article.
Thank you for your review; it has been most useful, and I am sorry that a difference of opinion has led to the situation we find ourselves in. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Sagaciousphil[edit]

I promised almost six months ago that I would never come near TFA/FAC again but feel sufficiently strongly about this FAC to make this one off exception. I have watched this interesting article develop from the early stages of the expansion, making some very minor edits before the peer review etc. The polishing and tweaking it's been given since then and during this FAC leave me in no doubt it meets the FA criteria. I disagree with Vanamonde's suggestion above concerning shuffling the lead around as I feel it presently conveys the essence and flavour of Davison, something that gets lost in the alternate wording. My only extremely minor quibble with the lead would be the second and third paragraphs both starting with the word 'Davison' but that is just one of my own pet peeves/foibles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC) I'll completely back away from TFA/FAC again now.[reply]

Support from Ritchie333[edit]

I read this over the weekend, and found it to be a most enthralling article. I think there were one or two things I would have written differently, but I'm blowed if I can find them, so it's a support from me. I disagree with the comments about the lead, immediately after reading it I thought "this is an interesting and historical person; I want to read more" - exactly what a lead should do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

Hi SchroCat, I'm currently reading this through for the second time. It's a great article and a very smooth read. Minor question: "attempted commit suicide". Is that quoted correctly, or is it missing a "to"? SarahSV (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose. This is an excellent read: well structured and comprehensive. Thank you for the work you put into it. SarahSV (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Sarah. Mea culpa on the quote - the "to" has now been added. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2017 [17].

Rotating locomotion in living systems[edit]

Nominator(s): —swpbT 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FA nomination, and what I think is a rather interesting topic. The article has had a peer review by User:Dunkleosteus77 (here), and a thorough mentor review by User:Brianboulton (here). I will do my best to respond to review comments as quickly as possible. Thank you to all reviewers. —swpbT 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor's comment: I was not involved in the general preparation of the article, which was already a GA when I offered to act. My role has been to help it bridge that important gap between GA and FA. The article is original and interesting, and I'm satisfied that it holds up well when tested against the FA criteria. I look forward to reading reviewers' comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency review from Gertanis[edit]

  • Be consistent in whether you write "The University of Chicago Press" or "University of Chicago Press"
  • Same goes for shortened page ranges (we have both '182–184' and '167–91')
  • Ditto inclusion of publisher locations

That's the only inconsistencies I spotted. Well done! Gertanis (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gotten those fixed up. Thanks! —swpbT 20:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Wheeled_animal_-_East_Mexico_cultures_-_Ethnological_Museum,_Berlin_-_DSC00852.JPG: the description states that the artwork is PD because artist died over 70 years ago - to my knowledge Mexico has never used that rule. Should include an explicit tag.
  • File:Fitness-landscape-cartoon.png: what is the source of the data used in this image?
  • File:Buer.gif needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the tagging on the Mexican toy and Buer images. The fitness landscape image is notional – the curve is an arbitrary example with peaks and valleys to illustrate the concept of optimization via an evolutionary process; there is no data corresponding to the depicted function. —swpbT 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

This is professionally written, clear, and very interesting. I'm what you might call a lay reader with no special knowledge of biology, thus I can't say much about the more technical aspects of the article. I have a very small number of suggestions.
Rolling
  • ¶2 "Several species of elongate organisms will form their bodies into a loop in order to roll..." – Delete "will" since present tense works just fine here.
Changed as suggested. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 "Tumbleweeds are the above-ground portions of certain plants, which separate from their root structure and roll in the wind to distribute their seeds." – Here I would move the modifying phrase to put it snug against the thing modified: "Tumbleweeds, which separate from their root structure and roll in the wind to distribute their seeds, are the above-ground portions of certain plants."
I've modified this sentence differently than suggested, because, WADR, I think the suggested change would be detrimental. The fact of rolling is the thrust of the sentence, and it carries the most impact at the end of the sentence. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like your modification. Finetooth (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling resistance
  • I think the illustration of rolling resistance could be made more clear. In the absence of labels, I assume "W" is weight, and "r" is radius. "N" is the reaction force, but perhaps F should be named or explained. The hash marks indicate a counterclockwise rotation for the wheel; the F arrow points left, and the hash marks indicate resistance to movement to the left. Would it be helpful to make the abbreviations and direction of rotation and linear movement more explicit in the caption?
I've added explicit explanation of the symbols used to the caption. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obstacle navigation
  • The MOS advises against repetition in the article heads and subheads. For that reason, I'd trim the subheads in this section to "Going around" and "Going over."
Changed as suggested. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling and wheeled creatures in fiction and legend
  • To avoid repetition, I'd tighten the head to "In fiction and legend" and let the subheads expand on the basic idea.
Changed as suggested. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Some of the ISBNs (citations 22, 37, 40, 45, 51, 53, and perhaps others) are missing their hyphens. A converter lives here.
I've been told that ISBN-13 is preferable in all cases to ISBN-10, and that converter appears to only produce ISBN-10s. Do you (or anyone reading this) know of a converter that produces 13s, or are hyphenated 10s preferable to (partially) un-hyphenated 13s? —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. A sly trick, not explained at the converter site, is to convert the unhyphenated 13 to a 10 and then plug the 10 in and convert it to a 13 with hyphens. Finetooth (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a sly trick! Done. —swpbT 17:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exceedingly nitpicky, but in most cases you use sentence case for article and book titles, but in some cases you use title case. You can use either, but consistency is good.
Changed as suggested. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all. Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Finetooth: Thanks for your review! I apologize for the delay in my reply; hence the ping. I've responded to each point above. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —swpbT 12:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Interesting choice of topic....comments to follow..

  • I can't help feeling the Rolling section is on the brief side - and the isolated sentences make it choppy to read. If this section can be enlarged it'd be helpful. Particularly as it is highly pertinent to the subject matter.
  • I generally find little value in See also sections - for the most part, items are important enough to be discussed in the article body or too tangential to warrant a mention.

More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Casliber: Thanks for your comments so far. In the Rolling section, I've expanded each of the short paragraphs. Re the "See also" section, are there particular entries you take issue with? I've added descriptions to clarify the relevance of entries, and I've tried to only include entries that fall into the sweet spot of being clearly related to the article topic, but not directly enough to be discussed in the body. There are two exceptions, Biologically inspired engineering and Terrestrial locomotion, that are linked in the body, but that I think are important enough to bear repeating at the end. I'm certainly open to revisiting any aspect of the section, particularly if there's concurrence from other reviewers. —swpbT 15:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More specifically - I'd add to Rolling section - are all rolling animals doing so for defence/escape? Either adding that or noting exceptions would be good.
  • Adding some examples of species that make tumbleweeds

As noted in the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#.22See_also.22_section - "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." - i.e. it is sufficient if material is already covered in the article body, so Biologically inspired engineering and Terrestrial locomotion do not require links at the end

  • I find the link between this and astrobiology to be too tenuous to warrant a link, espeicially as the latter topic is all hypothetical anyway (and hence maybe covered in the fiction stuff anyway)
Ok. I've added species examples to the tumbleweeds paragraph, and I've removed the "see also" entries you mentioned. As for why animals roll, I think it's generally assumed that defense/escape is the main reason, but I don't think the necessary studies exist to say definitively that this is always the reason, or to delineate cases that may be exceptions. I will see what I can find in RS's that speaks to this, but it might not be much.
Why I am pushing for embellishing on the section is the article has a lot of why but not as much what as I'd like for balance, if you know what I mean, and hence reads a little more like an essay. But overall the writing is fine and is otherwise comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked the paragraph a bit to speak more to why animals roll themselves up, and in some cases away. —swpbT 15:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do question your combining of rotifers and keratinocytes into a single paragraph, and moving them above tumbleweeds. These are two pretty distinct examples – one an organism that doesn't really roll, but appears to and has a name suggesting it does, and the other not an organism at all, but a cell type within a multicellular organism, that does roll. I would like to separate these again, and move them lower in the section, since, like dung beetles, they are not true examples of rolling organisms, but are related enough to bear mentioning. —swpbT 13:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah happy for the revert on that, was just trying to make para less choppy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think it is comprehensive and straddles the line between exactness of meaning and accessibility well. Nice read (and support). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —swpbT 12:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Seems very readable, have only time for a short comment now, more to follow:

  • "Other species adopt more spherical postures, primarily to protect their bodies from predators; this behavior has been seen in pangolins and wheel spiders (which have been observed to purposely roll away from predators),[5][7] as well as hedgehogs, armadillos, Armadillo girdled lizards, isopods, and fossilized trilobites." I'm not fully comfortable about the present tense describing the trilobites. I'm not sure their behavior has been seen by humans ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good insight. I've revised "behavior" to "posture", as that can be directly observed in fossils by humans. Looking forward to your next comments; thanks for taking the time to review. —swpbT 13:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Estimates of the speed of rotation of the style in vivo vary significantly" the style?
"Style" is the technical name for this structure, from the same root as "stylus". —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution," Maybe development for evolution to avoid the repeat?
I've reworded the sentence a different way; "development" is used elsewhere in the article in the sense of embryological development, and I don't want to introduce confusion with that meaning. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (In species of the genus Vibrio, ..." I might delete the parentheses. Some minor modifications to text might be needed.
I don't know, I think the parentheses are a useful way of showing that this sentence only has tangential relevance – it expands on the content of the previous sentence in a way that may interest some readers, but is not integral to the main thrust of the paragraph. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wheels are not especially efficient on soft terrain such as soils," I might say soil, not soils.
Changed as suggested. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The primary means of obstacle navigation are to go around obstacles and to go over them; each has its attendant challenges." While I don't think what you're saying here is particularly controversial, I would cite it.
I've cited the "each has its attendant challenges" bit with the major sources used further down in the section. The first part of the sentence I argue falls under WP:BLUE. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Without articulation, this can be an impossible position from which to recover." ditto.
I've spent some time trying to find a way to reasonably source this, but I tend to think it also falls under WP:BLUE – this is just saying that there can be a vehicle which, when flipped over, can't right itself by just spinning its wheels, which describes almost all wheeled vehicles in existence. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Very interesting and well written. It certainly is a novelty.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the complements! I've replied point-by-point above; I'm happy to revisit any concern until you're satisfied. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. I don't have any great concern over that material, it is simple stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check by Sarastro1[edit]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. As this would be the nominator's first FA, we would require the usual spot-checks of sourcing for accurate use and close-paraphrasing; however, if Brian looked at this during the preparation, we would be OK on that count I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on sourcing are contained within the peer review, here. I didn't do any spot-checks. So a sources review with spot-checks is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: All sources high quality, reliable and appropriately formatted. Earwig looks fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check: As this would be the nominator's first FA, a spot-check is needed. No problems with copyvio or close paraphrasing. I chose five references and checked the text for which they were cited was supported by the reference. One issue, but the rest fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Although stiff wheels are more energy efficient than other means of locomotion when traveling over hard, level terrain (such as paved roads), wheels are not especially efficient on soft terrain such as soil, because they are vulnerable to rolling resistance. In rolling resistance, a vehicle loses energy to the deformation of its wheels and the surface on which they are rolling. Smaller wheels are especially susceptible to the effect": Checks out OK.
  • "Limbs used by animals for locomotion over terrain are frequently also used for other purposes, such as grasping, manipulating, climbing, branch-swinging, swimming, digging, jumping, throwing, kicking, and grooming. With a lack of articulation, wheels would not be as useful as limbs in these roles": Checks out OK.
  • "Because of this limitation, wheels intended for rough terrain require a larger diameter": Checks out OK.
  • "The processes of evolution, as they are presently understood, can help explain why wheeled locomotion has not evolved in multicellular organisms: simply put, a complex structure or system will not evolve if its incomplete form provides no benefit to the organism": Checks out OK.
  • "The Dutch graphic artist M. C. Escher illustrated a rolling creature of his own invention in a 1951 lithograph”: Checks out ok. However, as a matter of interest, how was this list of artists chosen? Is it in a source, or was it just chosen?
  • One problem: "In typical mechanical systems, some type of bearing and/or lubricant must be used to reduce friction at the interface between two components. Reducing friction is vital for minimizing wear on components and preventing overheating. As the relative speed of the components rises, and as the contact force between them increases, the importance of friction mitigation increases. In biological joints such as the human knee, friction is reduced by means of cartilage with a very low friction coefficient, as well as lubricating synovial fluid, which has very low viscosity." This isn't in the source cited (unless I've missed it) and I think it needs referencing. (The end of the paragraph, "Gerhard Scholtz of Humboldt University of Berlin asserts that a similar secreted lubricant or dead cellular material could allow a biological wheel to rotate freely", is in the given source.) Sarastro1 (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've revised and added three new citations to the paragraph on friction that should address the gaps there. As to the artists in the "fiction and legend" section, the list did not come from a particular source, but is essentially a complete list of the most notable occurrences of the trope. The main article Rolling and wheeled creatures in fiction and legend offers a few more examples that are a bit less noteworthy. —swpbT 16:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, did a few more spot checks and everything looks good to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Brianboulton[edit]

As the article's mentor, my support might reasonably be assumed, but I have watched the article's progress carefully over the past few weeks, and am convinced that it it now satisfies the FA criteria fully. I hope this nominator will be emboldened by the experience to return to FAC with another article in the not too distant future. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deeply appreciated. —swpbT 15:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2017 [18].

Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)[edit]

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) and Another Believer (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "Donald Trump", the third episode in the third season of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. In it, John Oliver describes Donald Trump's business dealings and behavior, and then proceeds to criticize it. He even calls Trump "Drumpf", a term that went viral immediately after the segment aired. This episode was first released a year and a half ago. Although it didn't work like Oliver intended, since obviously Trump is the U.S. President, it's still the most popular episode that LWT has ever released. Also, it's been a Good Article since May of last year. So, as Oliver would say, please enjoy. epicgenius (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • The Media data and Non-free use rationale box for the infobox image is not completed, specifically the "Not replaceable with free media because" and the "Respect for commercial opportunities" parts.  Done
  • The lead should include some information regarding the "Name change timing dispute" section, and I would imagine more parts from the "Reception and aftermath" section could be included as a well, specifically critics' response and Oliver's eventual decision to not use the joke anymore. I am suggesting this as the lead should be a comprehensive overview of the entire article.  Done
  • I would imagine that the Frederick Trump image would need a more descriptive caption other than just the name and the link.  Done
  • Is the Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? link appropriate for the "See also" section. Does it directly link to this segment or explicitly reference it?  Done, removed.

Overall, wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I hope you both have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Aoba47: Thank you for your comments. I have resolved all the issues you have brought up. epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your prompt responses. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Thank you for your support vote, I appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Frederick_Friedrich_Trump_2.jpg: when/where was this first published, and what was the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: As per the documentation, the image was taken before 1923, which exempts the image from the "author's death plus 70 years" rule per COM:PD. Frederick Trump died in 1918 and such a photo of him could not have been made posthumously, though I'll look for the original source. The original shows up in this ancestry.com search. epicgenius (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • COM:PD states that works are PD in the US if published before 1923, not simply created. Further, for an image to be hosted on Commons, it must also be PD in its country of origin, and depending what that was the life+70 rule may apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll take a look at the publication date and location. epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • According to Ancestry.com, it was originally published in 1918 in the US. The page is paywalled, though. epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I've added 2 new images and removed the Frederick Trump image. Could you kindly review the article's images again? epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 1989[edit]

  • "also started a controversy on" How about started debates on? Controversy isn't the right word.  Done
  • I would put square brackets around the ... part.  Done
  • "traffics in the very xenophobia that is Trump's sick stock in trade" You're repeating yourself in the seventh paragraph.  Done

When my concerns are addressed, I'll check back. -- 1989 20:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: I've fixed all of the issues you've raised above. Thank you for your feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Epicgenius: When you get a chance, could you review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Ball (manga)/archive1? -- 1989 18:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Thanks for the support. epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. -- 1989 19:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: How do I request a source review? epicgenius (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Place a request in the dedicated section at the top of WT:FAC, and someone should pick it up relatively quickly. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note from co-nominator: I will be on vacation until August 20, so I might take a while to reply to any comments made until then. epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Actually, my vacation is now over and I will be able to resolve all issues. epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Should I be concerned about this nomination? It's been inactive for a few weeks. epicgenius (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but OTOH it's only been open a little over a month and has attracted some commentary and support so I wouldn't panic -- Sarastro1 has put it in the "FAC urgents" list (top right of WT:FAC) so hopefully we'll get some more eyes soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to second that, there is no immediate danger and once we put it into the urgents, we usually leave it for at least a couple more weeks. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Thanks again. epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by SounderBruce
  • Author names are not consistent. Seeing several instances of "Last, First" in addition to the "First Last" majority  Done (all changed to last, first.(
  • Include OCLC numbers for all ISSN and ISBN citations.  Done
  • Ref 37 needs to use "The Washington Post" to match other citations  Done
  • Ref 39 needs a translated title  Done
  • Ref 49 needs ISBN and OCLC  Done
  • Some of the publishers don't need to be listed (e.g. Boston Globe Media LLC after Boston Globe)  Done
  • Concerns on the "high quality" nature of some sources, especially smaller blog sites. Some are also problematic when it comes to their verifiability. Listing a few:
    • Ref 11: What makes Inquisitr reliable and high quality? Seems like a standard clickbait site.  Done
    • Ref 17: JD Supra seems like a run-of-the-mill blog startup.  Done
    • Ref 24: International Business Times, like Inquisitr, comes up often as clickbait. Do they have editorial oversight?  Done
      • Ref 40 also points to IBT and needs to be replaced.
    • Ref 27: Tech Times, again, seems like more clickbait.  Done
    • Ref 32: Bustle doesn't seem like a place with standout journalistic standards.
    • Ref 40: Snopes? Really?

**Ref 47 and 48: FamilySearch and About.com do not seem like reliable sources.

Article looks pretty solid on prose and grammar, otherwise. SounderBruce 02:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Thank you for the source review. I'll look at these tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: I've fixed almost all of them. The only reason I cite Snopes, FamilySearch, and About.com is precisely because they are in disagreement with each other, and are thus probably not reliable. I use them solely for comparison purposes, and not as a definitive fact. I am confused about Snopes, so if you don't mind explaining why it is not reliable, I would appreciate it very much. epicgenius (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll retract my concerns about FamilySearch and About.com, given that they are being used for comparison and they seem to be sourced from reputable authorities. I would recommend changing the FamilySearch reference to cite the record itself (with a via field, linking to FamilySearch), which is readily available on the web page. As for Snopes, it is a self-published source and, while recognized by some media outlets, fails to meet the high-quality threshold based on their lack of recognized expert contributors.
Your new sources need to be harmonized (e.g. date formats and using the MIT name instead of the website URL in the work field). Just need to clean up the Bustle, Snopes, and IBT sources and I can call this good to go. SounderBruce 05:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Snopes, IBT, and Bustle; thank you for pointing these out. I don't know what you mean by changing the FamilySearch to cite the record itself. The record URL, (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NCR1-KF8), is already on the page. Additionally I can't add "via" to the {{cite web}} template there. epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks all good now. I will support this nomination based on the source review above. The FamilySearch thing can be left alone, but citing the "Deutschland Geburten und Taufen" record directly would help make it clearer that it comes from a German state record and not FamilySearch themselves. SounderBruce 21:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: Thank you very much for the source review; I appreciate it. FamilySearch is also  Done by the way. epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC) epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SounderBruce. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comments TJW[edit]

  • Is it customary to record patent application documents in all caps? I pretty regularly deshout any title regardless. Maybe this is an exception.
  • In the footnote: originates with one Hanns Drumpf recorded in Kallstadt in 1608 it seems intuitively like there should either one or two commas here, either after "Drumpf" or both before and after the full name.  Done (One is correct, after the name.)
  • I cropped up File:U.S. Immigration records mentioning Friedr Trumpf (cropped).jpg so that it's centered with less empty space in the margins. Personally, I would use it rather than the uncropped version. I also cobbled up File:U.S. Immigration records mentioning Friedr Trumpf - Friedr. Trumpf isolated.jpg if you would like to use it somehow. I cleaned up a lot, but unfortunately not all of the noise.  Done (And I like your version better.)
  • WLs - xenophobic, Gwenda Blair (possible redlink?),  Done
  • Un-WL - onomatopoeic ... Don't use WLs in direct quotes.  Done
  • YouTube alone, making it Last Week Tonight's most popular segment posted to YouTube Maybe find some way to avoid restating "youtube"  Done (replaced second "YouTube" with "there")
  • was delivered by John Oliver - Was it delivered? Do they tape the same day they air?
  • Oliver created a hashtag - Do you create a hashtag or do you coin one? Honest question.  Done

Mostly minor stuff. But it looks good overall. TimothyJosephWood 17:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for the review. I've resolved almost all the issues you've brought up, except the one about the "delivery" because it is indeed a live taping. (Or at least it's in front of the audience and taped on the same day as it airs.) epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Timothyjosephwood, for the review, and Epicgenius, for addressing these concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Timothyjosephwood: Could you kindly make a note about whether you support, oppose, or have further feedback for this nomination? It would be appreciated since I don't know if you're still concerned about the "episode delivery" phrasing. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not. I looked it up and it seems they record the same day. I intended to look over it a second time, but I wouldn't want that to seem to the coordinators like I had particular misgivings, because I don't. Anyway, I'm a pretty active editor. If I have anything else or not I'll weigh in tomorrow. TimothyJosephWood 01:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional random things, mostly lead related:

  • It aired on February 28, 2016 - Probably first aired or originally aired? Presumably it has or will air again.  Done (it continuously airs on YouTube, technically, but February 28, 2016 was the first airing)
  • Upon the segment's initial release, it went - Seems simpler to just say "The segment went viral..."  Done
  • Google Searches - I believe in this usage this is a common noun and should be lowercase.  Done
  • The segment started a debate - I feel like this could be more specific. "Public debate" at the very least. The issue is not that it started a debate, but that it started a debate that was somehow important, and/or among somehow important people.  Done
  • surpassed those for "Ted Cruz" and "Marco Rubio" - Maybe someone can correct me, but I'm not sure this needs scare quotes. It's not really talking about the terms as terms; it's talking about them as names identifying particular people who are relevant because of their candidacy.  Done (I just realized that neither Cruz nor Rubio were being searched as terms, unlike our nonexistent Oliver creation, Donald Drumpf. So thank you for that.)
TimothyJosephWood 16:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't really see any other outstanding issues, at least with my limited experience at FAC. In fine to support. TimothyJosephWood 11:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for your support.Even though it is becoming trite right now, I will say that I really appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Bilorv
Resolved suggestions
  • Can you add an external link to HBO's website — either the episode or the segment?  Done
  • I think the external YouTube (or HBO) link to the actual segment is very important, and should be highlighted more (most readers will miss it, hidden under the External links section). I suggest using {{External media}} in the Episode summary section.  Done
  • HBO seems refer to the episodes by their overall position, rather than season and position. It is mentioned three times that the segment is from S3E3 (infobox, lead, episode summary) – in at least one of those places, can it be mentioned that it is from the 62nd episode overall?  Done (in the lead)
  • Under Episode summary: "that despite Trump's statement to the contrary, the related lawsuits were still pending". Does this mean related to Trump University? In what way?
    • Removed, since it is not mentioned in the episode. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Episode summary, from "Such rhetoric has been criticized ever since Trump's July 2015 campaign announcement" to "with Trump advocating a ban on Muslims seeking to enter the United States following a series of terror attacks perpetrated by members and sympathizers of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." Where is this sourced to? The Times article (ref #10) just seems to contain a transcript of his campaign announcement, while the refs at the end of the paragraph (#2, #9) do not cover this content (they reference the following sentences). Unless this was part of Oliver's criticism, which I missed when re-watching the segment, this violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH if no journalist or reliable source has directly linked prior criticism of Trump's xenophobia to the parts of the LWT segment mentioning Duke.
  • In Reception and Aftermath (or earlier in the article), can the cap manufacturer be named? I can't read more than half of ref #30 as it's behind a paywall, but it seems to be Unionwear.  Done
  • The Rolling Stone interview with Oliver (ref #33) mentions that the segment premiered on the night of the Oscars, and therefore "We were not doing that with the sense that it would become bigger than our show normally is". I think this is a relevant fact to mention somewhere in the article.  Done
  • The About.com link (ref #45) seems to redirect to a page on thoughtco.com, though it seems from [19] that About.com has been renamed Dotdash, and ThoughtCo is part of the brand, and the whole thing is owned by IAC. Confusing. I would change the text in the body to read something like "while a genealogist at ThoughtCo (at the time, About.com)" and update the reference to include parameters |work=[[Dotdash]] and |publisher=[[IAC (company)|IAC]].  Done
  • Note that I have made small formatting changes myself in this edit.

Other than this, the article is very good. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at this with a view to promotion, but ended up copy-editing a little more than I intended, so it is probably best that I recuse as coordinator. I've no objections on prose to this being promoted, but I wonder if we are a little too heavy on the quotes? I think a few of them could stand being paraphrased. I may have another look if this isn't promoted in the next day or two, and will possibly support this then. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thanks for taking a look. The article has been reviewed by quite a few editors, and has received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. Thanks for your improvements, and do let us know if you have other specific concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er... OK. I'm quite aware of the other reviews, and as I say, I have no objections to promotion here, this was more of a note for the other coordinator. My point about the heavy use of quotes stands; I think some of them could stand paraphrasing, but I'm not opposing on this. Nevertheless, I know of editors who have a problem with over-quotation. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Thanks for the feedback and copyedits. I am going to paraphrase some of the non-important quotes from other commentators. However, I'll probably end up leaving most of Oliver's quotes since they are supported by the citations, and also for emphasis. epicgenius (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I had another look, and now that the quotes have been trimmed, I'm happy to fully support now. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow, impressive work in making a great article out of a British man yelling at us on how the world is ending for half an hour. And seeing this having a shot at appearing in the main page before the article on Trump himself is a hilarious thought. igordebraga ≠ 02:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2017 [20].

Florin (British coin)[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)', Arwel Parry (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)')[reply]

This article is about... a coin that was introduced as part of a decimal scheme and appropriately enough lived on the longest under decimal currency. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle[edit]

  • Source #35 renders as "[[#CITEREF|]]". I'm presuming this is an error?
Fixed.
  • Source #41 is a PDF, but no page numbers are given are given.
It lacks page numbers and I worry about saying things like "17th unnumbered page".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The citations style is inconsistent. Most are footnotes, but some (like #11, for example) are not.

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually include web pages in the bibliography. I moved one book from refs to biblio. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moise[edit]

Victorian issues (1849–1901)

  • First paragraph refers to "Unlike the crown's gothic script". Should this be capitalized like in "The revised florin's diameter was increased to 30 millimetres (the weight was unchanged), and all the lettering on the coin was in Gothic script" in the third paragraph?
  • "Beginning with some 1867 issues, BRIT on the obverse was rendered BRITT, the conventional Latin means of indicating an abbreviation is for a plural, changing Victoria's title from "Queen of Britain" to "Queen of the Britains" (including the colonies and other territories)."
  • Does this mean "the conventional Latin means of indicating an abbreviation is for a plural" is to double the final consonant? If so, this should probably be clarified.
  • Minor suggestion, but I feel "(including the colonies and other territories)" could be made even clearer: for example, "thereby including the colonies and other territories" or "—this to include the colonies and other territories."
Done up to date. I think on the last one that with the splitting of the sentence, there's enough emphasis on "colonies" as to render your suggestion nonessential.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will finish the review this weekend. Thanks for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Background / Victorian issues (1849–1901)

  • "Bowring obtained surprisingly strong support for his motion" / "These first coins were probably a shock to the public". Both of these sound possibly subjective. Would you consider attributing these statements to the sources within the text itself, to eliminate any ambiguity?
They are both sources that would be difficult to describe in the required thumbnail length, since they don't have named authors. It's my thought that there's no risk of POV at the remove of 160 years ...
  • "Despite a Royal Commission, the drive for decimalisation soon died out for the time, with an 1855 motion in the Commons applauding the issuance of the florin and seeking further decimal coins, attracting only lukewarm support." I'm not convinced the comma after "coins" is grammatical, but I understand you probably added it to aid the reader in parsing the sentence. To avoid the problem, what if you reworked it something like "Despite a Royal Commission, the drive for decimalisation soon died out for the time; there was only lukewarm support for an 1855 motion in the Commons applauding the issuance of the florin and seeking further decimal coins." Moisejp (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1864 until 1879, many florins were struck with die numbers on the obverse (found to the right of Victoria's brooch,[13] possibly part of a Mint investigation into die wear." For coin buffs, this usage of "die" may be common, but I personally got a little confused initially what "die numbers" and "die wear" referred to ("wear" also having multiple meanings). Consider possibly wiki-linking "die" to Coining (mint)—that could reduce confusion some? Also, it's a little wordier, but maybe "die wear" could be changed to something like "the wearing down of dies"? Just ideas. Moisejp (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward VII (1901–1910)

  • "while the other side features what Coincraft's Standard Catalogue of English and UK Coins deems "a most unusual and original reverse". It shows a windswept figure of Britannia standing holding a shield with her left hand and a trident with her right, and inscribed ONE FLORIN TWO SHILLINGS, with the date below." This passage includes both a description and appraisal of the appearance of the Britannia. I wonder whether the flow would be stronger if you brought this closer to the description and appraisal of the Britannia Peter Seaby that appears a little lower. As it is now, the flow is appraisal/description – background information – appraisal/description. Moisejp (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George V (1910–1936)

  • "While the weight and diameter of the coin were unchanged, due to rises in the price of silver, the metallic composition was changed in 1920 from 0.925 silver to 50% silver, 40% copper, 10% nickel, then again in 1922 to 50% silver, 50% copper, and again in 1927 to 50% silver, 40% copper, 5% nickel, 5% zinc." The reader may initially parse such that "due to rises in the price of silver" goes with what precedes rather than what follows it, and then have to double back to make sense of the sentence as a whole. To eliminate this possibility, how about something like: "The weight and diameter of the coin were unchanged; however, due to rises in the price of silver, the metallic composition was changed in 1920 from 0.925 silver to 50% silver, 40% copper, 10% nickel, then again in 1922 to 50% silver, 50% copper, and again in 1927 to 50% silver, 40% copper, 5% nickel, 5% zinc." Moisejp (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II (struck 1953–1970)

  • "On 30 June 1993, following the issuance of the smaller ten pence piece, the old florin was demonetised. " This is the second sentence in a row with the structure ", following ___,". To avoid this, how about "A smaller ten pence piece was issued in 1992, after which the old florin was demonetised on 30 June 1993."

Those are all of my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done those. Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super. I may have been presumptuous just now and I presumed that your "I've done those" meant that you intended to include my "due to the price in silver" suggestion and that you may have accidentally missed it, so I took the liberty of changing it myself. I apologize, I should have double-checked with you first. Please revert if you disagree with the change, but I do urge you to do something with the sentence, which I feel did not read totally smoothly as it was. In any case, regardless of that sentence, I am happy to support now. Thank you. As with your other coin articles, I really enjoyed reading this one. Moisejp (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, Meant to but overlooked it. Thanks for the support and review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

Auction houses are particularly reliable coin sources, since they make their money off proper identification of coins. Chard's is a very well known firm for over a half century.
Hchc2009 looked at it in this source review, that you also did, and seemed to feel it was a suitable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely we can find a more recent source than Levi (from 1880!) for information on the parliamentary background.
I didn't see any other sources containing the detail. I would submit that it is only used for facts, rather than opinion, and the facts will not have been changed by the passage of time.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violation.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Moise[edit]

  • All images are properly licensed.
  • It seems Godless florin.jpg and 1932 George V Florin (reverse).JPG are lacking alt text. Moisejp (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I've added the alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Brian Boulton[edit]

Apologies for my late arrival here. I'm old enough to remember the pre-decimalisation florin, the "two-bob bit" – it's what your grandparents and great-uncles gave you when you visited. I bought by first (under-age) half-pint of bitter with such a coin - and got change! O tempora, o mores.

Not much to add here, beyond a few prose quibbles.

Lead
  • Second line: "just" unnecessary
Not completely. The sovereign, for example, remains legal tender, as do various other coins that were never demonitised (groat, silver threepence that resembles the Maundy coin, double florin are examples). I'm trying to limit it to the halfpenny to half crown range, the eight coins that were actually used in 1967. Changed to "immediately".
  • As this is a British topic I imagine that BritEng conventions have been applied. In which case, we tend to say "quarter of a century" rather than "quarter century".
Victorian issues (1849–1901)
  • Is there a link that might explain what is meant by "Gothic style"? (later: maybe unnecessary as you've linked "Gothic script" later.)
  • Maybe add a parenthetical (one-eighth of a pound) to your mention of the half crown.
  • After "Even more", a word such as "controversially" should be inserted, otherwise even more what?
  • Final sentence: "This reverse was created by Sir Edward Poynter, and was issued each year between 1893 and 1901, the year of Victoria's death" Yet the adjoining caption says: "1899 florin designed by Sir Edward Poynter".
I'm afraid I don't see the issue.
Nor, on looking at it again, do I. Scrubbed. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
George V (1910–1936)
  • Any reason for no mintings in 1934?
Almost certainly lack of demand but I'll research further.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of an outbreak of "due to" around here – two in this section, one in each of the next two sections. I'd vary the wording a bit.
  • Second paragraph begins: "The second florin..." This wasn't so much a "second florin", rather a revised design, so maybe begin "The revised design, dated 1927 to 1936, was by George Kruger Gray and did not..." etc
Edward VIII (1936)
  • Perhaps specify that no Edward VIII florins were struck
Elizabeth II (struck 1953–1970)
  • "When the reverse of the new coin was illustrated in the press, there was no consensus as to which way was up": I'm not entirely clear what is intended here, but I would have thought that the alignment of the head on the obverse would determine which was the "right way up", if that is what is meant.
They probably did not have the actual coins, just the photos, and not all coins are aligned with the top of the obverse just opposite to the top of the reverse. See coin alignment.
  • The otiose "just" appears again in the final sentence.
See my comments to the lede.

That's all. a nice piece of nostalgia. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I will say my first beer dispensed to me cost less than a florin, as it was after taking the tour of a beer factory when I was 16, there was no cost. I suspect that would be more difficult today, some not quite 40 years later ... but on my pre-1993 visits to the UK, I remember being quite interested in the pre-decimal survivors.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Happy with what you've done. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very nicely done. I don't remember this pre-decimalisation, but I certainly remember this coin. Just a few minor questions which don't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "These first coins were probably a shock to the public": Is this a supposition of the source, or does it have any evidence?
I'm using the source's words.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including (allegedly) to Queen Victoria herself": I'm never too keen on "allegedly"; can we not simply say who alleged and what it was that supposedly happened?
I've looked at the source (and revised it slightly). It doesn't give details.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the drive for decimalisation soon died out for the time": for the time sounds a little odd to me, and would make more sense as "for a time" or "for the time being", but I wonder could the sentence just be ended after "died out"?
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One question does occur to me; given that the florin seems to have been the beginning of an abandoned experiment, why was it continued once interest in decimalisation died out? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because when it was reassessed in the 1870s, it was found the florin filled a need in commerce. That's mentioned in connection with the resumption of the half crown.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support. I will respond to the one remaining matter either Monday night or Tuesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done in all respects.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support An interesting read. I've made a couple of very minor formatting changes and am happy to support (my review "disclaimer" here). - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2017 [21].

Henry W. Sawyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Henry W. Sawyer, III. Primarily known for his work as a civil rights attorney, Sawyer successfully argued two landmark religious establishment cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He was also involved in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and served four years on Philadelphia's City Council. After recently passing a GA review, I think this article, while brief, is in good shape. Hope you enjoy reading it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Interesting. I admit I haven't heard of the guy. Just a few comments.

  • " that would be the basis for all modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence." I might say "that became the basis for modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence". Simpler.
  • Yes, fixed.
  • "Sawyer's father died before he was born in the 1918 flu pandemic" A difficult sentence, I admit. I might suggest "Henry Sawyer II died in the 1918 flue pandemic x months before his son was born".
  • Done.
  • Added the link. I'll look into the major.
  • "With the outbreak of World War II, Sawyer joined the United States Navy.[6] He served in both the Atlantic and the Pacific, but later said he saw very little active combat.[5]" I assume he was an officer, so I would say "was commissioned in" for "joined". I'd also add a "theatres" after "Pacific" and cut "active".
  • Made those changes, and added details about his service that I just discovered.
  • "Sawyer was called back into the Navy in 1950 during the Korean War and served as a foreign service officer in Europe after that, returning to Philadelphia in 1953.[12]" This is a bit unclear, focusing on "after that", which could be taken to refer to the war, but the war "ended' in 1953.
  • Should be clearer now.
  • "but their convictions were overturned after the United States Supreme Court overturned the Smith Act in Yates v. United States in 1957.[16]" some slight ambiguity as to whether the 1957 refers to the convictions being quashed or the SCOTUS ruling. I'd consider moving "in 1957" to after the first overturned. Also, I'd change one of the "overturned" to a synonym.
  • Done.
  • "claiming that his "moral scruples"" since we have no reason to doubt him, I'd change "claiming" to "asserting".
  • Done.
  • "and the charge was upheld in federal district court.[19] The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction," upheld/upheld
  • Done.
  • "Sawyer and his wife were both Republicans in the 1940s.[42] After witnessing political corruption and voter fraud in their own ward and around the city, they soon became disillusioned with the party organization in the city" I might cut "soon".
  • Done.
  • "which required one percent of construction projects in Center City to be spent on public art.[6]" I think you need a "of the cost of" before "construction" or similar.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Thanks, as always, for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Glad to. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Tom_C._Clark.jpg: this needs a US PD tag, and if it is dated 1967 how could the author have died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • Support - I reviewed this at GAN and tried to be as thorough as I could. Can't see any prose or comprehensiveness issues outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, and thanks again for the GA review. --14:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

This reads well, and I'm leaning toward support. I have just a few questions and suggestions.
General
  • Alt text for the images would be nice.
  • The article quotes one of Sawyer's sons, Jonathan. Would it be good to mention his two other children, Hal and Rebecca. They are mentioned in the obit by Rusty Pray.
Early life
Local politics
  • ¶2 "...and voters could only vote for five..." – Maybe "and voters could only choose five" to avoid repetition of "voters...vote"?
  • ¶2 "...with the result being that the majority party could only take five of the seven seats, leaving two for the minority party." – It would be smoother to eliminate the "with plus -ing" construction here and create a separate sentence; i.e., "The result was that the majority party could take only five of the seven seats, leaving two for the minority party."
  • ¶3 "Some of the amendments were struck down by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,..." – Flip to active voice as in "The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down some of the amendments,..."?
  • ¶3 "Sawyer headed up a group of Democrats..." – Replace "headed up" with "led"?
Later life
  • ¶1 "his alma mater, Penn." – For those who don't know what Penn refers to, perhaps add "Penn" as an abbreviation, University of Pennsylvania (Penn), after its first use in the article
@Finetooth:, thanks for the review. I've made those changes here, plus adding a detail about his grandfather. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. Happy to support. Finetooth (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Shouldn't the JSTOR articles carry a (subscription required) tag, to alert readers to the fact that thewse sources are behind a paywall? Otherwise, sources are fine in all respects. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cite journal page says "Links inserted by identifiers such as |doi= are not expected to offer a free full text by default" and that list includes JSTOR. I did add that subscription tag to the newspapers.com sources, which don't appear on that list. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2017 [22].

Ice core[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the key tools of palaeoclimatology. Ice cores contain an extraordinary amount of information about past environments. I am not an expert on this topic, but have done a fair amount of reading and I think the article covers the ground fairly thoroughly, and is ready for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Pbsouthwood[edit]

A fascinating read, and accessible to an ordinary engineer (can't speak for the general public). A little heavy going towards the end at a single sitting, but my eyes get tired after a while when nitpicking. I also spent a bit of time referring to linked material, and noticed a few places where extra links would be nice if available, otherwise some explanation would help. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Structure of ice sheets and cores:

  • does not become denser with additional pressure - Why, then, is there a crystal structure change at about 1500m?
    I've cut this, since I can't find an unequivocal statement that it is the case; the pages I was using to source this discuss the thinning but never explicitly say that it doesn't get denser. I think it's probably WP:OR to make the statement, and it's probably technically not true since there must, as you say, be at least a slight difference for there to be a crystal structure change. When brittle ice relaxes there is no significant visible change in its volume, so the density can't change by more than a tiny fraction; the point I was trying to make was that the major changes in density are with the transition from snow to firn to ice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Not a problem.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... slowly flow outwards, thinning as they do so How is the rate of flow distributed over depth? I assume there is some variation.
    Yes; there's a simplified diagram in Alley that shows the fastest flow at the top; this is because the top layers do the most thinning so they must be flowing faster. The details are apparently quite complex, and Alley glosses over them; I think I have more details in another source but I felt this was too much detail for this article. Perhaps ice sheet could cover it in more detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a see also link to Ice-sheet dynamics, which doesn't say much at present, but it is where the information should be. Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; that's a helpful link -- thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An ice core is a vertical column through an ice sheet which provides a sample of each layer of ice, - It was a bit of a surprise to see this in the penultimate paragraph of this section. Basically this is the definition. I would have expected to see it at one of the first statements about ice cores, possibly even in its own section, possibly the first section. Is an ice core always vertical? Perhaps all the information about ice sheets should be grouped together, and a separate section or subsection on what a core is.
    I see your point, but I'm not sure what the best thing to do about it would be. The reason for that section's structure is that an ice core, and the reasons for retrieving one, aren't comprehensible without knowing about ice sheets and how they are formed. The sentence explaining what an ice core is naturally come after the description of ice sheets, not before. I was hoping that the lead would serve to give the background necessary for this section to seem reasonable. Would it work to move this sentence, edited somewhat, up to start the section? And ice cores are not always perfectly vertical, though they are generally meant to be so; the current EastGRIP core deviated substantially from vertical over this summer and effort was spent to return it to vertical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That could work. Lets try it.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It works well for me. On rereading I think that the 3rd from last paragraph of this section (starting "Cores are often drilled...") would be better as the last paragraph, as this keeps all the physical information about the ice sheet together. If you don't think so, no problem. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been trying to find out exactly which phase the cubic ice below 1500m represents. Do you have access to the relevant pages of Alley? The phase diagram in Ice and associated descriptions is not helping me.
    I've wondered about that too, but have not seen an answer in the refs so far. Alley has no more information than I put in the article, but he cites this paper, which has further refs. Let me know if you think there should more about this in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the article linked above. It makes no mention of cubic crystal ice, just type II air clathrates which occur in a depth zone around 1500m, where apparently they are relatively stable and presumably have a lower energy state than hexagonal ice (Ice Ih) with bubbles. The clathrate has a cubic structure and higher compression resistance than gas bubbles in ice at higher pressures, so the bubbles and hex ice reform at greater depths. The brittle zone is where the clathrates are, and when they decay after decompression. the ice may develop microscopic cracks. Apparently the clathrate structure is slow to form and decay. The article on Nitrogen clathrate has some of this background.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps mention in this section that the clathrate zone reverts to hex ice again at greater depths, then when one gets to the section on brittle ice it would be clearer. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The paper linked above doesn't say that, as far as I can see; it talks about hexagonal inclusions. I got the impression that the structure of the ice below the brittle zone wasn't well understood, so I've avoided being specific. Did you have a particular part of that paper in mind as giving additional details? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I wrote this I've read Uchida et al. (1994), now cited in the article, which makes things clearer. I think the text I added to the brittle zone section may address this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coring:

  • What is a wireline? (a wikilink would do) Is it the same as a cable suspended drill?
    Linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does a cable suspended drill power the cutting head? how does it lock to the ice to allow torque to be exerted at the cutting head? (a wikilink would do)
    Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Core processing:

  • When samples are analyzed, an outer layer may be removed to reduce the risk of contamination of the ice during drilling and handling By the time the samples are analysed any contamination during drilling has already occurred. It is no longer a risk.
    Good point; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brittle ice:

  • The brittle ice ceases eventually, does not look right. How does brittle ice cease? The word relax is used later in the section, and makes more sense, but how does it relax? is it a matter of gas diffusing out of bubbles through the solid ice until internal pressure balances with ambient? If so, an amusing parallel to decompression sickness, one of my interests. If not, does the core expand to reduce internal gas pressure stress? What happens to deep cores with cubic structure? do they transform back to hexagonal? do the clathrate gases form bubbles again?
    Yes, I think the parallel is definitely there, though I'm not clear on the internal crystal mechanics. For "cease", take a look at the diagram at the bottom of page 21, here; it shows that the brittle ice zone is restricted to a certain range of depths, so from the point of view of the drillers, as time goes by, they encounter brittle ice after a way, and then after some more drilling it ceases, and the ice is no longer brittle. Can you suggest clearer wording? How about "As drilling continues to greater depths, the brittle ice zone eventually passed, and the core becomes stable again"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks much clearer, something like that. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Better.
    The first paragraph of this section suggests that the bubbles are responsible for the brittleness, but I understand correctly, the brittle ice zone is where the clathrates are, and this zone actually has less bubble volume than the less brittle zones above and below it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment prompted me to dig a little more, and I finally found a paper that unequivocally explains it. I added a few words to the brittle ice zone section; essentially they showed that the brittle ice zone ends when the clathrates begin. The brittle ice zone is the range of depths where the bubbles still exist, and pressure in the bubbles is great enough to crack the ice. Apparently clathrates are extremely stable, so even though Alley says somewhere that they will slowly break down, and bubbles will reappear, the process is too slow to make the ice brittle, while drilling at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dating:

  • corrected for the presence of 14C produced directly in the ice by cosmic rays, - Is there anywhere to link to that explains how the 14C is produced?
    I've linked 14C to carbon-14, which talks about atmospheric production of 14C; the mechanism is the same. I could add a footnote if this isn't clear enough to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A link should be sufficient. The article is not about isotope formation, but it is something I wanted to look up at the time, so we have a sample of at least one for whom it will be useful. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland deep cores:

  • North GRIP -> NorthGRIP for consistency?
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a Wikilink available for Greenland Ice Sheet Program (GISP)
    It's linked -- it's actually "Project", not "Program", though I have made this mistake myself at least once and there may still be an errant version in there somewhere. It's linked in the lead and again near the end. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref Langway 2008 only has 57 pages, (numbered to 47) in the linked pdf. Page ref in sources is to pages 101 to 117, which may be is correct for original publication, but is confusing. I don't know what the recommended work-around would be. Content claiming Langway (2008), pp. 27–28. as ref (116) is supported on spot check.
    Bleah. That's a situation I've not run into before. Ealdgyth, you're an expert on this sort of thing; what's a good way to handle that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the source can be cited as originally published in journal XXX, pages n to m, accessed via YYY website. Not sure of the syntax. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Langway, Chester C. (2008). "The history of early polar ice cores" (PDF). Cold Regions Science and Technology. 52 (2): 101–117 – via US Army Engineering Corps: Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.?
      After some more thought I decided WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies here, and I've reworked it to point directly to the CRREL report abstract, since that's what I'm actually citing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a reasonable solution. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pbsouthwood: Barring a couple of queries above, and the source query to Ealdgyth, I think I've responded to everything now. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, Two more minor suggestions above. They do not affect my support.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support; I'll work on those two points this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All points now responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria list:

  • well-written: By my standards, yes. I leave details of spelling and grammar to others. Comprehensibility and use of appropriate terminology look good to me
  • comprehensive: I have not noticed any major deficits, but I am not an expert in the field.
  • well-researched: Those citations I have checked are good.
  • neutral: No sign of a problem.
  • stable: No recent conflicts.
  • appropriate structure: Simple and logical. Seems appropriate.
  • length: Not too short, not too long.
  • media: Relevant and appropriate. Copyright etc checked by someone else.

Support on this basis • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks (content supported, no copyright infringement):

  • Ref 102, Langway (2008), pp. 5–6. checks out.
  • Ref 117, Langway (2008), pp. 27–28. checks out.
  • Ref 107, Langway (2008), p. 23. checks out
  • Ref 34, Souney et al. (2014), pp. 16–19. checks out on 3 pre-selected items
  • Ref 37, Souney et al. (2014), pp. 20–21. checks out on 4 out of 5 pre-selected items, Ref 38 may support the other, but was not available to check
  • Ref 36, Sedlacek, Cheryl (December 2004) checks out.
  • Refs 46, An extremely brief reversal of the geomagnetic field, climate variability and a super volcano and 47, Blunier et al. (2007), p. 325., check out on 1 pre-selected item.
  • Ref 38, Uchida et al. (1994), p. 302. Checks out

Support on this basis • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RockMagnetist[edit]

I'm not sure if I will have time to review the entire article, but I would like to weigh in on Criterion 1(a). A high standard of writing is expected in FA articles, but I see a lot of the sort of problems that Tony's article warns about. Examples:

  • The only ice sheets are in Antarctica and Greenland, so the statement is inaccurate. How about: An ice core is a core sample from a glacier. Common coring sites include Antarctica, Greenland, and high mountains.
    Changed to "An ice core is a core sample that is typically removed from an ice sheet or a high mountain glacier": I think it's better to keep the distinction between glacier and ice sheet, since the sources don't use the terms interchangeably. I dropped the reference to Antarctica and Greenland; it's not important enough to mention in the first sentence of the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph, last sentence is a bit wordy. How about: Cores are drilled with hand augers (for shallow holes) or powered drills; they can reach depths of over two miles and contain ice up to 800,000 years old.
    Done -- your wording is much better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next paragraph: plenty of unnecessary words (generally, it should be obvious we're talking about ice): Both the physical properties of the ice itself and of material trapped in the ice it can be used to reconstruct information about the climate over the age range of the core. The ratio of oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in the ice provides information about ancient temperatures; and the air trapped in tiny bubbles in the ice can be analyzed to determine the level of atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide ... Since heat flow in a large ice sheet is very slow, the borehole temperature is another indicator of temperature in the past. and these sources of information These data can be combined to find the in the best fitting climate model that best fits all the available data.
  • I think the paragraph should be split at "Impurities": Impurities in ice cores may depend on location. ; for example, c Coastal areas are more likely to include material of marine origin, such as sea salt ions. Greenland ice cores contain layers of wind-blown dust that correlate with cold, dry periods in the past, when cold deserts were scoured by wind. Radioactive elements, either of natural origin or created by nuclear testing, can be used to date the layers of ice in the cores. Some volcanic events which that were sufficiently powerful to have distributed send material around the globe leave left a signature in the ice which can be detected many different cores, allowing synchronization of the that can be used to synchronize their time scales between two different locations.

That's the first two (three?) paragraphs. My suggestions are just a start; with more time, I think they could be further improved. Glancing over the rest of the article, I see similar problems, particularly unnecessary repetition of information. I'll do more if I can find time, but I hope this helps. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; this is very helpful -- it's hard to see the problems in one's own prose. I've made the edits you suggested, with a couple of minor differences. The main one is that I kept "combined to find the climate model that best fits all the available data" rather than changing it to "combined in the best fitting climate model", because I want to retain the sense that the data comes first and that model is constructed to fit the data. I'll go through the rest of the article for wordiness, and I'll see if I can find similar simplifications and improvements.
If you have time to do a more thorough review, both for content and prose, I'd really appreciate it -- I'm not a subject matter expert, and it would be good to get more input from someone with more expertise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think your take on the climate model is better. I started to edit the first section, but got into an edit conflict with you, so I'll wait for you to have a crack at it. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm done for now -- I found more to fix at the start of the article, which I'd like to think is because the prose gets better, but may be just because I started to glaze over trying to critique my own prose. It's all yours. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the helm now. One question, though - I notice you said "ice sheet or glacier", but according to the lead of glacier, an ice sheet is just a form of glacier. I'd like to change "ice sheet" to "glacier" through most of the article. Any objections? RockMagnetist(talk) 22:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be confusing, but I'll do some looking through sources and report back. As far as I'm aware (with a layman's understanding of the sources I've read) the term "ice sheet" is only used for Greenland and the Antarctic; "glacier" seems to be used to refer specifically to a stream of ice. For example, the Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland is a moving stream of ice attached to the Greenland ice sheet. The distinction is not used much in this article, but it seems to be real. I'll see if I can find support for one position or the other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Googling for "glossary glaciology" finds this, which unambiguously states that glaciers and ice sheets are different. There's also this, which doesn't define "ice sheet" but defines "glacier" in a way that would seem to exclude ice sheets. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those could be read a different way, but I also found a book titled Dynamics of ice sheets and glaciers. Maybe there isn't a consistent terminology. However, most of the material in this article can equally well apply to glaciers or ice sheets, so maybe we need to come up with a compact way of referring to both at once. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a different subject, the citations are fine from a stylistic point of view, but would be easier to use if there were links to the sources using {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}}. That could easily be implemented using global search and replace. Or a more compact presentation could be achieved with {{rp}}. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never worked with either of those styles, and the few times I've edited an article with them I haven't found them intuitive to work with; probably a combination of laziness and inertia on my part. They also don't play well with VE, which is my preferred editor. I've no objection to you or anyone else changing the citations to another style, but it's not something I would do myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section on coring, one thing is a little puzzling. You mention electromechanical drills in the first paragraph, and then there is no further mention until you are comparing them with thermal drills. I presume most of paragraphs 2-5 are referring to electromechanical drills - is that true? RockMagnetist(talk) 23:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the concept of a string of drill pipe was a little unclear. At first I pictured something that was snaking around the core. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all the material in those paragraphs is relevant only to EM drills; cuttings aren't an issue for thermal drills, but drilling fluids are required for deep boreholes regardless of the drill type. You can have a cable-suspended thermal drill or use wireline technology on a thermal drill, in theory; I don't know of an example, which I think is because thermal drills are rarer. The best reference I have (Talalay 2016) is specifically about mechanical ice drilling -- I think the paucity of references on thermal ice drilling is because it is used less, particularly for deep cores. For drill string I added a link; does that help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes: Looking through, I see we have a source spot check, but I don't see a check for source formatting/reliability. If I haven't missed it, one can be requested at the usual place. Also, RockMagnetist, do you have anything further to add? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - a very well organized, well researched article. I am done with the copy edits, so I think the writing passes muster now. Nice job, Mike! RockMagnetist(talk) 16:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • There are several harv errors in both References and Sources - suggest using this script Done
    RockMagnetist is converting the citations; they should be gone when he's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN5 needs page formatting fix
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you use "et al" or spell out all authors Done
    I use et al for more than two authors; there were several that were inconsistent with that but I think all are now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there were several left, but I fixed them all. I could be wrong, but I had the impression that the preferred style was to list all the authors. Most of the time that is easy enough because of the citation forms that fill the fields in for you. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally your web refs are a bit off in terms of works vs publishers. Organizations are publishers, website names are works (but need consistent formatting in terms of whether www. is included)
  • @Mike Christie: This is still off - AAAS, Emporia, Niels Bohr Institute etc are all publishers, not works. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikki, I've fixed several of these by changing "website=" to "publisher=". It appears the "website=" parameter displays in italics so looks like the work, but if I have the publisher I don't think I need that in most cases. For EnvironmentalChemistry.com the name of the publisher appears to be the name of the website; I used the publisher parameter there too. Let me know if these now look OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN for FN52? Done
    I got the text from a Google Books display which does not show the ISBN. Searching for copies of the book didn't bring up anything with the second edition's ISBN. Is there another way to find this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like the correct edition. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike, if you scroll down to the bottom of the Google Scholar page, you can find the isbn. I also changed it to cite encyclopedia. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN67 has duplicated website name Done
  • FN73 should include author and publication date Done
  • Why do some short cites use {{harvnb}} and others not? Done
    Again this is because of the citation conversion; they should be gone soon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN118 date formatting doesn't match other citations Done
    That was just related to the harvnb transition. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you double-check the ISBN for Talalay 2016? It throws up errors on Worldcat and GBooks
    That's definitely what's on the book. It appears to be this book, which has a completely different ISBN. The verso of my copy has text partly in Chinese, and it says it was published by "Geological Publishing House" in Beijing. Perhaps it's a pirated book and the ISBN is bogus? Not sure what do with the ISBN in this case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    this copy has preview on Google Books. Maybe you could switch to this after double-checking the citations. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Given that there have apparently been changes within the text, not sure we can be certain a pirated version is an accurate representation of Talalay's work. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikki, I checked the preview that RockMagnetist links to above, and the pages I can see match perfectly. I did some more Googling and I don't think it's definite that this is a pirated book, and even if it were it would be more trouble for them to edit the text than it's worth. I think this is probably OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ueda and Talalay needs reformatting - this seems to be a report, not a journal article Done
  • The first external link redirects to another page that seems less directly relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the above inconsistencies result from my starting to add harvnb but not completing the task. I'll try to get to it tomorrow. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, I think everything is now addressed. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jo-Jo Eumerus:
Number of broken harv citations. Done
  • File:EPICA delta D plot.svg: Source file needs to explain how it was created, since the source URL has no images. Section is pertinent.
  • Looks like this information is already present? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chart was generated using gnuplot, so I expect GNU would cover any copyright derived from that transformation. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but there is no license statement there for such a case. Or maybe the listing of "GNU" under the "permission" header means something else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like there is good ALT text for everything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some file sources ought to not be in bare URL form.
I fixed a couple of sources; can you point me at anything else that needs fixing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think I've responded to all your points above. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've responded again -- can you let me know what remains to be fixed? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: I think we are just about there, but I just want to check if Nikki and Jo-Jo Eumerus are happy with the sourcing and images side of things. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Passable (as in wiktionary:passable, that is). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2017 [23].

Superliner (railcar)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Superliner is a bilevel intercity railcar employed by Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States. The first cars entered service in 1979 and are the backbone of Amtrak's fleet west of the Mississippi River. Their design descends from the revolutionary Budd Hi-Level. I completed a substantial expansion in January 2017 and the article was promoted to GA in June. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "After a grade crossing accident in 1999 the Transportation Safety Board of Canada faulted the layout on the lower level; the exterior door, when opened and locked in position, prevented egress from the wheelchair-accessible bathroom.": It's not clear what one has to do with the other.
  • See WP:LQ. I fixed them all this time.
  • "Amtrak will make the roomettes closest to the upper level end door available for sale to passengers": Have they done this yet? If not, who believes they will do it soon, and why?
    • Clarified the ambiguity; Amtrak doesn't always make those rooms available for sale. Mackensen (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1984–85": Does this mean during a 12-month fiscal year that overlaps 1984 and 1985? If it means "in 1984 and 1985", then say it that way, to keep it unambiguous.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

General
Background
  • ¶1 "the bilevel design was well-suited to the long distances in the west" – What specific characteristics made it more well-suited than the single-level design?
Design
  • ¶1 "The Superliners also used 480 volt head-end power (HEP), which Amtrak had just adopted as its standard." – The link to head-end power is helpful, but I think a non-technical note or in-text sentence that briefly explains why HEP was better than older systems would be helpful too.
That does the job. Finetooth (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coaches
  • Caption: "The exterior of a Superliner I coach. Note the full row of windows along the upper level seating area." – The Manual of Style recommends avoiding imperatives such as "note" that tell readers to do something. Better would be "The exterior of a Superliner I coach has a full row of windows along the upper level seating area."
Lounges
  • Caption: "Superliner I lounge No. 33014. Note the curved windows." – Another imperative. Suggestion: "A Superliner I's lounge has windows that curve over parts of the ceiling."
Superliner I
  • "Vistaliner" (harkening back to the "Vista-Domes" – I don't think you need quotation marks around Vistaliner or Vista-Domes.
Equipping the fleet
  • ¶1 "The following day, the Shawnee had the dubious distinction of the first accident with Superliners after a minor collision with an Illinois Central Gulf Railroad freight train." – Trim slightly? Suggestion: The following day, the Shawnee had the dubious distinction of the first Superliner accident, a minor collision with an Illinois Central Gulf Railroad freight train.
  • ¶2 "often encountered harsh weather conditions which sidelined traditional steam-heated equipment..." – Such as? What stopped working and at what temperature?
  • Expanded on this a bit. I've experienced a North Dakota winter in a Superliner on the Empire Builder, and it's still no picnic. Snowstorms, frozen switches, etc. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, it's good to be inside going across Montana and North Dakota in winter. I never took this particular train until well after 1979. Finetooth (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Superliner II
  • ¶2 "A report published by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada in 2002 faulted design aspects of the Superliner and indicated that they were withdrawn for that reason." – What design aspects troubled the board?
  • Clarified; it's also discussed in "Coaches" section. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks good. Finetooth (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Some of the titles are in title case, while others are in sentence case. It's best to make them consistent, either all title case or all sentence case.
  • I'd followed, wherever possible, how the sources themselves used it. I'm happy to follow whatever the MOS recommends on that score. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may just be my penchant for internal consistency. I've looked and looked for the MOS guideline that I think I'm remembering, but I can't find it, and it may not exist. Maybe it never existed. That being the case, I'm striking my suggestion.
Everything looks good to me. Having traveled on many Amtrak routes, I found this quite interesting. Happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius[edit]

I'll add comments as I go through the article. epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead:
    • Paragraph 3: Is there a source for "Tunnel clearances prevent their use on the Northeast Corridor" later in the article? I see in the "Design" section that the Superliners used to not go east of Chicago because of clearances. But there is nothing about the NE corridor, although the reference itself doesn't need to be in the lead per WP:CITELEAD.
  • In "Background":
    • Para 1:
      • "It retained approximately 184 of the 440 trains which had run the day before." What happened to the other trains? Honest question.
      • "To operate these trains, Amtrak inherited a fleet of 300 locomotives (electric and diesel) and 1190 passenger cars" → To operate these trains, Amtrak inherited a fleet of 300 electric and diesel locomotives as well as 1,190 passenger cars (so that it avoids the clunky parenthesis, and also to add the comma in "1,190" for clarity)
        • Dropped "electric and diesel" because it's not necessary there, and added the comma. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Para 2:
      • Should it be "requests for proposals"? I hear "RFP" being used all the time, but only ever in the plural form.
      • Maybe you can reword the phrase "it 'was assumed' that the design would be bilevel" because that two-word quoted section looks unwieldy. Also, it's unclear who assumed this. I suggest paraphrasing, like ______ supposed that the design would be bilevel where the blank is filled in, or some supposed.... But you don't have to reword this if it's more impactful to have the quote instead.
        • I've clarified who thought this was the case. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The design was finished by mid-1974 and Amtrak invited four companies to bid on its construction: Boeing, Budd, Pullman-Standard, and Rohr, with Pullman-Standard winning the contract." → The design was finished by mid-1974 and Amtrak invited four companies to bid on its construction (Boeing, Budd, Pullman-Standard, and Rohr), with Pullman-Standard winning the contract.
        or → The design was finished by mid-1974 and Amtrak invited four companies to bid on its construction—Boeing, Budd, Pullman-Standard, and Rohr—with Pullman-Standard winning the contract. (I feel like this is an interjective statement.)
  • In "Design":
    • Para 3: "The Superliner has a maximum speed..." Do you mean both models?
  • In "Coaches":
    • Para 1: "15 passengers on the lower level (later reduced to 12)". Two things: Why was the lower level capacity reduced to 12 passengers? And the parentheses are unwieldy. How about 15 passengers on the lower level, with the lower level's capacity later reduced to 12.
      • Copyedited. I'm not sure what caused the reduction. If I had to guess it was related to ADA compliance. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Para 3: " Integral blinds were rejected in favor of curtains on maintenance grounds. An upper level of "skylight" windows, similar to those on the Sun Lounge cars, was rejected as too expensive. " → Integral blinds were rejected in favor of curtains on maintenance grounds, while an upper level of "skylight" windows, similar to those on the Sun Lounge cars, was rejected as too expensive. (I guess these are both about rejected features so I combined them)
  • In "Sleeping cars":
    • Para 5: "To one side of the stairs are three bathrooms and one shower. To the other are four more roomettes." → To one side of the stairs are three bathrooms and one shower, and to the other are four more roomettes. (this comparison style is usually a single sentence)
  • In "Lounges":
    • Para 3: "These cars may be distinguished" → These cars are distinguished (unless I am wrong and some of the Superliner I cars are exactly the same as the Sightseers)
      • In this case we're talking specifically about the converted dining cars and how they differ from the S-I and S-II lounges. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later, but so far it looks like solid work. epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mackensen: Thanks for the quick response. I'll follow up with more feedback tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up from where I left off.

  • Didn't see any issues in "Dining cars", "Transition sleepers", or "Summary".
  • In "History" - "Superliner I":
    • Para 1:
      • For the phrase "... deliveries scheduled for January 1977 – June 1978", it is awkward to have the endash when this is part of the prose instead of part of a timeline. I suggest deliveries scheduled for between January 1977 and June 1978
      • Do you know the new 284-car breakdown? How many more of each car was ordered?
    • Para 2: There are two parenthetical statements that I think could be worded differently, because too many parenthetical statements in prose can be distracting. For instance, The name "Superliner" was chosen by Needham, Harper & Steers, who was Amtrak's advertising agency at the time, and announced in 1977 and the winning entry, Vistaliner—harkening back to the Vista-Domes of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad—was already under copyright by another company. But this is just a suggestion because I understand "Needham, Harper & Steers" and "Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad" already have commas within them.
    • Para 3:
      • Explain what "revenue service" is. I know what it is, but the non-railfan who searches this term online gets Internal Revenue Service as the first link, which is totally different.
      • What do you mean by "Illini (April) and Shawnee (June) trains"? It sounds like either the trains first ran in these months, or these are the months when Illini and Shawnee operate.
        • Those were the introduction dates for the Superliners on those routes. I've moved that information into an endnote. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Equipping the fleet":
    • Para 3: "The design impressed the management of the Santa Fe sufficiently that they permitted Amtrak to restore the name Chief to the train, and Amtrak renamed it the Southwest Chief on October 28, 1984." My concern is the location of the word "sufficiently", or if it's the right word. Ultimately you're saying that the management was impressed enough by the design. So how about something like The management of the Santa Fe was sufficiently impressed by the design that they...
      • Santa Fe's revocation of permission to use the "Chief" trademark was an odd incident. Re-worded. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Para 4: This paragraph talks about the introduction timeline of the S-Is. The last sentence, "Amtrak estimated that reequipping a train with Superliners boosted ridership on it by 25%", doesn't quite connect to the previous sentence. How about Amtrak estimated that reequipping these trains with Superliners boosted ridership on them by 25%, since the trains without Superliners aren't being discussed here anyway.
  • In "Superliner II":
    • Para 2: The last sentence, "In 2017, Amtrak identified a need to replace the Superliners, noting that each car traveled the equivalent of "seven trips around the world" every year", probably belongs in its own paragraph. Again, this doesn't seem to flow smoothly with the previous sentences in the paragraph, which are about which trains the Superliners ran on. But since it's one sentence, you may want to expand it. Are there any definite replacement plans, cost estimates, etc? That might be good info to add.
      • It could probably be struck altogether. At this point there's nothing firm. The hope was that the Next Generation Bi-Level Passenger Rail Car would provide a basis for a future Superliner III order, but that project has turned into a fiasco. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. It seems like a good topic to expand on, but if there's really not enough info about a proposed replacement, I think we should just leave it be. epicgenius (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll give this a second look-through tomorrow. If I don't find anything else of concern, consider this my support !vote.epicgenius (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My final thoughts:
    • In "Background" para 4: the sentence "Amtrak invited four companies to bid on its construction–Boeing, Budd, Pullman-Standard, and Rohr–with Pullman-Standard winning the contract" is using unspaced endashes. To fit dash convention, I suggest to either replace these with spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes (—).
    • In "Design" para 1: "480 volt" should be 480-volt.
    • In "Sleeping cars" para 3: "The family bedroom is found at one end of the lower level of the car" is awkward; I suggest The family bedroom is located at one end of the car's lower level or similar.
    • In "Dining cars" para 1 (didn't catch this earlier, sorry): Isn't "drink" in "food and drink" supposed to be plural? As in A dumbwaiter is used to bring food and drinks to the dining level. This is an actual question.
  • That's it. Once these are fixed, I can support. epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I've copyedited; as far as food and drink go I think either usage is correct. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for fixing these. I officially support this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

A couple of points:

  • What basis is being used for the inclusion or otherwise of access dates in references? It seems to me that there are numerous missing access dates.
  • Why are some Amtrak refs in short citation format and others not?

No spotchecks carried out. It seems that the sources used are of appropriate authority and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • My understanding is that access dates are necessary for online sources whose content could change; they don't make sense for books or journal articles.
  • That's correct up to a point. But when the article has been transposed to a website – the NYT article in ref 20 is one example – the text might be slightly different from the original print source. In my experience this is quite often the case. In effect, you are citing a website rather than a journal, thus an access date is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added access dates for when we're looking at a transcription as opposed to a scan of the original text. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used short citations for two multipage reports where Amtrak is the corporate author and no individual author is given. I've converted two others now; the 1975 annual report and the 1990 fleet brochure. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that there are few duplinks in this article. These should be checked to see if they can be fixed, or if they are necessary. However, it isn't worth holding this up, and I will promote this shortly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2017 [24].

Watching the River Flow[edit]

Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a one-off 1971 single by Bob Dylan where he collaborated with musician Leon Russell and briefly experimented with a blues-rock sound. I have done a bunch of editing to bring it up a couple of notches from the GA-level quality it was at, and the article was recently peer reviewed. I believe it meets the FA requirements. I would also like to give credit and thanks to User:Mick gold, who co-nominated it for GA with me in 2012, and who recently made several very helpful edits in preparing for this FAC; thank you also to Ceoil for copy-edits. Moisejp (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my detailed comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ojorojo

  • Support – All of my points have been thoroughly addressed and, after doing some of my own research, I feel the article has utilized the available sources. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much, Ojorojo. It's great to have had someone with a deep knowledge of the subject review the article. I will make the wording change you suggested below when I get home tonight. Moisejp (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of observations/minor points:

  • Lead – Some details may be better left in the main body (backing musicians, charting countries, cover artists). Perhaps add some mention about where it fits in his chronology (e.g., a non-LP single recorded after his country rock phase with Johnson)
  • See what you think of my changes. I removed mention of the musicians, and added that it followed a country rock phase. I'm hesitant to remove the chart information because singles are measured by their chart performance. I also would rather keep in the covers information, but let me know if you strongly disagree. Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I think the second sentence could be broken up. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do have a source that compares the Blue Rock recordings (the two originals and the unreleased covers) to "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat" but without any mention of blues rock [[25]]. If you like the following change (or have another to propose) I'd be happy to do so: "The music of "Watching the River Flow"—whose feel Bob Spitz has likened to Dylan's "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat" (1966)—has been described by different critics as a "[b]lues-powered sound [that cascades] like clumps of flotsam and jetsam",[18] as "featur[ing] some blistering guitar work ... and rollicking piano work from Russell",[17] and as "an energetic, funky-gospel rocker"." Let me know what you think. Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that he has explored some similar territory before is worth noting and your addition touches on it. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the backing musicians are listed, maybe note that they were associated with Russell and had not recorded/backed Dylan before.
  • Perhaps the fact that they were associated with Russell (more so than Dylan) is somewhat implied already in the wording "Russell assembled"? I'm not optimistic I'd be able to find a reference explicitly saying Dylan had never recorded with these musicians before. Moisejp (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. FWIW, most played with Russell on Mad Dogs & Englishmen (recorded 3/70) and Leon Russell and the Shelter People (8/70–1/71) and also would perform at The Concert for Bangladesh (8/71), at which Dylan also performed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that the inclusion of the chords without bars is useful (the way the first chords appear makes it seem that they are all of the same duration; the second appear to be a turn around). Perhaps describe it as an eight bar progression with substitutions (if you can find a ref).
  • I'm not a musician myself, but could I confirm you're saying the current source (sheet music) probably isn't enough as a source to go into the detail of description you would like to see? Assuming I can't find a written description of the progression (which I don't have much hope I will), would you favour me removing the current chord description altogether? Moisejp (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found some sheet music (the current source is guitar tab with lyrics). I'll add a note on the talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added it as a ref. Could you please suggest the wording that you'd like to see that is appropriate for the source? Is the following good: "...and consists of an eight-bar chord progression of F–B♭–F–G7–C7–F–B♭–F–C7–F with substitutions"? Moisejp (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the sources don't explicitly say this in words, a better wording would be: "... and uses a chord progression in the key of F major." —Ojorojo (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The commentary in the Listen template may be better left in the article (excerpt with guitar is not particularly "blistering" – instead perhaps "20-seconds of intro with piano, guitar, and part of first of verse").
  • I realize it's not everybody's approach, but my approach for non-free content has always been to treat the caption (in the article) as an extension of the fair use rationale in the media file—that is, try to implicitly justify why the inclusion of the non-free media adds to the reader's understanding more than just words alone. The WTRF article's caption may not be the best example I've ever done, but I guess I was aiming to use the sound clip to give the reader a better understanding of what the "blistering" and "rollicking" descriptions in the article actually sound like in the song. If you feel my approach is valid, do you have a suggestion for details (ideally descriptions from the article or paraphrases of them) that you would like to see in the caption instead of "blistering" and "rollicking"? Or if you don't think my approach is especially valid, let me know—I'm open to different points of view. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting approach. I've mostly treated samples (and images) as examples of the general subject and not a particular aspect of it. That way they may be used to illustrate a variety of points, such as "guitar figure", "first verse", "chorus", etc., as the editor may choose. If you wish to use it to show what a writer is describing, perhaps the caption should be attributed, e.g., "Excerpt of "blistering guitar" and "rollicking piano" as described by critic Anthony Varesi[17]". Otherwise, the caption should be more neutral. (The opening guitar part is performed with a slide – worth noting, but I couldn't find a ref.) —Ojorojo (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated the caption to include Anthony Varesi's name, and have removed "lead" from the description (was "lead guitar"). Please let me know if this is satisfactory, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release – Maybe title section "Releases and charts" and include the chart table.
  • Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Moisejp (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Live performances and covers – I heard one Dylan performance where he used a very different backing arrangement (country shuffle/boogie?). Maybe include some info on live versions if you can find any.
  • I'll try to see if I can find anything. My best idea is to do a Google search by concert venue (and include "Watching the River Flow" in the search each time) and see whether reviews come up that mention his arrangements, which may take a bit of time. Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a couple of searches and couldn't find anything, except a video of a jam of George Harrison performing it with Dylan, John Fogerty, Taj Mahal, and Jesse Ed Davis (on a good slide solo) at a North Hollywood dive in 1987. (~17:50–22:04)[26] —Ojorojo (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for looking, Ojorojo. I also have looked a bit. I agree such commentary would be nice to have (if it is findable) and I'd be interested in exploring this later more leisurely. My method of searching venue by venue could conceivably result in some insightful commentary about alternate live arrangements, but as I mentioned it's a time-consuming method. If this point isn't a deal-breaker for gaining your support, I'd prefer to not tackle this point at this time. Moisejp (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyman photo – As only one of three images in the article, this may give more prominence to the Stones cover than warranted. Wyman's image doesn't appear related to WTRF or playing/recording with the Stones.
  • Re. the Wyman photo: my thinking was that the Rolling Stones are arguably one of the biggest bands in the world—and (perhaps to a lesser degree) the fact that their recording reunited Wyman with his former bandmates after so long—adds to the notability of their recording over other covers, justifying the prominence of their recording in the covers section. But I am certainly open to changing the photo. One idea is I could change it to a pic of Dylan in concert. I'll check to see whether I might be lucky enough that a Wiki Commons photo exists for one of the 500 concerts where Dylan played WTRF—in that case the photo caption would take care of itself. If such a photo doesn't exist, let's discuss whether a generic live photo of Dylan would be better than current Wyman one, and if so what an appropriate caption would be. (I'm also open to suggestions for any other photos to substitute instead.) Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a match. Just confirming before I make the change, would you prefer the photo below to the Wyman one:
Dylan together with five members of his band onstage.
Dylan playing at the Spektrum in Oslo, Norway, on March 30, 2007, one of hundreds of concerts where he has performed "Watching the River Flow".
I agree that the Stones' cover is probably the most notable, but think a Dylan performance photo is more appropriate. There are several photos of Dylan and Russell performing together (e.g., the Concert for Bangladesh[27] and ?[28]). Your choice. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to the Dylan photo as shown below. Moisejp (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ojorojo. There are some very good ideas in your suggestions. I'll address them soon and get back to you when I'm done. Moisejp (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ojorojo. I have pretty much addressed all of your comments. Let me know which items you would like to see action on. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images appear to be used properly. Alt text is present.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support and your image review, Wehwalt! Moisejp (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wehwalt. I ended up changing one image per Ojorojo's request above. Could I please ask you to have a peek at it as part of your image review? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • For the following phrase (featuring Rolling Stones Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, and Ronnie Wood, as well as former member Bill Wyman), would it read better to say "featuring Rolling Stones members" and then list off the artist names? The second instance of "member" in that sentence could be changed to "the band's former bass guitarist". I could be wrong, but just the jump from the band to the list of the names reads a little weirdly to me.
  • In the paragraph of who has covered the song, do you need to identify where each cover was done? If it was done as part of a live show or an album? I am not certain about this, but I just wanted to ask you.

These are my only two things that I have noticed while reading through the article, so I support on prose. Great work with this article! If possible, could you look at my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or if it falls outside of your interests. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day, and good luck with getting this promoted as it seems to already be very close to that point. Aoba47 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47. Thank you very much for your support, and for your comments here and in the peer review! About your comments here:

  • Hmm, if you do a Google search of, say, "Rolling Stones Much Jagger and Keith Richards" [[29]], there seem to be quite a few hits that match the usage I used, and I would argue it is an acceptable way to use "Rolling Stones". But also in the same search, hits of "the Rolling Stones' " come up. Would you prefer "featuring the Rolling Stones' Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, and Ronnie Wood, as well as former member Bill Wyman"? I'd be happy with that wording. However, I feel your suggestion of "Rolling Stones members" reads a little awkwardly (perhaps partly because there are two plurals in a row—Stones members), and I'd reluctant to change it to that, unless you feel very strongly that it's better.
  • The addition of the apostrophe makes the most sense to me so I would recommend doing that. Aoba47 (talk)
  • All of the covers listed appear on albums, and none are simply unreleased live performances. I see your point of—if the list were a combination of album and simply live covers—it might be beneficial to indicate which is which. But I can't think of a way right now to add mention of the fact that they were all album releases without it sounding wordy (for example, I wouldn't be crazy about "The song has also been covered by numerous other artists on albums, including..."). But if you have a suggestion for wording you'd like to see, I'd be open to your suggestion. Otherwise I feel it's pretty much fine the way it is now, and it keeps it simple and doesn't get overly detailed about what kinds of covers they are.
  • Makes sense; I just want to double-check about this point. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About me looking at your FAC, I would love to, but my most immediate commitment is I've promised IndianBio I'd give feedback at his peer review, and he has been waiting a long time for it. Once I've finished that, if your article is still in need of review, I'll take a look. Otherwise, I'll try really hard to jump in and review your next one. Thank you again for all of your suggestions and for your support! Moisejp (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great work with your article, and it is all good. I enjoyed reading through this article again, and I hope that I helped somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba, thank you again for all your suggestions, which were helpful! I also made the change about the Rolling Stones. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Moisejp (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

I will be supporting this impressive article. However, not sure that mentioning it appeared his Greatest Hits Vol. II is for the lead. It seems faint praise. Disclimer, have been a listening to Dylan in a significant way for 30 years. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ceoil, thank you again very much for your interest in this article. Hmm, I could mention in the lead that WTRF was technically a non-album single (as Ojorojo suggested above) and remove mention of Greatest Hits Volume II... But I'm a little worried readers will be wondering even as they read the lead whether the song was eventually released on any albums. Plus, Greatest Hits Volume II is a relatively famous album. But if you feel strongly it shouldn't be mentioned (and nobody else objects), I could take it out of the lead as you suggest. Still another option would be just to keep "and was released on multiple compilation albums"—that may possibly be weaker still in terms of "faint praise" but at least the reader would not imagine the single was never released on any albums. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understood, and its hardly a deal breaker. Not many people reading this far while browsing will be uninformed in Dylan lore, so it seems redundant. I'd big up the song with a different accolade, but non album single or similar is fine. Yes Greatest Hits Volume II is well know. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now added mention to the lead that it was a non-album single. Thank you for your suggestion. Moisejp (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still heavy on chart positions and such stats (we get "in Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom" early on when there is so much else to say. How about "Worldwide"). Maybe remove one instance of the word "restless". Ceoil (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ceoil. See what you think of my edits to address your concerns. I'm happy to keep working on them if you feel they're not quite right. For the lead, I tried "minor hit in some countries worldwide"—I was reluctant to not include "some countries" because simply "worldwide" may suggest a more widespread number of countries when we only have evidence of four. Moisejp (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks Moisejp. I am impressed with the article, minor quibbles aside. Will return next weekend after another read, I suspect to support. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you shorten the list all those after "numerous other artists" Moisejp Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ceoil. The list includes all the covers I could find (for which the artists already had Wikipedia articles), but I could shorten it to any arbitrary number. There are a few I know are quite famous and several others I hadn't heard of but they may well be famous. I'll start by removing a few that seem likely to be on the less famous/notable side, and you can let me know if there's a ballpark figure of how many more you'd like me to remove. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I not thinking of "for the sake" of it or arbitrary just more readable. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed all the presumably less notable artists, for which there was only an "Overview" for the album in AllMusic, not a proper "Review". This ended up being six artists I cut, so the list is quite a bit shorter now. Moisejp (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • implied bucolic notion - I understand, but it needs a lead up and not to come out of nowhere. Should it be as part of a quote. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was wording Mick gold contributed, and I see it's wiki-linked to pastoral. The source, Ricks, does not use either word (there's a link to the pages in Google Books if you want to have a look). In the source there doesn't seem to be one specific sentence that "implied bucolic notion" refers to, but when I reviewed the source (and look at it agin now), the "relaxed pastoral" vs. "conflict" idea seems to match the overall idea described in the cited pages. But I am happy to adjust the wording in any way if you have suggestions. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your choice. Are you happy with its rention. Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with keeping it as is if you have no objections. Moisejp (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously do, but its not fatal. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dylan sought to subvert critics like Gleason - again, I understand this, as a fan, but in the article its just thrown out, in a sea of quotes, with no subtext. Its a fascinating point, that you might expand upon. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mick gold—if you have time—would you have an idea, and a good source, to expand on this? I guess it would amount to discussing Dylan's annoyance at his critics/fans trying to "own" him and always expecting him to "have something to say". Moisejp (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Heylin section is expanded to clarify the Gleason bit, and this goes into more detail about Dylan's annoyance at fans'/critics' (largely artistic) expectations, there may (or may not) be some overlap with the Shelton section, which discusses his distancing himself from fans' (political) expectations. There is also a bit of overlap between Ricks' and Heylin's discussion of Dylan's restlessness. Especially if the Gleason bit is too obscure for the general reader, another possibility could be to pare down the Heylin section to only talk about Dylan's lack of inspiration. We could use the last three sentences in the paragraph, but tie the question "What's the matter with me?/I don't have much to say" more explicitly to just his lack of inspiration rather than to Gleason. But that’s just an idea. I'm interested to hear Ceoil's and Mick's thoughts about this, or as mentioned before, whether Mick has ideas to instead successfully expand this section. (But maybe the “Ballad of Easy Rider” vs. “WTRF” bit should be removed regardless, as it disrupts the flow of other arguments—and because Ricks already touched on Dylan’s restlessness—but, again, that’s just an idea!) Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moisejp I'm afraid I'm working away from home - and my Dylan books - for a while. Can't look at this immediately. Mick gold (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Mick. I hope your work is going well. Moisejp (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To sum up my standpoint, I don't feel really confident about finding sources for and expanding this subtle Gleason point on my own. I would propose either removing it, to focus on Dylan's lack of inspiration, or leaving it as is. Either way, having re-read this paragraph and considering the overall flow of the section, I wouldn't be against removing the “Ballad of Easy Rider” vs. “WTRF” sentences, unless there is consensus or strong opinion to keep them. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moisejp I was hoping for a ref rather than removal, as the passage rings true! Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote with reference added. Moisejp (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1987, Dylan has performed the composition often at his concerts. - this might seem like trite to a new reader unless mention is made of the exceptionally long and vital career, the large volume from his back catelogue he might choose from, as well as the reality of his never ending tour. Otherwise it reads as an aging star pumping out the hits. Ceoil (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you've cut that from the lead. That's fine with me, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The implication is that you should audit for similar broad claims after the lead for similar howlers. I don't like that we say "four country albums", and the list them; it could be taken as padding, please also look over. Ceoil (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think perhaps you mean to say that I haven't taken enough care to read carefully and audit. But I don't think that's fair. I have read through this article dozens of times in the last months with a critical eye. What is considered a "howler" is subjective. That's why in FAC multiple reviewers make suggestions and reach a consensus on what they can all accept—because everyone has slightly different opinions on what the perfect prose would be. For me, listing the four albums is an interesting detail and not padding at all. Also, removing the names of the albums requires having four footnotes bundled together, which is a little awkward. But if you feel it's better without listing the four albums, sure, we can remove them. I will do so. Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we remove the four titles, we need to put the following in context: "During the New Morning sessions, Dylan reportedly decided that he did not want to continue working with Johnston." Are you happy with "During the sessions for New Morning—the fourth of these—Dylan reportedly decided that he did not want to continue working with Johnston"? Moisejp (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can rely on and ask other reviewers, but that doesn't make you able to define what you thought I meant to say. If you think the page is perfect and on its face does not need an audit, why put it through a review process. There are more elegant formulations, and this is but one. Ceoil (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean I thought it was perfect, or that I didn't want to accept yours and other people's reviews. All I meant was that "howler" is very strong. I'm really sorry if I misunderstood what you meant. Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More bits:

  • Christopher Ricks mentions Dylan's restlessness which he finds at odds with the implied bucolic notion of enjoying watching the river flow. For Ricks, the vocal phrasing and the musical arrangements conflict with the lyrics - needs to be explained for lay readers. Why restless.
  • I've brought up a couple of times how the "Easy Rider" vs. "WTRF" sentences (about Dylan's restlessness) from the Heylin paragraph seem possibly out of place. What if I moved them to the Ricks paragraph, would you see that as being potentially helpful? Then the third paragraph would be about Heylin's and Ricks' observations on the "restless" theme, while the fourth paragraph would be about Heylin's observations about his relationship with critics/the press and his lack of inspiration. This move would give more context to Ricks' statement about restlessness, as you have requested. Moisejp (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made this change, which I hope gives enough additional context for Ricks' statements. If I have misunderstood what you wanted here, please let me know, thank you. Moisejp (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conflicting critical estimates" - reword -cc
  • I tentatively changed it to "changing, polarized critical estimates". It may get closer to the heart of the issue than simply "conflicting". I'm still considering whether there may be a better way still to express this. Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Heylin, by beginning "Watching the River Flow" with the question "What's the matter with me?/* - paraphrase the Q, reword
  • "Marcus argued that"..."For Marcus" - Remove one instance of the word Marcus.
  • You're right that there were three sentences in a row mentioning Marcus. Looking at them now, I found it at first difficult to remove his name without causing ambiguity about who was talking. But I ended up opting to adjust the first sentence by changing it to "He went on to describe"; this may be slightly wordier than "he described", but I think it makes it clearer that we're talking about Marcus, not Taylor. If you disagree with this edit, I'm happy to look at it again. Moisejp (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall the article is overly reliant on quotes. Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2017
  • Do you have suggestions for candidates you think would be good to paraphrase? If you do, that would be really helpful for me. I did a round of looking for places to paraphrase before I nominated the article, and changed a few of the easiest ones at that time, where there was as little as possible loss of meaning or colourfulness. I'll also have another look today for candidates, but if you have suggestions, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Including the "What's the matter with me" quote that you specified above, I have now paraphrased six additional quotations. Moisejp (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think Moisejp has done exceptional work in research, and my hope is that a successful nom is brought back in a few months or so. Ceoil (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, can you tell me how your opinion changed so greatly from "I will be supporting this impressive article" to oppose? I'm really trying to be very cooperative and to take on all of your suggestions. I'm truly sorry if we got into a misunderstanding above. What can I do to still keep this on track? Moisejp (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is on track, but I have highlighted a number of structural issues you need to work through - the lead needs to be woven into the story of his career at that point, which it doest do. The the article vague at places, listy at others. And so forth. All of these will take time to resolve. Ceoil (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added more to lead to try to convey where he was in his career at this point. I have removed the list of four country rock albums, and removed one album (the "limited tour edition" one) from releases containing "WTRF" to reduce the article's listy-ness. To improve vagueness/unclarity, I've re-paraphrased a section of the Marcus discussion to make it clearer. I'm still looking at whether there are other vague spots I can improve. Moisejp (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil, I understand. If I withdraw this nomination now and open another peer review in the near future, would you be willing to work with me to improve the areas you feel prevent it from achieving FA quality? Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a terrific album to put forward, but it needs a further push on prose and tightness, is what I'm saying. Ceoil (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, super. I'm thrilled you think the issues are fixable within this FAC, thank you. I will work hard to address your remaining issues. Moisejp (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So please read above. I can only repeat myself so many times. Please roll up you sleeves and address. I'm worn down by prognosticating and promises.

Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ceoil, I'm working at it, and believe I've made some good progress. I'll let you know when I've finished. If you prefer to wait until I'm done before responding or checking my edits, no worries. Thank you again lots for your suggestions and edits. They've really helped improve the article. Moisejp (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I'm a little confused about the intentions above so could do with clarification. This nom has been open almost three weeks so if Ceoil and Moisejp believe outstanding issues can be resolved reasonably soon (say in the next week or so, and of course allowing for other reviewers' opinions) then I'm happy to leave it open; if the issues are deeper and would require longer to resolve then I'd prefer to close this now and let PR be the next step as mentioned above -- pls let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like very much to resolve all issues during this FAC, but it's up to Ceoil to decide whether the gap is too big. Although since deleted, I was encouraged by Ceoil's following edit [[30]], and am working to quickly address the points brought up—and look for other instances of similar issues—in the hope that I can gain Ceoil's support in the next several days. Moisejp (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - this should be ok to be completed during this FAC. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil. I'm now ready to ask you to please look at the article again. I've made many changes for prose and tightness based on your suggestions, and I hope you'll find them all to be improvements. If there are any bits where you preferred the previous version, I'm happy to revert these. I'm also of course very happy to hear any suggestions for further tweaks. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just read through and am very please; great work and a very fine article overall. Happy to Support Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist[edit]

I'm glad to see this. I had the 45 years ago, used to listen to both sides many many times...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

No spotchecks carried out. Mostly, the sources are in good order; a few routine issues:

  • Björner.com: can you clarify who is the publisher of this website, and why it qualifies as a reliable source?
  • The same question, with regard to Jambands.com
  • Why is Jambands.com italicised?
  • The Maury Dean book is missing its ISBN, which you include in all other book refs
  • ISBN formats should be regularised, preferably in the 13-digit form. At present you are using both 10-digit and 13-digit forms; here [31] is a simple 10 to 13 digit converter. Also, the 13-digit format should be standardised, preferably in the subdivided form as in the Marcus book.

No further sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, thank you so much for your thorough source review.

  • I have replaced Jambands.com with Bobdylan.com (Dylan's official website).
  • I've added the ISBN for the Maury Dean book and standardized all ISBNs in the 13-digit, subdivided format. (Thank you for the ISBN converter link! I wasn't aware of it before.)
  • Olof Björner's website is self-published. But note that he is very much considered an authority on Dylan. User:Mick gold has written a long defense of the use of Björner as a source in the second half of Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Bob_Dylan/archive3 that includes a letter from Michael Gray (author). There is also precedent for allowing the use of Bjorner.com in FACs, as the promoted version of both Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde include it. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a perfect judge of what consititutes a reliable source in this field, and am happy to accept your argument here. Brianboulton (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

Short and sweet. Very little left for me to say. Just nitpicky things you may consider:

  • his writer's block in the early 1970s -> looks like I'm the only one finding it odd to refer to the 14 months of the decade leading up to March 1971 as "early 1970s". Plus: did this writers block definitely not include some time in the 60s?
  • whose feel Bob Spitz -> would be nice if there was some indication of why Bob's opinion matters (biograpger?)
  • Retrieved 2017-07-16. -> odd date format for all the retrieves

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Edwininlondon. On the question you raise about writer's block: In 1969 Dylan released Nashville Skyline, which was a hit album, reaching number 3 in the U.S. and number 1 in the UK charts. Dylan released Self Portrait in June 1970 consisting primarily of traditional songs plus some well-known Dylan songs as live recordings from the Isle of Wight concert. It also contained 4 original songs: "All The Tired Horses", "Living The Blues", "Wigwam" and "Woogie Boogie" (instrumental). This album was quickly followed by New Morning, released October 19, 1970, containing 12 original songs. As the article states, Dylan released no singles or albums in 1972. In 1973 he released the soundtrack album Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid, a mainly instrumental album containing just 2 original songs: "Billy" and "Knockin' On Heaven's Door". CBS released the album Dylan at the end of 1973, which contained old recordings made during the Self Portrait and New Morning sessions. In January 1974, Dylan released Planet Waves, containing 10 new songs. So I think it is accurate to say the "writer's block" or dearth of new songs from Dylan was the gap between New Morning in October 1970 and Planet Waves in January 1974. Mick gold (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the review, Edwininlondon. Please let me know if Mick gold's explanation is satisfactory to address your first point. For the second point, I have added "the journalist" before Spitz's name. I would have just put "journalist" to be consistent with how I introduce other characters (no "the"), but it may not be obvious how to parse "whose feel journalist" for all readers. I will change all the dates in the Reference section in the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the block so clearly. All fine now, I support. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support, Edwininlondon! I am working on the date format changes offline and will paste them into the article within the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2017 [32].

Paradises Lost[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2002 novella by Ursula K. Le Guin. A recent and short work, it has received coverage lower than is typical for that author, and as a consequence the article is somewhat shorter than usual. Nonetheless, I believe it is comprehensive. It is the first time I am nominating something at FAC that I created (rather than rewrote). All feedback is welcome, as always. Required disclaimer: I am, as of this nomination, a Wikicup participant. Vanamonde (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Haven't read very far yet, but "angels" is inconsistently capitalized in the plot description.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the original: Le Guin does not capitalize. Standardized. Vanamonde (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inessential items" Consider "nonessential items"
  • Done
  • " feel value for " consider "value"
  • Yes, flows better...
  • "of which members are known as angels" consider "with members known as angels"
  • Done
  • "and not the origin or destination, matters.[20][19] " refs are backwards
  • Fixed.
  • You are inconsistent "Discovery" vs Discovery. Also the same re Paradises lost (quotes or italics
  • The sources seem to use the title in quotes, so standardized, along with making a switch to the "short story" template.
  • "human beings who are living entirely in interstellar space," This makes it sound like they are living in the void rather than a generation ship.
  • Rephrased
  • check your capitalization of "Bliss". It seems a bit inconsistent.
  • Fixed
  • "had been previously published elsewhere.[46][39][1] " also backwards
  • Fixed
  • Opera: who wrote the libretto and the book?
  • Added libretto author; not sure what book you are referring to, but then again I know nothing about opera...
  • "Attebery credited Le Guin, among others, of reviving generation ship stories in the 1990s, but wrote that these authors shifted the emphasis of such stories away from individuals towards exploring communal action and belief in generation ships. " I might cut the last three words. I think it's implied, and it creates mild ambiguity.
  • Done
Interesting read. I've always liked the concept of the generation ship, though I'm dubious about the science. Just a few things above.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thanks for the review: I've addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Both images seem to be used appropriately. Alt text is present.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Many thanks, as always. One question for you; I've been wondering whether the images are too few, and if so, what to do about it. What do you think of including either a PD image of Le Guin in the "publication" section, or a fair-use image (that I would have to upload) of The Found and the Lost in that same section? Vanamonde (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Le Guin would be better. As for the other, how would you tie it in? Unless you could tie it in well, I'd avoid it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've added the Le Guin image. I guess it would be tricky to justify a loosely related second fair use image, so I've dropped the idea of uploading the anthology cover...though it is a gorgeous image. Vanamonde (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No question it's a nice cover. The new image is fine. All clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Notes/queries follow:

  • The novella begins with 5-Liu Hsing, as a child, being taught about Earth through the use of virtual reality tapes, an experience which the young Hsing takes exception to - has two "Hsing's in it...maybe "The novella begins with 5-Liu Hsing, as a child, being taught about Earth through the use of virtual reality tapes, an experience which her young(er) self takes exception to"?
  • Done.
  • Hsing has disagreements with her friend Rosie, a member of a Bliss, leading Hsing to explore the philosophy of the angels. - this one too, though thinking on ways of rewording...which is tricky.
  • Rephrased as "Disagreements with her friend Rosie, a member of Bliss, lead Hsing to explore the philosophy of the angels."

Looks good overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as I can't find any other prose or comprehensiveness issues Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chiswick Chap[edit]

I reviewed this article at GAN and was happy to pass it as a careful and informative article easily up to the required standard. Having read the story (is one allowed to mention such a thing here), I can attest that the summary covers it well; and the analysis is cogent and cited to reliable critics. I have little to add now, except to note that the other reviewers here have found little to criticise and much to praise in the article's content and construction. I suspect we're even reaching the point of diminishing returns: for instance, I find "inessential" preferable to "nonessential", but it's a matter of no importance. The article is surely a worthy FA and I'm happy to Support its promotion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Chiswick Chap. I've addressed two of your points, and will investigate the third. Vanamonde (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Reception, "that that of" should be "with that of".
  • Yes, thanks.
  • Molly Gloss is not just a science fiction writer so perhaps she should be glossed as "the novelist", "the historical novelist" or some such.
  • Done.
  • I'd like to, but I haven't found anything in the sources...perhaps they consider it self-evident, or maybe Le Guin didn't intend a specific reference? I'm not certain.
Not to worry. The coincidence still might be worth mentioning in a note.

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Invited and interested, I'll comment as I read.

Lead:

  • I think "adapted as an opera" comes too soon, - I'd want to know more about what it is first. Also, adapted as a university project by a composer without an article: possibly not breaking news about the novella.
  • I've shifted the order of the sentences. Normally, it wouldn't be a big deal (as you said, a university production) but Le Guin paid attention to it (even went to a performance, though there's nothing reliable for that) and there's coverage for the performance in Portland.
    • Well, I just met Aribert Reimann in a "normal" performance of his Medea: they love to see their work performed, nothing so special ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess that I don't understand the summary of the plot, but perhaps I will better when reading further.
    • added later: "The story follows them as they deal with a religious cult which does not believe in the ship stopping at its intended destination" - I understand that the "the cult" doesn't believe arriving (anywhere, ever) would be a good idea, no? (Confess that I still have trouble understanding.)
      • True; but obviously the cult's own belief is fuzzy, and I'm not sure I want to complicate the lead further. What is certain is that they don't wish to stop.
    • perhaps mention "angels" here already, because it could be easily missed - especially as not capital -- that the meaning is not the normal meaning of angels. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, done after reading it, changed my mind. It seemed like a parenthetical addition unnecessary to understanding the lead, and disruptive to the flow. If you feel strongly, I will reinstate it again.
The lead is normally the last thing to be polished, - I will look again later. It's on the shortish side, don't be afraid to tell "skimming" readers - who may never get to below - a bit more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing to the other works and authors is not so helpful to readers who don't know them, - please a bit more about what is comparable.
    • Added.

Setting

  • The first sentence is rather complex, and do we need four references?
    • The references are necessary, as they all cover overlapping but individually incomplete bits of the first sentence. I'll think about how I can make it simpler.
      • What I do in such a case is place a ref right behind the bit it supports. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I've collected two of the refs into one: I don't want to complicate the structure by doing anything further, as it will involve duplication as well.
    • Okay, broken into two sentences, though I kinda liked my contorted original :)
  • "The two protagonists of the story are 5-Liu Hsing and 5-Nova Luis" - would it be possible to not only tell us about the 5, but also who is male and female, and to be called by which short name later?
    • I've added their given names. I don't really want to add gender in the "setting" section, as it isn't directly relevant (whereas the parentheses I just added at least fits with the information about names).
      • You think in Romeo and Juliet, the doesn't matter? We happen to know by names that Romeo is male, but not for a Chinese name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No no, it's important to the story! Just not to understanding the setting of the story, I think. In the plot, the "he" and "she" make it clear, do they not?
          • In the plot, it becomes clear, but I suggest to clarify in the setting, perhaps even in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know I'm being a little resistant here, but I really don't want to add gender in the setting; in addition to what I said earlier, an additional "Hsing, a girl, and Luis, a boy" seems like rather old-fashioned writing to me. I took a look at some other FAs: To Kill a Mockingbird, in which the narrator is a girl, doesn't mention her gender until the plot; most FAs don't even have a setting section. If you still feel strongly about this, would you be okay with asking for a second opinion? Wehwalt reviewed this already; perhaps they would be willing to provide one. Vanamonde (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • My friend Wehwalt will not have gotten a ping, because I just fixed it, but doesn't need one. I don't feel strongly about it, just wondered. - I reviewed so many LGBT articles recently that girl and boy seemed to be something worth mentioning ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • maybe use pronouns very quickly and so avoid the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence would perhaps be good to know in the lead already.
    • Unsure about this. To the general public, it is a fact of no importance; it is only those folks already somewhat familiar with her work that might wonder "is it part of the Hainish cycle?" I'll think further.
      • Don't think further, it's fine, was just an idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opera

  • The composer is named Stephen A. Taylor in one source.
    • Changed.
  • Do readers know what a celesta is?
    • Good point. There's some guideline somewhere about not linking things in quotes, but I think we can make an exception here, as there isn't any ambiguity as to what he is talking about.
  • I could imagine the opera section after Reception, or as part of it.
    • This change I'm going to resist. I really think it belongs with the publication; additionally, reception is already long, while publication is short; and in other stories, I've tended to place adaptations with the publications.

That's all for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changes, and we'll think further. I understand the points where I didn't reply ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(stalker): You're surely right. The allusion is clear, and can be cited: Charles Wright Academy states "Each novel relies on a central allusion to John Milton's epic poem Paradise Lost, which depicts the fall of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from Eden." In which case it would make sense to wikilink Paradise Regained even though it's mentioned in a quotation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I want to include this, I really do: I noticed the allusion the first time I read it. But, I need a source that will not be thrown out in a source review. I've been trying to find one for quite a while, so far without success. Vanamonde (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's unduly timid, given that it's obviously true and academics who have no reason to be doubted on the matter are saying so. However, Margaret Atwood's New York Review of Books quote, already in the lead, makes an unambiguous allusion to Milton, so I suggest you footnote that quote to point out that Paradises Lost alludes to Milton's Paradise Lost/Paradise Regained. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say "timid", I say "particular"; and maybe you'd be, too, if you'd worked on south Asian politics as long as I have! I take your point, though. Additionally I guess it's tricky to find sources for such things given that scholars are too preoccupied with deeper analysis, and media sources do not go into non-standalone stories in sufficient depth. I've added the fact, using Atwood as the source.
  • Can you translate 'Le Guin described its universe as "well-used one: the generic, shared, science fiction ‘future.’ In this version of it, Earth sends forth ships to the stars at speeds that are, according to our present knowledge, more or less realistic, at least potentially attainable."' for someone who never read science fiction in English (and only little in German)? I think the sentence needs "a" before the quote begins. What's a well-used universe? ... a generic future? ... a shared future? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, good catch. All of us before you missed it. Yes, it would need an "a"; but in light of your concern about the rest of the sentence, I've paraphrased the first bit, and it does no longer. Take a look.
  • I like the change. I have no time right now, but will look again after a while, after having read the German source also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read now the dissertation, and will put here what I find, rather than on my talk where you mentioned it. Preface: the author analyses for each work whether it's more utopia or science fiction. He sees four aspects more or less apparent in her work: feminism, ecology, anarchism and pacifism. Now to Paradises lost (p. 231): Setting is described as in the article, on a voyage, 141 years after it started, narration over around 25 years, plants and bacteria on board, but no animals, Earth often called "dirtball", strict recycling on board, one person/one child rule. Discovery is divided in four sections, originally by ethnic group but in the fifth generation almost not relevant, only some Asians respect it but are call racist for it. Teachers rotate, so that children get educated by members of different former ethnic groups. ... naked children, dressed age 5, early sexual education, inviting to bisexuality ... education about Earth only at age 10. (so far p. 232, p. 233 missing from preview) more tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks very much! Hang on a moment though; are you saying it is a dissertation, as in a PhD thesis? I had imagined it was a book! Theses are not always the best sources. I'm wondering now if it might be better to wait for a source review to take a look at the source, before I add anything based on it...Vanamonde (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Don't mean to bother you, just want to make sure this did not drop off your radar. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Little time on a Sunday, no bother, I thought I'd wait for a source review, no? It seems that the dissertation - about all her works, perhaps worth mentioning - supports the article, more or less. Every other page is not visible to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt: Don't mean to be a bother, Gerda, but was there anything more? If not, could you see your way to supporting this? If you want to go over it again I'm happy to wait for you to do so, but if you're actually done I'm hoping to wrap this up soonish and get one of too many things off my mind. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read it once more, and - while I'd probably place the characters before the story, and reception before the (later) opera - support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • I was struck by the number of citations to the primary source, the work itself. My understanding has always been that we did not generally cite the work except in cases such as a direct quotation from the text, as you have done in the quotebox at the start of the "setting" section. This view appears to be upheld by this guideline. I am not sure why you felt it necessary to cite straightforward plot features – it's not necessarily wrong, but it does seem contrary to wide WP practice and guidelines. Perhaps you would comment on this?
  • Well, based just on common sense it seems to me that if we can make something easier to verify, then we should; disputes over plot details are not unheard of, and there are occasions (even here) where secondary sources get plot details incorrect. I looked at the linked guideline, and the bit that seems relevant to me is "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible." (emphasis mine). Which to me suggests that inline refs are not a bad idea.
  • Apart from this, there are a couple of very minor formatting points:
  • Ref 34 requires p. not pp.
  • Done
  • Done

No spotchecks carried out. Sources seem in general to be of appropriate authority and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I've addressed your points: thanks for the review. If I may ask you one more question: Gerda and myself have been discussing the use of this source. It is a PhD thesis in German, and my gut feeling is that though it is not quite as reliable as the others, and is dodgy for any radically different interpretations, it may provide a couple of useful tidbits. Gerda may have a different assessment. What do you think of its reliability, and do you have any thoughts on whether it is needed? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Don't mean to bother you, but since you're active, wanted to make sure you had seen this. Vanamonde (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On your final point, the source is in German, so whether or not it can be considered reliable, it won't be much use to the great majority of your readers. This is, after all, English Wikipedia. The article is well sourced, doesn't need this extra, and I wouldn't spend any more time considering it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Brianboulton. Gerda, based on this I think we should only use that source if there's some fascinating tidbit that's not already in the article; what do you think? Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me about that source. I'd keep it (perhaps as external link) just to mention that the story had extensive scientific coverage even in German, and the source supports the article, as far as I could see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: That's a good thought: I've added it as a further reading entry. Feel free to make any tweaks to the description/formatting. Did you have any other points you wished to raise, since you mentioned above that you were waiting for the source review? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2017 [33].

Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 1992 id Software created the grandfather of first-person shooter video games with Wolfenstein 3D, and in 1993 they released the canonical form of the genre, Doom. But two years before that, they weren't even id: they were "Ideas From the Deep", a group of employees from Softdisk in Shreveport, Louisiana, who had just figured out a way to make a smooth platformer game on an IBM-compatible PC instead of a dedicated gaming console. And with that concept, they made the strangely-titled Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons: featuring no demons or Nazis, but a child jumping his way through alien-filled levels. Commander Keen launched id as a developer and Apogee Software as a publisher, so while it was never as famous as id's follow-up games, it forms an important bit of video gaming history, as well as fond memories from my childhood. I wrote this article last summer as part of a campaign to get all of the Keen games to GA; I'm now circling back around to them in an effort to boost at least some to FA-level. I hope you have as much fun reading this as I did researching/writing it! --PresN 21:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

  • I played and enjoyed this...reading through now...please revert if I accidentally change meaning while making copyedits...
After a demo of a PC version of Super Mario Bros. 3 developed by Carmack and his coworkers John Romero and Tom Hall, along with Jay Wilbur and Lane Roathe, failed to convince Nintendo to invest in a PC port of their game, they were approached by Scott Miller of Apogee Software to develop an original game to be published through the Apogee shareware model. - I think this sentence is a tad long and better split. I got lost in the clauses...
The team worked continuously for almost three months on the game, working late into the night at the office at Softdisk and taking their work computers to John Carmack's home to continue developing the game - two "game"s in the one sentence...
"X-14 Tantalus Ray cannons" - why the quotation marks here?

Otherwise reads nicely and appears to be complete...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Split, fixed, and removed. Thanks for reviewing/copyediting! --PresN 01:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

  • In the gameplay section, there's a little bit of blurring of player and player character. Perhaps this could be tweaked? I know all gamers know what is meant, but it may be a little unclear to those who aren't familiar with video gaming. (Also "vertically when the player moved as" in the development section.)
  • "an adventure game where the player navigates mazes while avoiding Egyptian-themed traps and monsters" in which? Also the next sentence: "publishing where part of a"
  • You might want to consider breaking up the development section a bit; not only is the section itself very long, but the paragraphs are very long too.
  • "and "The Available Data on the Worp Reaction", a short story about a child constructing a spaceship" Who was that by?
  • We have two Carmacks; could you check to make sure that they are always referred to by their full name unless it is definitely clear from the context which is being referred to?
  • Is id Anthology worth a redlink?
  • "Commander Keen Combo CD" Italics? Worth linking?
  • "3D Realms Anthology" Worth linking? Even if these aren't notable, perhaps they belong on the navbox with a link to a list entry or something?
  • "Commander Keen Complete Pack" As above!
  • I think something about the compilation/Steam releases belongs in the lead.

Support. That's all very small, and I think this is a great article. Please double-check my edits. Delegates: I reviewed this article (and others in the series) at GAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleaned up
  • Done
  • Chopped into two sub-sections; are the names alright?
  • Done
  • Only spot where it was questionable was the lead; actually the first time Adrian is mentioned in the development section is the last time either Carmack is mentioned in that section, and Adrian is never mentioned in Legacy.
  • No, I don't think any of the "anthologies" or "collections" could support an article, and the List of 3D Realms games list I recently wrote doesn't cover the collections as separate items. They weren't "produced" collections like you see nowadays, they were more "here's a cd with several games on it" and "here's a bunch of games sold on Steam together".
  • But italics, yes.
  • Added.
Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Impressively quick- yes, happy with those changes! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review[edit]
  • I think the non-free use rationales could be expanded a little. In particular, there are some "n.a."s in the rationale for File:Commander Keen Marooned on Mars Title.png, and the rationale for File:Commander Keen Marooned on Mars gameplay.gif is a little generic. I do believe, however, that the use of the images is justified.
  • File:Hall and Romero 1999 crop.jpg is a crop of an image that was deleted as having no source. This is a problem.
  • (Super bonus sourcing comment) ""Commander Keen". CQ Amateur Radio. Vol. 48 no. 1. 1992. p. 63. ISSN 0007-893X." This lacks a publisher. I generally wouldn't bother listing a publisher for magazines like this, but it should be provided here to be consistent with your other citations.

No problems with the other image. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Expanded the rationales; arg, yes, I had to drop that image from Wolfenstein 3D for exactly that reason, so replaced; publisher added. --PresN 18:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • This is more of a clarification question about the following phrase (most of the game features the player-controlled Commander Keen viewed from the side while moving on a two-dimensional plane). I am a little uncertain about what is meant by "most of the game". Are there portions of the game where the player controls other characters or controls Commander Keen in a different way other than "moving on a two-dimensional plane". I just was not entirely sure what about this when reading through that section.
  • For the phrase (In between levels Keen travels on a two-dimensional map), please put a comma between "levels" and "Keen".
  • In the third paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, you use the word "alien" quite a bit. I would recommend removing "alien" in front of the word "Martians" to cut down slightly on the repetitive language, and I think it can be safely assumed that the word "Martians" by itself would reference some sort of alien without the descriptive phrase.
  • In the phrase (Touching a hazard or most enemies causes Keen to lose a life, and the game is ended if all of Keen's lives are lost), would it be helpful to add a link to game over for the word "ended"?
  • I would add the year in which Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century was released to provide the full context to that sentence.
  • In the phrase (on the afternoon of December 14 Miller began uploading the), please add a comma between "December 14" and "Miller".

Wonderful work with this article. I only found minor places for improvement. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The counterpoint to "most of the game features [...] viewed from the side" is a few sentences later at "In between levels Keen travels on a two-dimensional map, viewed from above". So, the second option you gave.
  • Makes sense; I assumed that there must have been a counterpoint to this sentence, but for some reason, I could not find it. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Why not, done
  • Done, good point; also added a year for the short story, which oddly enough is also from 1953, though he likely read it in an anthology from the 80s as it was in several (Duck Dodgers, of course, was shown on cartoon shows for decades after, I saw it in the 90s myself)
  • Done
@Aoba47: Responded, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my points; I support this based on the prose. If possible, could you look at my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or if it falls outside of your interests. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day, and good luck with getting this promoted. It is always interesting to read about older games; maybe one day, I will work on a video game article and bring it up to the FAC process too. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I'll try to get to it this week; I owe the FA process a lot of FAC reviews in general that I haven't done so I'll include that one when I start them. --PresN 19:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, my FAC is still really new so there is no rush. I am trying to be more patient with my FACs from here on out. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Otherwise, all seems pretty much OK in this department, subject to a couple of minor issues:

  • Short citations normally use author name not work title. Thus ref. 5: "Kushner, pp. 48–51". See also 10, 11, 13, 16, 21 and 22
  • Ref 4 appears to be lacking publisher details.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Book citations changed; Ref 4 replaced with another ref. --PresN 14:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All OK now Brianboulton (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2017 [34].

Roland TR-808[edit]

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the TR-808, a 1980s drum machine that became one of the most influential musical instruments in popular music. It became a GA earlier this year, and has been expanded since - for example, it now has audio samples. After writing several GA articles, I'd like to try my hand at a FA. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "Roland ended production in 1983 after semiconductor improvements made the faulty transistors that were an essential part of its design impossible to restock.": This implies to me that any of these machines that are still around are just museum pieces, not functioning ... correct? Past tense might be more appropriate than present tense in some places in your text. In "its popularity with hip hop in particular has made it one of the most influential inventions", "has made it" is present perfect, and I think the natural assumption of most readers from that would be that the machines are still around and functioning, which can't be right if "impossible to restock" is right. So please be clear about when you're talking about emulators or sampled sounds and when you're talking about the actual 808.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this. That's not the intended meaning of the sentence. There are indeed many functioning 808s in use around the world. The Development section says: "Kakehashi deliberately purchased faulty transistors to create the machine's distinctive "sizzling" sound.[8]" The machine used "bad" transistors, by design, because they create a particular sound. Kakehashi would go to transistor manufacturers and buy their broken transistors off them to use in the machine. When the manufacturers improved their manufacturing processes, they stopped producing these particular broken transistors, and so Roland could no longer build the 808s.
  • If you think the sentence is confusing, though, maybe we should rephrase it. It might not be necessary in the lead to mention that the components were faulty. We could simplify it to: "Roland ended production in 1983 after the transistors that were an essential part of its design became impossible to restock." What do you think? Popcornduff (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better would be: "Roland ended production in 1983, but many functioning 808s are still in use around the world." - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, kinda - I think it's still appropriate to mention why they ceased production, so changed to "Having built approximately 12,000 units, Roland discontinued the 808 after its semiconductors became impossible to restock, but functioning units remain in use around the world". Popcornduff (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

A very interesting article that reads well and seems almost ready to me. Good audio files. I have a short list of questions and suggestions.
General
  • Alt text for the images would be good.
  • Added - never done that before! Is there a way to add them to the infobox images too? Popcornduff (talk)
Yes. It's a bit tricky and seems to vary from one kind of infobox to another. If you roll over the image now, you'll see the "alt=something". You can replace the word "something" with whatever you decide makes a good description for someone who can't see the image. Finetooth (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Popcornduff (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • If possible, please link to explanations for "individual level", "attack", and "decay", since in the context of drum machines these may not be familiar to many readers.
  • Can't find anything for "individual level", but linked to ADSR for the others. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. It occurs to me that if the comma after "level" goes away, the whole phrase makes sense as "Individual level tuning, attack, decay, and tone controls for some sounds". Is that what is meant, that all the controls are "individual level"? Maybe just "Individual tuning, decay and tone controls for some sounds" would be even more clear? Finetooth (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It means you can set the level of the sounds individually. Level here means volume, but "level" is the term used in audio mixing. The comma is correct. Popcornduff (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Finetooth (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • ¶1 "...rather than having to use presets." – Link "presets" to an article that explains what they are? Or if that is not possible, use "preset patterns" as you do in the main text.
  • "Can't find anything for presets, so used "preset patterns". Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • ¶1 "engineer Don Lewis to demo its products" – "Demonstrate" rather than "demo"?
  • No, microprocessers were being used in Microcomposers. The Microcomposer was an instrument, not a microprocessor. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see now. Finetooth (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶4 "Roland engineer Makoto Muri credited the design of the analog voice circuits to 'Mr. Nakamura' and the software to 'Mr. Matsuoka'." – Is it possible to find and add their first names?
  • Looked hard for this back when I was writing the article, but found nothing. Hence the quotes. We don't know who these guys are. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much, but I thought it was worth asking. Finetooth (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds and features
  • ¶1 "...TR stands for "Transistor Rhythm"" – More clear would be "the TR in TR-808 stands for 'Transistor Rhythm'."
  • ¶3 "...the bass drum sound is powerful enough to blow speakers." – Would it be possible to link to an explanation of what it means to "blow" a speaker?
  • Can't find anything. Any suggestions for rewording? Maybe just "damage speakers"? (I worry about this entire sentence to be honest - at enough volume, ANY sound is powerful enough to blow speakers. It's just the 808 bass drum was notorious for it, I suppose.) edit: On reflection I've just cut this. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Some of the titles in the citations use title case and others use sentence case. It would be good to be internally consistent. It doesn't matter which format the source uses.
  • Fixed. Happy to have an excuse to kill title case. Popcornduff (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to support on prose as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited a little; please revert if I make a mess of anything. I can only find one nitpick: the article says the 808 can generate 16 sounds but only 12 are listed. The article is in great shape; once that's fixed I will support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. The "16 sounds" refers to some sounds that have more than one control; for example, there are three different toms. However, inspecting the source, I couldn't find the "16 sounds" claim, and I can't remember where I got it from, so it seems simplest to just remove it. Popcornduff (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well-written and interesting. Please bring more articles to FAC! And please consider reviewing some other candidates, if you haven't already, you write well and we always need more prose reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Although copyediting is the main thing I do on Wikipedia, I've always been hesitant to get my hands dirty with FAC and GA reviews, because I inevitably want to rewrite everything. Popcornduff (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I still have a TR505 in my possession somewhere -- fully digital/sampled sounds but similar controls -- so I couldn't really resist this...

  • I agree with Mike, very well written, I could hardly find anything to copyedit.
  • Structure is straightforward and although it's not heavily detailed I couldn't really find anything to complain about re. comprehensiveness -- you could perhaps mention the hi-mid-lo variations of the toms and congas, but that's about all I can think of for now.
  • I might hold off support till image and source reviews are in but well done in any case -- I look forward to more of these.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, but before the bot goes through, I'll register that I've checked changes since my last edits/comments and see no reason not to support -- more of these please! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them somewhere, we still need an image and source review. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Replaced with a public domain image. Popcornduff (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that the rationales need to be improved, do you think they're actually inappropriate for the page? Is hearing the 808 in context not useful for the reader? If you don't think they're a good fit then I won't bother fixing the rationales, so I'm asking first. Popcornduff (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that they do not significantly increase the understanding of the TR-808, and even if they did do we need 3 of them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, I added the Sexual Healing sample, but not the others. As that was the first hit to use the machine, and the one most readers are likely to recognise - like, "oh, so those intro sounds which I've heard a million times were made with this machine" - it's the one I'd campaign to keep, if we can keep any of them. I do think it helps contextualise the machine as something casual music listeners will have heard. That said, if you think they're not justified, I can live without them. Popcornduff (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see ALT text for all files. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jo-Jo Eumerus and Popcornduff, have we found a solution to this yet? I'd like to get this wrapped up if we can. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping this rolling. I stated my position above, still waiting for further advice. Popcornduff (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if people will recognize Sexual Healing as being from Roland TR-808 then it might stay as "helps identifying the object". The others would have to go. I admit that I don't like pushing NFCC issues too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I've removed all the song samples but Sexual Healing, which do think illustrates the subject importantly. The pros and cons of using copyrighted material is one of my Wikipedia blind spots, so happy to go with whatever the consensus is. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes http://www.factmag.com/2014/01/16/roland-tr-808-beginners-guide-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-introduction/ a high quality reliable source?
    Fact is listed as a reliable source in WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. It's a mainstream British music website. Popcornduff (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria at FA is "high quality" so wee need to see that it doesn't just meet WP:RS but that it's of high quality for the subject. And, to be frank, the fact that a wikiproject lists a bunch of sources doesn't mean that all of those sources meet WP:RS all of the time, either. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea how to determine if this source is "high quality" and don't know what to suggest. If you think it's not sufficiently reliable then I'll retract the entire nomination because the article depends on it. Popcornduff (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches gives some pointers about how to show something is reliable. To show high quality, you're going to want to take it a step above those steps - finding high quality newspapers that use the source, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. This looks like a serious amount of work in something that is way out of my expertise, though. It might take me a while. Or I might fail entirely. 11:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    I searched guardian.co.uk to see if they used it as a source and found 47 articles that link to it -- for example, this, though I have to say when I clicked through some of the others I couldn't see where it was used. I also checked scholar.google.com for uses and found 90 papers that link to it; this is an example of a paper that uses it as a reference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 14 should be formatted like the other magazines, not with all the publication data in the link
  • What makes http://ethnomusicologyreview.ucla.edu/content/roland-tr-808-and-tale-marching-anteaters a high quality reliable source?
    • This one I'm not sure about. The Ethnomusicology Review site says Ethnomusicology Review is "the graduate student publication of the University of California Department of Ethnomusicology. It is edited by graduate students and refereed by a faculty advisory board". It says it's "extensively" peer-reviewed. It appears in the Directory of Open Access Journals, if that's anything to go by. To me it looks legit, but I'm out of my depth, and it looks like determining whether scholarly essays etc are reliable is a minefield that requires expertise I don't have. As the citation is only used for one claim, and not a super-important one, we could cut it if you think it's fishy. Popcornduff (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well we do accept (or have accepted in the past) PhD theses as FA-level references, but "graduate students" isn't that specific. It's probably okay but OTOH I don't think we'd lose too much by dropping it and the two snippets of info it supports-- happy to hear other opinions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://masahidesakuma.net/2012/04/roland-tr808.html is a deadlink
    • Looks like that died very recently. Replaced with archive.org link. Popcornduff (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • When using an archive.org link, we generally note that it's an archived link in the citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I started doing this, but decided the entire source was more trouble than it's worth - in Japanese and archived. Just removed it and the claim as it seems inessential (added by another editor FWIW). Popcornduff (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://flavorwire.com/433944/10-great-songs-built-around-the-808/2 a high quality reliable source?
    • Flavorwire is a well-known pop culture site. It's a professional publication, it has editorial oversight. Popcornduff (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I couldn't easily find the editorial policies/team on their site - do you have a link to those? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here: http://flavorwire.com/about-us But I've no idea how you use that to determine if the source is high-quality. Popcornduff (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • See the above article I linked - the fact they have an editorial team is good - one way to show high quality would be to show that the editorial team is known as journalists/worked at other places such as the New York Times, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            I looked in scholar.google.com and found hundreds of citations to Flavorwire; this is an example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations, as everything that is flagged is quotations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I wonder if Mike, Ian or Finetooth could help here with some of Ealdgyth's questions? I'm aware that this would be Popcornduff's first FA and we will need spot-checks anyway, but if anyone could lend a hand in establishing if these are all high quality sources, that might help a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to try to help; might be a day or two -- not sure if I'll have time tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, I've added a couple of notes above on Flavorwire and Factmag. I haven't done much source validation for media websites so I'm not sure if this is enough; let me know if more is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOoks fine... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks, guys. I'm learning a lot from watching this. Popcornduff (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries... it's a neat subject and a fine article - we just want to make sure its as good as possible. Trust me, you want all the bases covered before it hits the main page and you get the cranks/idiots/etc picking it apart... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: I just wanted to check how we were progressing with this one? I'm not sure if Mike or Ian had a chance to look, or if Ealdgyth has any further comments? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done, unless Ealdgyth has more concerns -- I believe the responses Ian and I provided resolved the source issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone. There's still the issue of the sound files. I can remove them but I'd like to make sure they're not needed first. Popcornduff (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I see we are still missing alt text from the Marvin Gaye 1968 image, but it is not worth delaying promotion over that. I also notice that the spot checks were never performed, so I gave the sources a quick look myself and found no issues. So, this is good to go! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Whoops, I forgot to add alt text when I switched the Gaye photo, but I've fixed that now. Nice catch. Popcornduff (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks again to all the editors who helped get this article to FA. I learnt a lot. Popcornduff (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2017 [35].

Marcel Lihau[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Marcel Lihau, a Congolese politician, jurist, and law professor who served as first president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Congo and was involved in the creation of two functional constitutions for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Lihau was the first Congolese to ever receive a law degree and began his career in the midst of the Congo Crisis, serving in the justice ministry and authoring the Luluabourg Constitution. In 1968 he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Justice but was removed seven years later by dictator Mobutu after refusing to enforce a harsh sentence upon student protesters. He helped organize the political opposition to Mobutu in his later years and advocated for democracy until his death. As such I think he's very important to Congolese history. This article is smaller than other FA biography nominations, but there's less info to go off of. I've done what I think I can with the available sources and I think this is ready for the FA process.-Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewers and coordinators: I will be on vacation from today until August 5 without proper internet access and may not be able to respond in full to comments until then. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few things,

  • "In 1963 ... In 1965 ... In 1968" Mix it up.
  • I'm not doing an image review, but that lede image is going to give you trouble. If you don't know who the photographer is, how can it possibly have a CC license?
  • Why does the article use American style spelling (democratizing) and Commonwealth style dates?
  • "He was the eldest of eight children.[2] He received his secondary" ditto.
  • " the decision greatly reinforced their bargaining position with the Belgians." I might say "strengthened" for "reinforced"
  • "Lihau subsequently participated in the economic conference that took place from April until May that addressed the economic transition that the Congo was undergoing." I might change the last two words to "would undergo", if it's consistent with the source.
  • The first paragraph of the "Justice" paragraph could usefully be split.
  • "which party held the prerogative to make revisions" this is unclear as you have not mentioned parties yet.
  • " he added to the diversity of the organisation" I might toss a "geographic" before "diversity"
  • "at the Hotel InterContinental in Kinshasa" I don't think the italics are needed.
  • "in the view of the American delegation" I might say "in full view of the American delegation"
  • " "Conference Nationale Souveraine" " I don't think the quotes are needed. You might want to check the MOS on whether foreign proper names need italicization.
  • "In 1980 13 members of Parliament published a letter criticising Mobutu's regime. They were arrested and charged with "aggravated treason". Lihau testified on their behalf during the ensuing trial.[20] In 1982 he joined them" again, similar beginnings to consecutive sentences. Also consider commas.
  • "Due to his political activities and flight from persecution[22] they separated in the late 1970s." I would say "the couple" for "they" to clear up any ambiguity.
  • "A young politician named Jean-Pierre Kalokola claimed to be the illegitimate son of Lihau, who successfully filed a lawsuit against him." I might say after the comma, "and successfully filed a paternity suit against him." Assuming it was.
  • " Three of Lihau's and Kanza's daughters organized a mass of thanksgiving in their honor in Gombe on 28 March 2015. " Should "their" be "his"?
  • Can anything be said by way of a legacy?
Seems very well-written. I'm glad to see an article on African politics making it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Wehwalt:

  1. Revised as "appointed dean of law faculty at the University of Lovanium in 1963. The following year he helped deliver the Luluabourg Constitution to the Congolese which was subsequently adopted by referendum. In 1965".
  2. On its description page it should say "This file has been extracted from another file:", providing a link to File:Directors of the Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social.jpg, which was published on Flickr under the CC license by Radio Okapi.
  3. That's by mistake! I've changed all American spellings I have found to Commonwealth style.
  4. Not sure I know what you're referring to, but revised as "He was the eldest of eight children. After his secondary education at the Bolongo seminary, Lihau attended".
  5. Done.
  6. Done.
  7. Split after "He also served....under Prime Minister Joseph Iléo's brief government."
  8. In this case I do not mean political parties, I'm referring to the respective factions that debated over who held the prerogative: Kasa-Vubu's government and the constitutional commission. Should this be changed for clarity?
Yes, factions sounds like a good word.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Done.
  2. Italics undone.
  3. Done.
  4. MOS consulted, revisions made accordingly.
  5. Revised to say "Two years later he joined them in founding".
  6. Done.
  7. Done.
  8. No, as the ceremony was in honor of both Lihau and Kanza. Revised to say "in their parents' honor".
  9. The only info that seems appropriate is what I've included under the "Commemoration" section and the quote I've included from the UDPS leadership. I've also added some details on his constitutional activities at the Round Table and the CNS. Unfortunately, it would seem that Lihau's jurisprudence has been rendered presently irrelevant by the course of Congolese history; the constitutions he authored in the 1960s have long been discarded, the Constitution of Zaire which he interpreted is no longer in force, and the work he did at the CNS has been transcended by a transitional constitution of 2003 and the current one promulgated in 2006. Of course, federalism remains a large matter for debate within the Congo. The only lasting testimony to Lihau's work is the UDPS (still as vocal an opposition group as ever), and I think I've covered that by the inclusion of the quote from their leadership.

Thank you for your review. I'm also happy to have the chance to nominate an Africa article.-Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Marcel_Lihau.jpg: is there an OTRS number to support that tag?
  • File:Université_de_Kinshasa.JPG: since DRC does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the building pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Nikkimaria:

  1. That photo is a derivative of a work published on Flickr with that license. As I said to Wehwalt above: "On its description page it should say "This file has been extracted from another file:", providing a link to File:Directors of the Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social.jpg, which was published on Flickr under the CC license by Radio Okapi." This was confirmed by the FlickreviewR robot.
  2. Fair point. The building has been around since 1954, having been established by Jesuit missionaries as part of the Catholic University of Leuven (1834–1968) back when the country was under Belgian rule. It's now the main building of the University of Kinshasa. The relevant copyright law does establish that architecture is protected but I can't determine who owns the copyright or when it will/would have expired. As such, I've removed the photo.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Per WP:ALLCAPS, we don't put titles of sources in all caps even when the source does so. "DECLARATION..." and "IN MEMORIUM" in the references need fixing. Same applies to BRILL in the Burke reference.
  • In the citations - you have "UDPS 1999" which is linked to "IN MEMORIUM" - if the author is UDPS, it should be listed as such in the references. It isn't always the case that the links will work, so by not having the short citation easily match up to a reference, you're going to cause confusion.
  • Same holds for "DECLARATION" which appears to be short cited as "UDPS 2015"
  • You give an ISBN for some reference - can we have ISBNs/OCLC numbers for all of them?
  • You give locations for some of the references - you need to be consistent and give them for all of the book references
  • Can we alphabetize the references? Last I checked, Hoskyns comes after Fox...
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Ealdgyth:

  1. Done.
  2. The shortened footnotes like that use the name of the publisher, though abbreviated, so I don't think its too confusing. To say that the "In Memoriam" document, for example, was authored by the UDPS is not strictly true (assuming there were individuals behind its creation), though it was certainly published by them. I didn't think it was unprecedented or incorrect to use the publisher in the shorthand, but I'll change it if necessary.
  3. As per above.
  4. OCLCs added where applicable.
  5. Done.
  6. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the authors/links/short cites - there is such a thing as corporate authorship - one thing I've done in the past is use "Staff" as the author... since obviously someone is writing the information... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but don't the citation templates recommend saying <!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> in the author parameter for that? So that doesn't even display in the full citation, and even if it did, a shortened footnote that says "Staff writer 1999, p. 3" seems even more ambiguous than one that lists the publisher instead. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is that if someone can't or doesn't know that the links take them to the full citation - they won't be able to figure out what full citation corresponds to "UDPS 1999". There is no "author" listed in the references section that is "UDPS" - (for that matter, the abbreviation UDPS doesn't appear at ALL in the references, but that's hopefully going to be fixed another way). That short citation goes to ""In Memoriam : Marcel Lihau: 1931 - 1999" (in French). Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social. 1999. Archived from the original on 10 March 2000. Retrieved 25 July 2017." So ... there isn't an abbreviation UDPS, the date doesn't appear at the front like the other full citations, and the first bit is "In Memoriam"... it isn't at all consistent with the rest of the references which all start "author last name, author first name, (date)". So they won't be able to figure it out as they would be with a citation for "Emmerson 1968" (which is easily matched up with "Emmerson, Donald K. (1968). Students and Politics in Developing Nations. New York: Praeger." if the links don't work (say if it's printed) or if (like many of our readers, I suspect) they don't understand that the linked short citation will take them to the full citation. If you have a lot of these sorts of things, the solution might be "UDPS Staff" or "FCE Staff" or "Africana Library Journal Staff". I see this as a problem for all the full citations that lack an author. (And they almost all share the abbreviation issue I alluded to above also). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: I see what you mean. I've made changes accordingly to the citations. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gertanis[edit]

  • The lede section is too long, in particular the mid section.
  • A prose problem running throughout is the repetitiveness in sentence construction. Many lines go like: "He/Lihau - in year - action - at place"
  • "Marcel Lihau was born on 9 September 1931 in Bumba, Équateur Province, Belgian Congo.[1][a] He was the eldest of eight children." — you can combine those sentences
  • "...a school mostly unavailable to Congolese" — needs def article
  • We have 'enroll' twice in this paragraph. Try 'register' e.g.
  • You might want to link Latin, Greek, and Flemish to Classical Latin, Ancient Greek, Flemish language
  • "By January 1963 he had become the first Congolese to receive a law degree, earning it with distinction." — what distinction?
  • Would be nice with some translations of the French union names
  • "...the decision significantly strengthened their bargaining position with the Belgians" — Which Belgians? Who?
  • "Lihau subsequently sat in on the political portion of the conference as an observer on behalf of the AGEC." — was it a sit-in? I am confused by the use of prepositions (sat in on)
  • "that the Congolese adopt one system or the other to ensure the integrity of their country in the future." — too verbose, try 'future integrity'
  • "Lihau subsequently participated in the economic conference that took place from April until May that addressed the economic transition that the Congo would undergo." — "that...that"
  • What's a 'general mutiny'? Also, what kind of coup did Mobuto launch?
  • "Lihau was appointed to be commissioner general of justice."

Oppose for now - on criteria 1a. Gertanis (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Tentative support - I'm still not crazy about the prose, but I do appreciate Indy beetle's reply to that point. I guess this is the best article on Mr. Lihau we'll be able to have, provided the sources at hand. Best, Gertanis (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Response to @Gertanis:

  1. Could you be more clear about this? I know it may seem large in comparison to the rest of the rather small article, but it properly summarizes all the info on Lihau. I'm not sure how I could slim it any further without removing important information about him.
  2. Aye, I've already had another point this out to me. I've made some revisions to address this, though I most say that it's hard to avoid the listing style as the info on Lihau's activities is limited to a point where I can only state what he was doing in a particular year. So I've tried mixing up between saying "In 19XX" and "The following year", etc.
  3. Done.
  4. Do you mean it should read "a school mostly unavailable to (the) Congolese"? If so, I don't know why this is necessary. "Congolese" is the proper plural term for nationals of the Congo. If there was a sentence that read "This is a school mostly unavailable to Americans" it would be grammatically correct.
  5. Changed second enroll to "admitted".
  6. Done.
  7. The source is unclear about this, though I would assume it's referring to Latin honors.
  8. Done.
  9. Changed to "Belgian government".
  10. By this I meant to imply that he attended the conference in a more passive role than the other participants, though I suppose this is already covered by saying he was only an "observer". Replaced "sat in on" with "attended".
  11. Done.
  12. Revised as "participated in the April to May conference that addressed the economic transition that the Congo would undergo".
  13. Revised to say "widespread mutiny". As for Mobutu's action, it was a bloodless military coup. He didn't actually assume power, but formed a "College of Commissioners" to govern the country like a technocracy while declaring President Kasa-Vubu and Prime Minister Lumumba to be "neutralized" (deprived of political power). Parliament was also technically suspended. I have chosen not to explain the coup in detail in the article because its implications were very complex and have little to do with Lihau's career. For example, Kasa-Vubu was able to partially reassert his political power within a month of the coup, while Lumumba attempted to flee to the eastern portion of the country to reestablish his government. This resulted in the latter's arrest and execution in early 1961.
  14. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a thought: do we really need the 'See also'-section? For the article to be comprehensive, those articles should be linked in the prose, right? Gertanis (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gertanis: See also section removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert if I screw anything up.

  • "Lihau was able to achieve post-primary education": "achieve" is a slightly odd way to say this. For the lead, could we make this "Lihau became the first Congolese to study law, and attended Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium with the help of sympathetic Jesuit educators", stealing a couple of phrases from the body of the article?
  • "He retained the position, continuously advocating for judicial independence": I don't really see support for this in the body; and "continuously" is probably not the word needed here even if the sources support it -- perhaps "continually", or more likely "repeatedly".
  • "He continuously advocated for democracy in the Congo": as with the point above, I don't see support for this in the body, which only talks about the conference he founded while in the US.
  • The links to sources in footnotes 2, 10, and 12 don't work.
  • "president of the small Congolese-Ruanda-Urundi students' union in Belgium, Association Générale des Étudiants Congolais en Belgique (AGEC, General Association of Congolese Students in Belgium)." This is quite dense, and the reader doesn't really need both the French and English; at least one could be relegated to a footnote. How about "president of the AGEC, the small Congolese-Ruanda-Urundi students' union in Belgium." with both English and French in a footnote from "AGEC"?
  • "only veiling such autonomy, not eliminating it": a great phrase, but I don't really understand what is meant by it. Can we get some inline clarification? It seems to be a fairly important point.
  • "The following August Lihau joined several of his colleagues": I think this is August 1982, but can't be certain;I'd suggest adding the year.
  • "Conference Nationale Souverain": a sentence about the impact or lack of impact of the conference's recommendations would be helpful.
  • The article on Lihau's wife makes it sound as though the marriage survived but they lived separately because of persecution. This article makes it sound as though the persecution caused the marriage to effectively end, rather than just making them live separately. Can you confirm that this is what the sources say?
  • Since Sophie had a moderately senior role at UNESCO, and was also unusual in being the first Congolese women to get a degree, I think a sentence or two more about her is warranted.

That's everything, except for the discussion about capitalization we're having on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Mike Christie:

  1. Revised as "Lihau attended the Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium with the help of sympathetic Jesuit educators, becoming the first Congolese to study law."
  2. Excised "continuously".
  3. Excised "continuously". I'm drawn to conclude this from mostly minor news reports I've seen from the 1980s and 1990s, which often quote Lihau saying something critical about Zaire. It seems certain media outlets found him to be a good source of commentary whenever they were doing a story on the country. They quotes mostly insignificant on their own and, though fascinating (in 1988 he remarked that "Mobutu is the constitution in Zaire"), might be difficult to smoothly incorporate into the article.
  4. Fixed.
  5. Originally it was just the French and then the acronym. Another reviewer (Gertanis) requested that I add the English translations. I personally think the translations are unnecessary, as they are of proper names. Unfortunately, MoS is lacking in guidance on this matter. It seems consensus between reviewers might have to determine the solution.
    OK; could we compromise by keeping the French and acronym, as you originally had it, but with the English translation in a footnote? I think that would meet Gertanis's request and would not clutter up the text too much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Indy beetle (talk)
  1. I've kept the wording close to the source, which says, "[Lihau] argued that the 1974 Constitution did not eliminate judicial independence, but merely veiled it." The source does explain some of his reasoning (alongside that of an agreeing magistrate) but I can only see it in Google Books snippet view, which makes it difficult to work out the details. I have been able to extract, "Justice Lihau explained that the name 'Judicial Council' itself obscured the reality of a continuing judicial power and was chosen for political reasons." As the source explains, "Judicial Council" was the new term the 1974 Constitution used to refer to the judicial branch of the MPR (Dictator Mobutu's political party and the official institution of the state). It notes, "Instead of declaring the independence of the magistracy [like the previous charters], the 1974 Constitution states that the magistrate is independent in his mission to determine what the law provides." It also says that Lihau acknowledged that he, as a magistrate, issued opinions in the name of Mobutu. Make of this what you will. With my limited knowledge on the 1974 Constitution, I surmise that Lihau's thoughts were probably something along the lines of "Though the judiciary is now nominally integrated into Mobutu's administration, this is simply a political motion to represent the unity of the MPR, the government, and the nation. It shall function independently of the executive as before." Mobutu obviously disagreed.
    How about requesting the relevant source pages at WP:RX? I've had very good luck there, and I would feel much more comfortable supporting this article for promotion if I knew you'd had a chance to fully review what sounds like a relevant source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've obtained the two pages in their entirety and added the relevant information to the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. *1983. Done.
  2. For Lihau's purposes, we're leaning more on the lacking side. The legacy of the CNS was, as Congolese historian Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja put it in 2004, political by nature, while the institutional framework it produced (including Lihau's constitutional recommendations, I presume) was "no longer viable" because it is "outdated and impossible to reconstruct in any meaningful way". Besides, one could argue that the real turning point in the Congo for political progress was Mobutu's ousting in 1997 via civil war. In the article I've written "The conference disbanded in December 1992 having greatly reinvigorated democratic thought in the country but ultimately failing to enact significant institutional change."
  3. Ah, that's because I used two sources in this article and only one for the Kanza page. Fox was rather vague about their separation, but does say that it was because of how Lihau's activities had brought government abuse upon him. The UDPS statement uses the word "separated" (translated from French, but I double checked to make sure it wasn't "divorced") to describe the couple and mentions that this separation occurred in the late 1970s. So I think this article gives the more correct impression. Plus, this 1991 news bulletin refers to Kanza as Lihau's "ex-wife".
  4. Changed to "Lihau married future politician Sophie Kanza". I'm trying to keep it as brief as possible, and it's complicated because at the time of their marriage Kanza only had her university degree and was not yet working at the UN or in the government.

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The last edit addresses the outstanding question I had above about what "veiling" the autonomy of the judiciary meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

In general, I'd say this is solid work. I'm a little concerned by the length, but I trust that all important sources have been scoured, in which case this is what it is.

  • "was admitted in the university." Should this be "admitted to the university, or is this an EngVar thing?
  • Can you verify that the punctuation at the end of " "Front Commun"[c].[1] " is what it needs to be? It looks a bit odd.
  • Little concerned by the use of the USPS source in that case: it should be a an independent source, ideally. Most other uses of the USPS source are for non-controversial stuff.
  • Wondering if "initial activities" would be better titled "early activities"
  • "Shortly after independence," I think you need a sentence before this saying something like "Congo became independent from Belgium in..." It's confusing, otherwise.
  • "reached an impasse" over what?
  • "negotiate with the rebellious province's leaders" negotiate over what? And what came of this?
  • " In July he worked alongside Cyrille Adoula and Jean Bolikango in negotiating with the Stanleyville government." Negotiating what? and what was the result?
  • I think organization names that are in French should carry an English translation, perhaps in parentheses.
  • "that concentrated the government's authority in Mobutu. In spite of it, Lihau supported the independence of the judiciary" I am confused by this. Mobutu concentrated authority in himself: but Lihau supported the independence of the judiciary: how are the two related? The second half of that sentence, about Lihau's interpretation of the constitution, is clear enough, but the first half is not.
  • "He explained that the constitution" explained in what context?
  • In general I think a little bit detail is necessary in that section. Something about what Mobutu's reform did to judicial independence, which would make clear why Lihau's position was in opposition to it.
  • There's a couple of places where sources are out of order; the easiest way to fix this that I have found is to search for "][" and verify that all results are correct.
  • "at the time presiding over a group of exiled politicians in Brussels" I find the phrase "presiding over" to be strange here: either he was seen as an unofficial spokesperson by an informal group, or he was an official spokesperson for a formal group. Which was it?
  • "a federal system that would be able maintain the national integrity of the Congo while respecting its diversity." This is just a little too fluffy for me. Either we should say precisely what it did (did it establish regional quotas for instance?) or that it was described as doing so.
  • Similarly, I think the next line requires in-text attribution, though if this is actually the consensus view among scholars, then that's okay, but we should have another citation or so.
  • "Lihau went back to the United States to receive medical treatment." When?
  • I think the personal life section is structured a little strangely. I'd suggest merging the first sentence into the "commemoration" paragraph, and removing that section 3 title, which really isn't needed.

Response to @Vanamonde93:

  1. Not sure of the conventions on this, but it does sound better and seems to be correct. Changed as suggested.
  2. Yes, as the footnote applies only to the phrase "Front Commun". If I tacked it on to the end of sentence it would appear to apply to the whole thing.
  3. Not ideal, perhaps, though Kanza (1978) does at least verify that Lihau was among the members of the student union that conversed with the Congolese delegations at the conference before it took place. Writer Norbert MBU-MPUTU does say in his self-published book that it was under the direction of Lihau that the delegations formed the Front. I think our best affirmation of the UDPS claim is this page 185 of this book which states that Lihau gave a speech to the Congolese delegations at the meeting during which he "stressed the imperative need to present a common front of all Congolese parties to Belgium" (roughly translated from French). As side note, this reliable source confirms that Lihau was at the conference to present the first student union paper.
  4. Done.
  5. In the previous subsection I do say that the Round Table Conference concluded with an agreement that the Congo would become independent on 30 June 1960. I feel like it would be redundant to restate this.
  6. Revised as "President Joseph Kasa-Vubu fired Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba in September 1960 but the latter refused to leave his post, creating a political impasse."
  7. The source is not specific about this or Lihau's role, though I can say that the negotiations probably had to do with Katanga wanting a confederate system of government to allow more provincial autonomy.
  8. The Stanleyville government, led by Lumumba's deputy prime minister (as Lumumba was dead by early 1961), rejected the authority of the central government led by Joseph Ileo, as they had believed that both Kasa-Vubu's firing of Lumumba and Mobutu's coup were illegal. Lihau, Adoula, and Bolikango were negotiating with it to see if they could compromise to get Parliament reconvened and discuss the formation of a new government. The negotiations did result in Parliament reconvening on 22 July 1961. I've added a new source and revised the article to explain this.
  9. The translations are available in footnotes. See the "Notes" section.
  10. Revised to say "That year a new constitution was promulgated that concentrated the government's authority in Mobutu as President. In spite of such centralisation, Lihau supported the independence of the judiciary".
  11. I'm not sure, as the author of the relevant source cited supra and I only have two pages of that book. It could have been written case law, though I'm not certain of this. All that I know is that the relevant comments were stated/published in 1974, not long after the 1974 constitution was promulgated.
  12. The implication I get from the source is that Mobutu wanted to final say in the decisions of the courts. It reads, "The Constitutions of 1964 and 1967 proclaimed judicial independence[...]Yet the creation, of the one party state called into question the government's commitment to an independent judiciary.[...]Instead of declaring the independence of the judiciary, the 1974 Constitution states that the magistrate is independent in his mission to determine what the law provides.[...]Unfortunately, Justice Lihau's commitment to an independent judiciary soon ran afoul of President Mobutu's political authority." There's not really any more detail between that and what I've already mentioned in the article.
  13. Fixed.
  14. The source directly states (translated from French) that Lihau was "presiding over a meeting of all political parties and organizations of the exiled opposition". Changed "group" to "meeting" in the text of the article.
  15. Good point. Revised to say "recommended a federal system that was intended to maintain the national integrity".
  16. I think my above revision should handle this, as the intention of the author's of a document to solve a problem is a much smaller claim than one that says said document could actually solve the problem.
  17. The source doesn't say specifically, it was just sometime after the conference. Could've been in 1993.
  18. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much better, thank you. I'd say there's only one outstanding issue: still not too happy with the wording about judicial independence. I would use "X in spite of Y" only when Y is actually preventing or trying to prevent X. That is not the case here. Mobutu centralized power, but he did not prevent Lihau from supporting an independent judiciary. I might phrase it as "Lihau supported the independence of the judiciary, and despite Mobutu's centralisation, interpreted the document as only veiling judicial autonomy, not eliminating it." You may phrase it differently, I suppose, but the "in spite of" needs to move to the bit it applies to. Vanamonde (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: Revised to say "That year a new constitution was promulgated that concentrated the government's authority in Mobutu as President. Lihau supported the independence of the judiciary and, despite Mobutu's centralisation, interpreted the document as only veiling such autonomy, not eliminating it. He explained that the constitution's references..." -Indy beetle (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose: my comments have been addressed. Vanamonde (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think this is pretty close to promotion now, but glancing through I noted that we might slip slightly into proseline in places: the lead in particular seems to have a date, or at least some indication of time, in almost every sentence. It might be worth someone taking a quick look at that to see if it can be smoothed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I've made a revision to the lead to address one of the potential proseline concerns. As for the rest, other editors have mentioned this issue. See comment #2 I made to Gertanis in response to their reservations on that matter. I basically state that by removing the dates (which seems to be my last option) I believe I would be taking away valuable information from the lead. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "disband.CITEREFRIIA_staff1980": ?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Dank:

  1. Fixed citation.
  2. Thanks for the catch on "subsequently". I've made some minor alterations but for the most part I agree with your edits.

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2017 [36].

Barge of the Dead[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! This article is about an episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. It is the third episode of the sixth season and was first broadcast by UPN on October 6, 1999. In this episode, the half-Klingon, half-human B'Elanna Torres (Roxann Dawson) has a near-death experience and is sent to the Klingon version of Hell known as Gre'thor. There she encounters her mother Miral (Karen Austin), who is damned because of Torres' refusal to fully accept her identity as a Klingon. After being resuscitated by the Voyager crew, Torres becomes intent on revisiting Gre'thor to save her mother.

Moore originally developed the episode as part of a pitch for the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Soldiers of the Empire". Following the episode's completion, both Moore and Fuller left the series because of dissatisfaction with their lack of control over its direction, and the absence of strong story arcs across multiple episodes. Critical response to the episode was mixed; some television critics praised the focus on Torres and Dawson's performance, while others were more critical of the representation of Klingon spirituality.

I enjoyed working on this article; I found the premise for this episode to be really interesting as I always like bizarre character studies, even if the final result was not so great. I believe that it satisfies all of the FA criteria. I look forward to hearing your feedback and growing as a writer and a Wikipedia contributor. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- hi Aoba, just a reminder that FAC instructions usually require you to wait two weeks between a nomination being archived and another being nominated; don't worry in this case because there's only a few days in it and your previous nom received little commentary, more for future reference... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your message! I will definitely remember that in the future; I hope that you are having a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

nuqneH! Not my favourite episode, but I do remember it well.

  • "The episode received a Nielsen rating of 3.8/6 ratings share" Repetition, and I confess that I don't really know what this means.
  • I have added a source to fully explain this in the body of the article, and I have revised the lead to make it a little clearer. Television ratings numbers are always unnecessarily complicated to me lol. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think at the first mention of the Klingon artifact you should make clear just how far Voyager is from Klingon space!
  • Added in a sentence about this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a bit of ambiguity (and I can't remember the answer): is the Barge taking B'Elanna to Gre'thor, or is she in Gre'thor when she's on the barge? You seem to suggest both in the article.
  • I think that the barge is taking her to Gre'thor so I have made the adjustments to hopefully make that a little clearer, but let me know if it needs further clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she is allowed to move on Sto-vo-kor" Perhaps an explanation of Sto-vo-kor would be a good addition?
  • "Miral informs Torres that she cannot release her into Sto-vo-kor until she completes her journey." Lots of shes and hers; could this be clarified?
  • Revised to hopefully be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Torres surrenders when confronted by Tuvok" What does this mean?
  • "Torres is resuscitated and embraced by Janeway." Maybe I'm imagining it, but did the episode not end with B'Elanna doing some Klingon things to get in touch with her heritage?
  • To the best of my knowledge, the episode ends (rather abruptly) with Torres waking up from the coma and being greeted by Janeway. While I think ending the episode on Torres doing something Klingon by herself would have been more appropriate, I do not think it happens. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You twice refer to a teleplay being directed; this seems unnatural to me. I'd be inclined to say that an episode based on a teleplay is directed.
  • " "Barge of the Dead" was also one of two episodes that featured Torres' relationship with her parents, with the season seven episodes "Lineage" and "Author, Author" resolving her estrangement from her father." That's three- or am I misunderstanding?
  • I just miscounted. I think I revised this sentence a few times, and just forgot to change the numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Scholar" is a bit vague; could you not be clearer about who the people you're quoting are?
  • "The episode received a Nielsen rating of 3.8/6 ratings share" As above
  • "by the absence of Fek'lhr" This needs to be explained!
  • Expanded slightly. The character Fek'lhr was already defined and discussed a little bit early in the article as well (I added a link there). Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what jumped out at me. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please check my edits! If I was writing this article (and I fully appreciate that this isn't the point of FAC!) I would consider breaking out some of the content, and especially the scholarly content, into an "Analysis" (or similar) section. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate the feedback, and I have made the necessary adjustments. I have also pulled out the scholarly content to turn it into its own section as I agree with you. It does not necessarily fall under "Production" so it works better as its own thing. I look forward to hearing back from you. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more bits:

  • I've made some more tweaks; do please make sure you're happy with them.
  • Thank you! They have definitely improved the article a great deal. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the guest stars be mentioned in the production section? They're currently mentioned in the lead and the infobox, but not in the article proper.
  • Perhaps you could add some pictures? Some suggestions (which you certainly don't have to use): We have a nice image of Dawson that could be included (perhaps as a crop) in the reception section and/or we could probably find a nice painting or some such of the Styx or the Bifröst for the analysis section.
  • Added the image of Dawson to the "Reception" section, and a river Styx image to the "Analysis" section. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kraemer & Cassidy & Schwartz (2009)". Could we have page numbers? Also, would "Kraemer, Cassidy, & Schwartz (2009)" not be more standard?
  • Revised, and unfortunately the copy of the book that I used on GoogleBooks did not have page numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your short footnotes are linked to the longer references, others aren't.
  • Not sure how I missed that. I believe that I have connected them all. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. I am looking forward to your responses. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, providing there are no issues with sourcing (I see there's some backing-and-forthing below). I think the information about the MMORPG is slightly misplaced, but I can't see an easy home for it, and I think there's a tiny bit of ambiguity about whether Torres is in Gre'thor or going to it, but I'm not going to hold up support on that. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Miyagawa[edit]

Thanks to J for pinging me a message to say that this is here. I thought I'd take a gander, since I've had no involvement in this article previously. As with J, I do recall this one - specifically the barge set. I'm sure I read some interesting thing about the barge set somewhere... it might have been while digging out the Star Trek: Enterprise stuff from archived versions of StarTrek.com or the designer's blogs. Regardless, I only found them by accident, and I wouldn't even know where to start to find them again!

  • No duplicate links detected (although my checker is blending the lead with the body of the article - I'll have to update that).
  • I did a quick look around for a better cite than an Amazon link for the Fan Collection, and found this: [37]. I also found a further review/ranking at Den of Geek here: [38].
  • Makes sense; I have replaced the Amazon link with the IGN one. The Den of Geek source was already in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also might be worth adding that the Barge makes an appearance in Star Trek Online - and I've found an independent source for that: [39]. Admittedly it's slightly odd, as the author writes specifically about his character's journey, rather than noting that all characters have the same journey. But it does mention the appearance of the barge itself.
  • I have added it to the article; I do agree that it was described slightly odd in the text. Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Miyagawa (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Miyagawa: Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed everything, and I am looking forward to your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Freikorp[edit]

  • Can you take a screenshot from the episode and add it to the infobox? This would be of interest, but it won't affect whether I support or not.
    • I respectfully disagree with this suggestion. While it is generally assumed that a single cover/poster image is acceptable for an infobox in articles about films, this does not extend to screenshots in infoboxes in episode articles. There is no ban on screenshot images, of course, but there's no assumption in favour of them. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your input J. Milburn and for your suggestion Freikorp. I agree with Milburn on this, as it is frequently enforced that an article should have as little non-free resources as possible. I have only included one screenshot in an episode article in the past as there was a lot of critical and cast commentary on that particular moment to warrant a non-free resource. For instance, if there was a lot of critical or behind-the-scenes commentary on the barge set, then it would warrant a screenshot of the barge, but there does not appear to be enough to support adding a non-free image. I hope that is understandable, and thank you again for the suggestion. 16:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Freikorp (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Torres sees this emitting blood and voices speaking" - should this read 'see this emitting blood and hears voices speaking'?
  • Your image of Dawson could include when the photo was taken. I.e Roxann Dawson, pictured in 2003, was praised for her performance.
  • "Some television critics responded positively to Dawson's performance" - 'Some' implies that not all of them responded positively. Where are the negative reviews? If there aren't any, I suggest dropping the word 'Some'.
  • What makes 'cultofwhatever.com', 'jammersreviews.com' and 'trektoday.com' high-quality sources? They look like they might not even pass WP:RS to me.
    • I believe that TrekToday and Jammer's Reviews are acceptable as I have used both in a previous nomination ("Faces" (Star Trek: Voyager) without an issue, but I do welcome more discussion about these two sources. I believe that TrekToday should be fine as it looks like it has some form of oversight/editing, but I understand the concern about Jammer's Reviews as it is more of a blog-formatted site from a single author/writer. I have removed CultofWhatever as it did not add too much to the overall article anyway. I am looking forward to your feedback on this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well written. That's all I found. Freikorp (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Freikorp: Thank you for your comments; I believe that I have addressed everything above. I am looking forward to your responses and I hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagarwal[edit]

How did I miss this? :P

  • File:Doré - Styx.jpg Needs a description template. Also, I think the PD-Art use is to be specified (as mentioned below the image).
  • @Adityavagarwal: I am not sure how to fix that necessarily (I haven't used that many images in my previous FAs). I have replaced it with a different image that seems more complete (I just wanted one with the barge on the river Styx to connect with the episode's title and featured location if that makes any sense). A color image is also nice. Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is all, rest seem amazing! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Adityavagarwal: If possible, could you also do a source review for this? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so, but I was just curious. Hope you had a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Definitely yes! Yeah, I had a great weakend, I hope you had the same (or even greater)! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I am glad to hear it! I got a lot of work done so I am happy. And thank you for your help as always. Please feel free to let me know if there is anything that I can do to help with any of your projects. While I may not be able to do any heavy-lifting as I am trying to limit my time on here to be more productive irl, I would be more than happy to help with anything you need. Aoba47 (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would let you know! Also, it would be great if you would ask me if you needed help with any other of your projects in the future too (would instantly try to help you out, or if I am at university, would try to help you out by that night)! I hope you have a good great rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • "There she encounters her mother Miral (Karen Austin), who is damned because of Torres' refusal to fully accept her identity as a Klingon." Maybe "her Klingon mother"? And make clear "her identity as a Klingon" is a reference to Torres herself rather than her mother. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a bat'leth," - provide a few extra words explaining what a bat'leth is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Klingon Drinking Songs" - No need for the upper-case, change to "Klingon drinking songs". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miral identifies as the first step in her path" - "Miral identifies this as the first step in her path"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seen the starship Rotarran" - "seen the Klingon starship Rotarran"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a link to Star Trek: The Next Generation at its first appearance in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When citing Kraemer, Cassidy, & Schwartz, make sure that you include page numbers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the version of the book that I consulted through GoogleBooks does not have page numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Midnightblueowl: Thank you for your help! I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. I am looking forward to your further comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panagiotis Zois[edit]

  • When you say that the story was developed by Moore and Fuller, instead of saying that Fuller wrote the script in the next sentence can't you simply say "and Bryan Fuller, who wrote the the teleplay." I guess if you make that change it would also be best to include Vejar in the same sentence.
  • Makes sense to me; I have revised the sentence accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot, shouldn't it say "since the USS Voyager"? Or is that unnecessary for ships?
  • Added "the" as I think it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of the ship, you have it linked twice in the first paragraph.
  • Not sure how that happened lol; I have removed the extra link. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that the first paragraph is a coma-induced dream so not everything makes sense but after Tuvok attack Torres does the scene simply transition from the fight to the mess hall?
  • I added in a small portion to help with the transition. Tuvok dismissed Torres as dishonored and then it cuts to the scenes in the mess hall. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't something major but I noticed when referring to characters you use their last names. Is this because the characters are referred to by their last names in the series?
  • For articles on fictional material, characters are typically referenced by their last names unless there are multiple characters with the same last name. In that instance, the characters would be referenced by their first names to avoid confusion. That seems to be the expectation on here when it comes to that, but I think that either way is accepted as long as it is consistent throughout. It has more to do with Wikipedia than the actual show itself. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of adding "deadurl=no" to most of the online references as they were all still active. If you don't like that I can change them back. I also added an archive date to The Futon Critic as it lacked one and changed the archive of IGN as it kept sending me to Wayback Machine and saying "this url hasn't been saved". The current one is from Archive.is
  • Thank you for the help there. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually a really great article to read, not just because it's well written but also because the themes presented are pretty interesting. Great work. :D PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your help, and I am glad that you found it interesting. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments, and I am looking forward to your responses. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, now that my comments have been adressed I can support this nomination. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Adityavagarwal[edit]

Looking now... Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On prose:

  • May I know why ion storm is linked to solar wind? Unable to grab the point.
  • Good point. The term "ion storm" was something created for Star Trek, but I think that the closest equivalent would be geomagnetic storm so I have substituted the links. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double checked the article. It might well be the best FACs I have ever reviewed (no scope to nitpick either)!

On source review:

  • Double checked the sources, and everything is good! No issues whatsoever. Good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate your input and support on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support on prose, and sources are also good! A very-well written article. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64[edit]

  • Thank you for pointing this out. I am not sure how I missed that one lol. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, really. This was a neat article to read. I don't know much about Star Trek but I will try to watch some of it. Cheers! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheJoebro64: Thank you for commenting on this. I honestly have only seen Voyager so I also not that familiar with the franchise. Someday, I will watch more of the installments, specifically Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Have a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Status Update[edit]

@Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: I would greatly appreciate it if I could have a status update for this nomination. It has received an image review and a status review and I believe that it also has received enough attention/feedback for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Freikorp raised a couple of sourcing issues above that were never really addressed. The specific questions were what makes jammersreviews.com and trektoday.com reliable sources. I don't think the nominator's reply really answered this. I would also be inclined to question www.thefutoncritic.com, and would be interested to know Ealdgyth's opinion on the sourcing of this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sarastro1: Thank you for the response! I did provide a response to that question raised by Freikorp, so I am not sure what you mean by that. I have removed the Jammer's Review source as I agree that its blog format may not be appropriate for a featured article. I believe that TrekToday should be acceptable though. It was deemed acceptable for my previous FAC for Faces, and I have seen TrekNation, which is closely associated with TrekToday, used as a source in other featured articles on Star Trek material/content. Here is a page from the website itself 1, which shows that there are multiple people/editors working on the site and its content. Here are some places where TrekToday have been cited in outside media/outlets: 1234567. I think that the source is given more credibility in that other outlets include information from their editors and writers when discussing Star Trek-related material. I do not see any issues with using Futon Critic as it primarily publishes presses releases. In this context, I have only used Futon Critic to cite their definition of the Nielsen Rating system, as that was a question posed by one of the reviewers above, so I believe it should be okay for use in a featured article for this particular purpose. Thank you again for the reply. I would also be interested in hearing from @Ian Rose: about this as well. Aoba47 (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking sources While TrekDoday might seems as a fansite, it appears to be reliable based on its connections with the popular UGO Networks and Los Angeles Times. Amazon was also a bit controversial in early 2017, but the apparent consensus appears to be that it can be used in Wikipedia though first party sources might be better. Other than that, I can't find any unreliable source so I think it should pass its source review.Tintor2 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for helping out with this. Please let me know if ever need any help with any of your projects. I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your day. I will try to be more aware of the sources that I use in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarastro1: Just wanted to ping you to get your response to this as I have provided a comment to your original post, and another editor/user has provided input on the use of the TrekToday source. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, real life is a little hectic at the moment! I should do another run through FAC either tomorrow or Wednesday at the latest, if Ian doesn't get there first. I'll look at this again then. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the replay, and I apologize for the constant messages. I hope that everything in real life is going well, and good luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera[edit]

  • I realize I'm a little late to the party, but everything looks pretty good here. However, for Ref #19, is that the correct year? I see there are multiple editions available and I don't think 1995 chronologically makes sense since the episode aired in 1999. That should be about all for now. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Closing comment: I'm not entirely convinced about those sites, but I think you have just about persuaded me they are reliable enough. In an ideal world, I'd like a better source or two, but until one becomes available, I think they are acceptable. One point for future reference though; just because a source came through one FAC does not mean it cannot be challenged in another. Aside from these issues, I think we have a clear consensus so I don't propose to hold this up any further. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2017 [40].

Chartwell[edit]

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Chartwell, Winston Churchill's home for forty years and a Grade I listed building. All comments/suggestions most welcome. Sincere thanks to Tim riley for the GAR and to Nikkimaria for the citation and formatting suggestions. KJP1 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will be along shortly for the review - a lovely place which I visited a couple of weeks ago, by happy coincidence. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat That would be great. It is a fascinating house, although perhaps not a beautiful one! All input gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Early history
  • "Victorian architecture at its least attractive…" Probably best to let us know whose opinion that is
  • Green tickY Done - if rather clumsily?
  • "returned the same month with Clementine": "with his wife Clementine", just to clarify?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "For the first time in 22 years" – needs a ref to close the para
  • Green tickY Done - by removal. It's not essential and I can't find one ref to cover both.
1922-39
  • '"the most important country house in Europe"': again, best to say whose opinion this is
  • Green tickY Done - but please see discussion below.
  • "the house was advertised as containing" you've got a mix of words and digits for the numbers: I think these should be made consistent.
  • Green tickY Done - as words.

Done to the end of 1922 to 1939: more to follow on the morrow. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture and description
  • I'm not sure why the information about Campbell Colquhoun is in the architecture section – would this be better up in the history part, where Churchill buys the place? Some of the information (paying £5k after it failed to reach its reserve at auction) is repeated from the top
  • Green tickY Done - many thanks, it's clearly history and the repetition was just carelessness. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dining Room
  • Rather than "See box", would it be better to have the quote in a <blockquote></blockquote> like this?
  • Red XN - Can I mull this? I quite like the blue boxes - a Burges hangover - but I see what you mean. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's ok, I think I'll stick with the box. As I say, I've become rather fond of them. KJP1 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"a magnificent aerial bower".' This is a repeat of a quote from the 1922 to 1939 section. I'd remove it from the earlier section and leave this one, but that's up to you.
  • Green tickY Done - removed from the earlier section.
Study
  • Green tickY Done - hope this was what you meant. It's a good link. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1945, defeated…" given that year was the end of the war, "defeated in the polls" just to clarify?
Refs
  • The page ranges you have as "pp. 155–6" should be in the format "pp. 155–56" or "pp. 155–156"
  • Red XN Will work through these and get back when completed. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY - Now done, I hope. I've picked up six and don't think I've missed any. KJP1 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - They help very much indeed. They've all improved the article and I really appreciate the time and care you've taken. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat - I think I've now responded to all of the above. Again, I'm really grateful for the review and hope the article made an interesting read. Thanks again, and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments by Nick-D[edit]

I'm not really competent to comment on the overall subject of this article, but would like to offer some comments on the material relating to the Second World War:

  • Chartwell became "the most important country house in Europe" - this sounds nice, but seems difficult to sustain given that Hitler made extensive use of his country home, the Berghof. It also seems to be splitting hairs a bit - the most important locations in Europe in this era were the national capitals, with country homes being far less important. I'd suggest omitting this quote.
  • Understand exactly what you're getting at, but I'd like to retain the quote unless there's a consensus for removal. It is, of course, an opinion and the relative importance of Chartwell and the Berghof, or anywhere else, can't be measured. But, following Nikkimaria's advice at PR, I have explicitly cited it as an opinion, so that any reader is clear as to its source. Second, I think Fedden had a reasonably authoritative view. He was a pre-war diplomat, and a post war Deputy Director General of the National Trust. In that latter role, he also authored the first Chartwell guidebook, from whence the quote comes. Lastly, one can see what he means - namely, no other country house in Europe became so important a centre of resistance to Nazi Germany, and no more important issue faced 1930s Europe. And he's probably right on both counts. Would you be ok with seeing what others think? KJP1 (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be inclined to keep it, but only if it is attributed to an individual in the text. If it is, then it becomes clear it's one opinion, rather than having it baldly stated in WP's voice. - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - and I've made it explicit in both the lede and the main text, giving more of Fedden's "credentials" in the body. KJP1 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a more expert and independent source is needed for such a claim to appear in the lead - it really seems unlikely given what Hitler got up to in his country house. FDR also made good use of Hyde Park. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick, Do you mean FDR's house in Hyde Park, New York? If so, that falls outside the 'Europe' description given. I've tweaked to show it is one opinion, rather than fact. (And is the Berghof a "country house"? The term is not used in the text, and the description in the article's IB describes it as a "chalet", which is a mountain retreat, rather than country house). - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick, I think we're in danger of being a bit over-literal here. We all accept that the statement can't be objectively measured, in the way the speed of a plane or the displacement of a ship can be. And the article makes plain, twice, that the quote is Fedden's. But the point he's making is clear; Chartwell, more than any other country house in Europe, became the focus of resistance to Hitler, and that this was of greater importance than whatever went on in any other country house. I'm struggling to see how this can be seen as controversial. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted at the top of the thread, my concern is that this is essentially a nice-sounding but meaningless quote, which goes to FA criterion 1a. Were many country houses (as opposed to mountain chalets, palaces, etc) actually important? And if they were important, where they anywhere near as important as the key offices in the key national capitals? Probably not. It would be better for the article to just say what the house was used for. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick, I think we shall just have to agree to differ. I don't myself see that it goes to 1a and I think it's a bit harsh to describe Fedden's quote as "meaningless". He was an informed observer and, to my mind, his comment neatly and accurately encapsulates the notability of the house. I also think his view is obliquely supported by the Historic England listing, which makes very clear that Chartwell is given the highest Grade I listing, not for architectural merit which the house wouldn't warrant, but "for historical reasons". Let's see if other reviewers share the concern. KJP1 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By autumn 1946, Churchill was there as the verdicts in the Nuremberg trials were announced – his wartime Chief of Staff 'Pug' Ismay recalled his reaction; "It shows that if you get into a war, it is supremely important to win it. You and I would be in a pretty pickle if we had lost"" - this quote seems to imply that Churchill regarded the Nuremberg trials as 'victor's justice', which I don't believe was the case (he actually advocated for executing the Nazi leadership without trial while PM). I'd suggest removing it.
  • As before, can certainly remove if there's a consensus, and it's much less central to the history of the house than the Fedden quote. That said, it is exactly what Ismay recorded as Churchill's view, and it was expressed at Chartwell while Ismay, one of Churchill's closest colleagues, was staying there. Again, I'd quite like to see if there's a consensus for removal. If there is, it's out! KJP1 (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Have reflected a bit more on this, and I think you're right. It could give a misleading impression and it's not essential to the history of the house. So, it's gone. KJP1 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some brief but useful material on the house in David Reynolds' book In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War (Eg, that Churchill was effectively homeless after the 1945 election defeat as Chartwell was uninhabitable, and it being used to store his papers in fairly shambolic circumstances in the years immediately after the war). Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this I don't have, but I shall try to get hold of a copy. Do you know if the relevant section can be got as a Google snippet? KJP1 (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - will have a look when I'm back from the dentist! KJP1 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is available as snippets but, as ever, not the snippet I want. Now on order. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, very much appreciate your giving the article a read-through and offering comments. I've responded below each one. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick, Although we disagree on Fedden, I'm grateful for the interest you've shown in the article, and for the suggestions you've made. I have Reynolds' book on order and when it arrives, will mine it for any useful snippets. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And Reynolds now has arrived. It looks like it will make very interesting reading. In the interim, I've mined the index and put in a good snippet re. Churchill's gratitude to Bill Camrose. KJP1 (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Leaning Support, this has been a great read, and to say KJP1's articles broaden my horizon. Some quibbles

  • Ceoil - greatly appreciate both the Support and the very helpful comments, and glad that the article was of interest. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The pleasure is all mine, frankly. Ceoil (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Add that Kent is in England in the opening sentence; not everybody knows
  • Green tickY Done. But your amendment's better. KJP1 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • to support him in his campaigns - to support his campaigns
  • Green tickY Done.
  • his speeches and wrote his books - no need for either of usage of "his" here
  • Green tickY Done.
  • closed up? Not familiar with the terminology
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Since Churchill's death in 1965, and the opening of the house to the public in 1966, Chartwell has become one of the National Trust's As a more general point on tense, I'd prefer "After Churchill's death...etc"
  • Green tickY Done.
  • aims to raise just over £7 million - maybe not for lead.
  • Green tickY Done - all in line with what you wanted, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine work, more later. Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil - many thanks indeed. I really appreciate your taking the time to review it and I shall get straight on to addressing the comments. Also, very glad you found the article interesting. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are all authoritative. Ceoil (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further quibbles, fairly minor:

at his dining table, he gathered friends to support - is friends the right word? It seems rather loaded
  • Green tickY Done.
the house and the advertising material - advertising material in a pre-modern context
  • Green tickY Done.
In 1946, when it appeared that financial constraints would force Churchill to sell - "appeared" coupled with he "would force" tense is weak. At least say materialised, or simply Financial constraints forced.
  • Green tickY Done - better, I hope.
some 232,000 visitors in 2016 - state as a recently annualised figure
  • Green tickY Done.
The Trust's Keep Churchill at Chartwell appeal, launched in that year, the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the house, aims to raise funds to buy a wide array of Churchill-related objects currently at Chartwell and retain them at the house. - I'm not sure this is for the lead Ceoil (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Done - I think I now see what you mean.
Ceoil - Thanks very much indeed for the review comments and for the edits within the article. They've all improved it and I'm very grateful. As a work of architecture, the house is no St Fin Barre's, but as a piece of history it is fascinating. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you quick and diligent responses. Have changed to support. As I said above, watching and learning. More please. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria - many thanks for reviewing the images and for the comments and suggestions at PR. KJP1 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I reviewed the article for GAN, and made my few comments then, all subsequently addressed satisfactorily. I didn't pursue the point at the time, but I'm pleased the peer review led to the reordering of the paragraphs to put the history first, which makes the text flow more smoothly, I think. The article as it now stands seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I am happy to add my support for its promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk 03:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - Very much appreciate the support and the earlier GA. At PR, Nikkimaria made exactly the same suggestion as you did regarding the article's structure and you were both right. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hchc2009[edit]

Looks good (NB: in the interests of transparency I'll admit to having produced the diagram). There are a few quote where you don't explain who is saying the line:

  • "to be greeted by "the biggest crowd Westerham had ever seen"
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • At Chartwell, he developed his own "little Foreign Office ... the hub of resistance".
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • "The following week, increasingly incapacitated, Churchill left the house for Hyde Park Gate, "never to see his beloved Chartwell again"."
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • "as it looked in the 1920-30s, "garnished and furnished so as to be of interest to the public""
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • "his study in which Churchill "mobilized the English language and sent it into battle""
  • Green tickY - Done. This one's a bit tricky as it's the journalist Gary Shapiro, quoting JFK, who was, in turn, quoting Ed Murrow. But it's actually given a rather nice hook for WSC's honorary citizenship of the US.

...these should really be attributed as you've done the other quotes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hchc2009, H, first off, I owe you an apology. I should have credited your contributing the plans at the kick-off. I did so at the PR and can't think why I forgot to do so here. But I did - sorry. Second, glad you like how the article's shaped up. Third, very grateful for your comments and will be even more so for your support. I'll get on to the attributions now. Brian's kindly indicated he'll also drop by to review it, so that will help as well. Assuming he likes it, of course! Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hchc2009, And thanks again, belatedly for the plans, and for the comments and the Support. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not missing anything at all, and thanks for the reminder. Now requested. KJP1 (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, Just to say, although I think we may be there or thereabouts on the Supports and the Image and Sources reviews, I did ask Brian to take a look and, having done so, I would want him to have the opportunity. I'm not in any hurry to close it up, if that's ok with you. KJP1 (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Book sources are of first rank. Formatting is consistent. Spot checks on refs 63, 99 & 103 - all back claims made, and reveal no other issues. Ceoil (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil, You're a star! Fortunately, I've got all the cited sources, so can easily access them if there's anything you want double-checking. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No its fine; you have built enough credibility and trust that taking book sources in AGF applies. Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Support: This is a wonderful article, very detailed, full of interest. Naturally I've dredged up a few nitpicks and quibbles for you to consider, but these are minor points and shouldn't delay the article's promotion

  • Lead: "in the thirties" might be "in the 1930s", for precision
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • I believe WP linking policy is that items should be linked on first mention in the lead and on first mention in the main text. Thus, names like "Churchill" and "Clementine" and maybe others should be linked when first appearing in the main text.
  • Will go through and check these.
  • Green tickY - Hope I have now addressed these. KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to the fact that" is clumsy. I'd simplify to "made because..."
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • "when he was back at the Admiralty" might be a bit vague for some readers. "when he was reappointed First Lord of the Admiralty on the outbreak of war", with appropriate links?
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • "He withdrew..." → "He withdrew the sale..."
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • Do minor political offices, e.g. "assistant private secretary", need formal capitalisation? I'd have thought not. On the other hand, I think "Privy Council" should be rendered thus, not as "Privy council".
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • Paragraphs should not generally begin with a pronoun, e.g. "It came some sixteen months..."
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • I'm not sure about "Miss" Hamblin in MoS terms, but I'd be inclined to leave it.
  • Green tickY - Have done. We can always change later if others have a concern.
  • Again on capitalisations, this time the various Chartwell rooms. We have, inter alia, "Churchill's Study", "Drawing Room", "painting Studio" (sic), and "Lady Churchill's Bedroom", the last-named rendered in bold for some reason. Is the rash of capitals necessary? Seems a little over the top.
  • Red XN - Will grudgingly get on to these!
  • Green tickY - Now done. Except for the quote box where Churchill capitalised, as in the chairs "should be of a kind of which those not required for the Dining Room could be used in the Drawing Room or Studio". Caps all Churchill's. What was the mad fool thinking of! KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe clarify that the picture on display by William Nicholson is the early study, since you say he destroyed the finished work.
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • Green tickY - Done.

That's it. Thanks for a pleasurable read, top-quality stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brian, I am absolutely delighted that you liked the article and that it gave you pleasure. While not a great piece of architecture, the house is so steeped in Churchill's personality, and so bound up in his story, as to make it a very special place. Your comments are also very helpful and I shall action them all. Tim said I'd never get the capitalisation of the Chartwell rooms through - but I almost did! Sincere thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

  • Green tickY Done. This sentence has been played around with a bit, and had become a little mangled.
  • " and was later described by the diplomat Robin Fedden as "the most important country house in Europe".[2" - discussed above, I know. It's currently in twice, & the quote later, with more context, seems quite enough to me.
  • Green tickY Done - I like the quote, but it's not essential for the lead and as others would prefer it out.
  • Green tickY Done - with a mention. The house is indeed better to look out from, than to look at! I'll go over the photos when I'm done here.
  • There are only 2 photos actually of the house, and commons has lots (of the exterior). I found File:Chartwell - geograph.org.uk - 1275993.jpg useful, never having been there. There are gaps, and Chartwell's black swans look just like all the others in the world.
  • - See above. I'll go over the photos later.
  • Green tickY Now done, I hope. I've used both of your suggestions, culling the swans in the process, and picked up a better view of the entrance front from Geograph. It is a great pity that we don't have any interior shots but the NT doesn't allow photography inside and jealously guards its own copyright. KJP1 (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chartwell has become one of the Trust's most popular properties; some 232,000 people visited the house in 2016," - from the source, I make this #20 of their houses, ignoring ruins & countryside, which is somewhat stretching "most popular" perhaps.
  • Green tickY Done - at both mentions. "among the Trust's most popular properties"?
  • The EH listing mentions something vague like "fragments of medieval" stuff in the fabric. Ideally more detail, or mention that.
  • Green tickY Done - put in a tiny snippet re. the Tudor brickwork.
  • "when the house had failed to sell, he was offered first refusal for £5,500." Does this mean "when the house had failed to sell at auction, he was offered it for £5,500."?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "his parliamentary seat at Dundee." Might mention this is in Scotland, and link to the constituency not the town, assuming we have an article.
  • Green tickY Done and done. Fortunately, we do have an article.
  • "In February 1926, Sir Samuel Hoare described a visit in a letter to Lord Beaverbrook" - briefly explain them?
  • Green tickY Done and done. Or I could say Hoare was the SoS for Air?
  • " Churchill recorded his gratitude in a letter to Camrose in December 1945, "I feel how inadequate my thanks have been, my dear Bill, who (has) never wavered in your friendship during all these long and tumultuous years"" - the interpolation is surely ungrammatical? If any is needed, "Bill, (to you) who never...". No?
  • Green tickY Done - by removal. It's slightly difficult, as WSC was thanking Camrose, and the other donors, but hopefully this works.
  • " he suffered a massive stroke" - link;
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "Lord Beaverbrook, Lord Camrose" both mentioned & linked before, now only one is again. Should prob be consistent, don't mind which way.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • " he chaired his last cabinet," link I think
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "sitting "by the fish pond, feeding the golden orfe and meditating"." linked later; link in a quote earlier.
  • Green tickY Done. Put the link at first mention and removed the other two.
  • " The architectural style favoured for Chartwell is vernacular, described by the architectural historian John Newman as "undecided"" - undecided is rather puzzling here, & you have a fuller quote later. He presumably means undecided between different varieties of style, or in form, but this might be clearer.
  • Green tickY Done - by removal. As you say, the longer Newman quote which follows is clearer.
  • "Within the garden proper, they created almost all of the landscape, and the architectural and water features seen today" - presumably "landscape features" is meant, but the two words are too far apart.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • " while Lady Churchill was on a cruise to Sumatra," - "off Sumatra" perhaps. Nobody cruises to Sumatra from Europe, & I'd be inclined to bet Malaysia, Singapore, and maybe Java were on the route.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "Lord Camrose recalled a conversation with Churchill in the early 1950s; "Perhaps, (Churchill) said quizzically, Providence had given him Colonist as a comfort in his old age and to console him for disappointments".[124] Doesn't work; not sure this does either: "Lord Camrose recalled Churchill's comment in the early 1950s; "Perhaps said quizzically, Providence had given him Colonist as a comfort in his old age and to console him for disappointments".[124]" - and aren't there any quote marks?
  • Green tickY Done, I hope. Does this work any better? I'd like to keep the quote if poss. as I think it is a nice "Finis", as Churchill wrote in the Chequers guestbook when he left in 1945. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally a good read. Could do with more pictures. Great plan of the house.

Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Johnbod, Very many thanks indeed. Comments are all extremely helpful and I shall action them this day. The house is well worth a visit, if you are in the area. KJP1 (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, I think they're all now done. I hope you'll approve, I certainly think they've improved it. Credit for the plan is entirely due to Hchc2009, way beyond my pay grade. With thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all comments dealt with. Nice article! Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, much appreciated. Your comments were very helpful, and I'm glad you found it a good read. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that the article does not have alt text. While it is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. Also, I cleared up a few duplinks, but there are others which someone should check to see if they are necessary. However, there is no need to hold up promotion over these issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated and many thanks. I've never done alt text but shall certainly look at it for this, and for future submissions. As well as check for duplicate links. Thanks again to you, and to all those who contributed at initial drafting, at GAR, at PR and here at FAC. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2017 [41].

Astronomica (Manilius)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article focuses on the titular work, a Latin hexameter didactic poem (probably) written by the Roman poet Marcus Manilius during the reign of Caesar Augustus or Tiberius. The five-book work describes celestial phenomena, explaining the zodiac and astrology. The poem—which seems to have been inspired by Lucretius's Epicurean poem, De rerum natura—espouses a Stoic, deterministic understanding of a universe overseen by a god and governed by reason. The work is of note for a number of reasons. First, it is seen as an answer to Lucretius's aforementioned poem. Second, it is an important window into Roman views on astrology and Stoicism. Third, it very barely made it to the present day, as only one manuscript transmitted the poem through the Middle Ages. Finally, its style is rather heady and peculiar, and its subject matter is very, very complicated and dense. These last few factors have led to it being described (rather hilariously, might I add) as "like a trigonometry texbook rendered as a Saturday New York Times crossword." Currently, it is a good article (the very thorough review can be accessed here). It has also undergone two extensive peer-reviews: one in June of 2016 (courtesy of User:Tim riley, User:Caeciliusinhorto, and User:Johnbod), and the other in January of 2017 (courtesy of User:Groupuscule). Finally, it has been copy-edited a number of times (e.g. [42], [43], [44], [45]) by four extremely competent editors. I had submitted this for FAN a few months ago, but upon realizing that I neglected part of Groupuscule's peer-review, I withdrew it and continued to make changes. Now, I feel it is ready to be promoted.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Resolved comments from JM

A few quick comments:

  • You provide the full name of Steven Green five times in the prose, introducing him as a classicist the second time. Could this be neatened up a little?
  • Oops. I removed the repetition, having his name appear only the first time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The poem also contains a direct allusion to Ennius's Annales, which, according to Goold, is the Astronomica's "one solitary notice of Latin literature.[73]" Could you close that quote?
  • Is "Pseudo-Empedocles" worth a link?
  • "The work of Julius Firmicus Maternus, who wrote in the time of Constantine about astrology and other subjects, resembles Manilius in many ways" It doesn't resemble him- it resembles his work or Astronomica, surely?
  • That was just a bit of confusing metonym. I've changed it to "resembles Manilius's work".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both of which bear the line, "We are born to die, and our end hangs from the beginning" (nascentes morimur finisque ab origine pendet) from the poem's fourth book" Is that comma necessary?
  • Do you mean the one after "line"? If so, I think so, since it's introducing a quote (or, rather, an inscription).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't care for it, but I think this may be a legitimate stylistic difference, so I'll say no more! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please double-check my edits, especially the wikilinks I have introduced. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I have responded to/implemented you suggestions. Your edits also look great! Thanks for your help. Does it look better now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I really, really like this article. I am very happy to offer my support. (FAC coordinators: I was the article's GA reviewer, and participated in the previous FAC discussion.) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of recent comments from Seadowns here that may be helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've added some more stuff to the article to address some of his points[46].--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More, in case you hadn't seen. I advised Seadowns about this page, but I suppose there's little harm in him/her posting there instead. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up here. I'm not too bothered by it, but if it is driving you up the way, just let me know! Ha!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind in the slightest, I would just hate for useful comments to be missed! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that the page wasn't on my watchlist, so I went ahead and added it. Hopefully now I can try to respond to any additional comments they might make there.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from groupuscule[edit]

Resolved comments from groupuscule

Hello. I have no further suggestions to make, having done my best to nitpick an article that was already quite good. Although the topic has aspects about which more could conceivably be written—for example the relationship of Astronomica to historical trends in astrology and astronomy—the page as it stands is well-focused and reads as a very solid encyclopedia article. Thanks again to Gen. Quon and other editors for this contribution. I'll return here if I come up with any more half-baked suggestions to annoy you with. groupuscule (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Groupuscule: Thank you for all your help. Not to put you on the spot, but at this time, would you support this for promotion?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. groupuscule (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • OCLC for the books without ISBNs? Not a requirement, but would be nice.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Ok, a couple little things stuck out...

The work's date has also been controversial. The... - strikes me as a little strong, why not just "The work's date has also been debated"?
I have implemented this suggestions. Good catch.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the attention it received after its rediscovery, the Astronomica was never as widely studied as other classical Latin poems --> "Despite the attention it received after its rediscovery, the Astronomica has never been as widely studied as other classical Latin poems" (presumably all these classical Latin poems are still studied?)
Good point. Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is unknown if the Astronomica is a finished work, and this is further exacerbated by the presence of a large lacuna between lines 5.709 and 5.710 --> I know what you're getting at but "exacerbated" strikes me as an odd verb to use here..
How is "this issue is further complicated"?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, How about, " The presence of a large lacuna between lines 5.709 and 5.710 raises the possibility that Astronomica is an unfinished work or something like it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
@Casliber: How is this?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for the comments. I've implemented your suggestions.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto[edit]

Resolved comments from Caeciliusinhorto

Disclosure: I reviewed the article at PR here, and promised Gen. Quon that I'd give them an FA review here.

  • Slightly picky, but in the first sentence "Latin hexameter didactic poem" is three links to three different targets. Could the sentence be rewritten to make that clearer? As it is, it isn't clear just from looking at the text whether that is one, two, or three links (and it's entirely conceivable that we might e.g. have an article on "Latin hexameter poetry"...
  • I've broken it up so that it now reads "Latin didactic poem written in hexameters". How is that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section on authorship says that the author was probably a Marcus Manilius, but doesn't say why. The article on Marcus Manilius seems to suggest that the name "Manilius" comes from the poem itself – but why "Marcus"?
  • This is confusing, because no source really talks about it. Here is my speculation: the earliest sources bear no name, and the later ones bear a different variety (I've added this info in as a footnote). However, there is a document from the 10th century written by Gerbertus Aureliacensis that asks for an astrological work by "M. Manilius". I can't find any sources that explicitly say as much, but I think Gerbertus Aureliacensis's letter is taken as authoritative as to the authors nomen, and then scholars derive the praenomen "Marcus" (a popular Roman name) by assuming that's what "M" stood for.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, looking into this myself quickly, Gain 1970 "Gerbert and Manilius" says that the manuscript M gives the author's name as "M. Manili", "M. Manlii", and "M. Milnili", and so the praenomen also comes from the manuscript tradition. I've added a note to that effect to the article; see what you think... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! Thanks for that find. The note looks great (although I fixed one minor typo). Thanks for the help there.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to β itself?

More later... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "denies the epkyrosis": while epkyrosis is linked, it's a sufficiently obscure technical term that it should probably be defined in-article as well – having to follow a link to find out what it means breaks the flow of reading...
  • I've added a short parenthetical explanation for "epkyrosis".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, what are the "six Stoic paradoxes"? Or "tetraktys"? (Neither of which are even linked, though we do actually have an article for tetraktys...)
  • In regards to the former, I've added a linked to Paradoxa Stoicorum, since I think the six paradoxes are bit long to describe in this article. As for the former, I've added a link and a short parenthetical explanation.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says that the poem is notable for its "peculiar style", but doesn't really discuss what is unusual about it. More detail?
  • I've tried to expand this a bit. It largely has to do with his odd word choices and his penchant for versifying mathematics. I can't find a source for this, but I also speculate that Classicists have long criticized him for being of lesser quality (than Vergil, most likely) since he was a Silver Age poet, and thus somehow 'inferior' (hence Woollgar's assertion that the Astronomica "has the regular and monotonous flow of the age").--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Manilius's work is largely Stoic and promotes creationism (in the Greco-Roman sense)": the linked article creationism does not clarify at all what is meant by "creationism (in the Greco-Roman sense)". Given that there were at least a couple of pretty different Greek cosmogonies (compare Hesiod's Theogony with the world egg in Orphic traditions) this could do with some clarification...
  • I was basically trying to express the idea that Manilius believed God or a god created the world (which is technically "creationism"), but that it wasn't the type of creationism that is usually associated with that term (namely, the Judeo-Christian belief). I've added a link earlier in the article to Teleological argument#Roman era, and I removed the creationist link and just put "a Greco-Roman understanding of creationism". I don't know if that is any better, but I'm not sure what else to do here without veering off into too much detail.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ambiguous phrases and extravagant circumlocutions necessitated by Manilius's hexameter verse must often have made the Astronomica seem, as it does today, rather like a trigonometry textbook rendered as a Saturday New York Times crossword." This is an amazing analogy.
  • This is one of my favorite lines about the Astronomica. Whoever wrote it nailed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's the lot. A few minor quibbles, but otherwise this article looks to be in excellent shape. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: I've responded to and/or implemented your points. How does it all look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good to me. I'm perfectly happy to support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from edwininlondon[edit]

Glad to see this back here. Some comments from a layman:

  • written in hexameters about celestial phenomena, written -> repetition of written
  • I've broken this sentence into two new ones, and changed the second instance of 'written' to penned.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fifth book -> I have no doubt this is the correct technical term but I suspect that for a layman it is a bit unexpected that a poem has books. Maybe better to state first the work is made up of n books?
  • I've mentioned this in the first line of the article now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • some have argued -> some historians? classicists? some somethings is better than just some
  • This copy is the direct descendant -> you mean M?
  • (Goold later issued -> not sure this sentence needs to be in parentheses. Clutter.
  • See also: Astrology and Horoscope -> why do we need this? inline linking will surely do the trick
  • I don't know why I didn't think of that. Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Katharina Volk -> I can't see a rule when first names are used and when not. Consistency would be good. I prefer first name on intro, but just last name from then on, but that is just my personal preference
  • I like your preference as well. I think it's an artifact from when I moved pieces around and expanded sections.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • finishes his digression on the Milky Way -> I wouldn't think the Milky Way to be a digression. But listing heroes worthy of their place in the Milky Way sounds like a digression
  • Good point. I've changed it to "discussion of".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • dodecatemoria -> maybe one day create an entry to avoid the redlink
  • Near the end of the book, -> I would not have a comma here
  • in book five's description I miss an indication of where the lacuna is

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: I've responded to the points you've raised so far. Hopefully, it's looking better now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Looking at it again with fresh eyes I must say the style is far from fluent. So many — and ( and quotations, sometimes in same sentence.

I should probably cut down on the dashes, but I believe the parentheticals are necessary. So many terms in this article are heady and unfortunately don't have articles to which I might link. The parentheses help explicate some of these terms and ideas. I'm sure, however, that there are places where they can be removed and worked into the main body.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ; proposes a Platonic proof -> not sure about this enumeration using semicolons, each clause without a subject. Commas instead of semicolons? Breaking it up in multiple sentences?
    I believe this is a relic from an earlier draft of the sentence that did not include parenthetical explanations. I have removed the semicolons and used simple commas.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • than a stoic -> Stoic?
    Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The one Latin poet who excelled even Ovid in verbal point and smartness". -> I find that capital T midsentence odd
    Whoops, sorry about that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • although is largely due -> although this is largely due?
    Yes, indeed, Good catch.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latin literature." -> I believe this one should end with ".
    The full sentence is "The list of works alluded to is remarkable as containing in a reference (3. 23 ff.) to the Annals of Ennius Manilius’s one solitary notice of Latin literature." Since the comma is part of the full sentence, I believe it should also remain in front of the quotes. I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • he is alluded to -> an example of how would be good
    Honestly, from what I've read, most just say he's alluded to. I assume they mean that his ideas are echoed, but it's all really conjectural, and I don't know if there are any great examples. The parallels between Manilius and Julius Firmicus Maternus are the most obvious, though (and the article discusses this).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later Edwininlondon (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gertanis[edit]

What a lovely article. I was bold and changed the image positioning of Augustus & Tiberius, so that A. points towards our article, and not hors-champ. Feel free to revert my change, if you think it was better the other way round.

That looks a lot better. Thanks for that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To further complicate matters, over the years Marcus Manilius..." – editorializing
    Good point. Changed to "Additionally,"--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 19th-century classicist Fridericus Jacobs and the 19th- and 20th-century historian Paul Monceaux have said that he was an African, based largely on his writing style, which they say resembles that of other African authors." – is 'said' the right verb here?
    Changed to 'argued'.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the turn of the 20th century scholars such as A. E. Housman began favouring the idea that the first two books were written under Augustus" – bit of a garden path sentence: I read '20th century' as an attributive adjective to 'scholars'. Perhaps try a comma after 'century'
    But, but, the old man the boat! Haha, good catch. Sorry about that. Comma added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A consensus has not yet been reached but, according to Volk, the poem can be dated roughly to sometime between AD 10–20" – too many modifiers: bin either 'roughly' or 'sometime between'. Also, try changing 'but,' for ';however,'
    I have changed this whole like to "While a consensus has not yet been reached, Volk has argued that the poem can be dated to c. AD 10–20."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is debate..." – given that your source is from 2009, is the present tense warranted?
  • "This began to change in 1815" – too vague; how can something begin to change? Try omitting the entire line, and join the phrases, i.e. "The first conjecture was favoured primarily from the Renaissance until the 19th century, when Karl Lachmann wrote"
    Ditched.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is possible that the earliest references to Astronomica (aside from literary allusions) are to be found in two Roman funerary inscriptions," – you can't have parentheses out in the open prose like that: try swapping them for dashes. Also, I presume this is Volk's evalution, not ours?
    I have changed this to: "Volk notes that that the earliest references to Astronomica—aside from literary allusions—may be found in two Roman funerary inscriptions..." How does that look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Italian humanist Lorenzo Bonincontri delivered lectures on the Astronomica to large audiences, and he compiled his lecture notes into the work's first commentary" – bin the pronoun 'he'
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk)
  • "21st century scholars, such as D. Liuzzi and Emma Gee, favour the latter position" – needs a hyphen between '21st' & 'century'; should prob also be moved further back in the sentence; I think the MOS somewhere recommends against digits opening a phrase (I may be wrong though)
    The sentence now reads: "The latter position is favored by several 21st-century scholars, such as D. Liuzzi and Emma Gee."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Gertanis (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gertanis: Thank you for your helpful comments. Take a look at what I've done and see if they address some of the issues, and feel free to let me know if you see anything else that needs fixin'.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Resolved comments from Tim riley

I confidently expect to support the promotion of this fine piece of work to FA, but before I do, here are some minor corrections and adjustments you may like to consider:

  • AmE or BrE?
    • As it stands, the text is a mixture of English and American spellings. Of course the variants should be preserved in quotations, but in the main text we have AmE:
      • analyzed
      • analyzes
      • center
      • favored
      • skepticism
      • traveled
      • unfavorably
    • and BrE:
      • emphasise
      • favour
      • favoured
      • favouring
      • unfavourable
  • There are two dubious spellings that are neither American nor English, I think:
    • receation
    • genetive
  • In the sentence "Lots: Points on the birth chart that carry special significance. In Manilius['s poem], the losts…", I imagine losts should be lots.
  • In "According Victoria Moul" I think you have a missing preposition.
  • And I wondered about "aritmetica" and "arithmetica" in successive sentences (though pray bear in mind it is fifty years since I took O-Level Latin at school, and be kind to me if I’m talking rot).
  • However
    • The word "however" appears 16 times in the text, and its repetitions become a bit noticeable. The word can more often than not be dispensed with at no harm to the sense and at some gain to the flow.

These are all matters of minor importance, but it would be good to have this excellent article as free from drafting errors as humanly possible. If you like to consider these points, I’ll look in again in a few days' time to – I confidently hope – add my support. – Tim riley talk 15:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Sorry that it took me so long to respond. How do these changes look? I believe I've implemented all of your suggestions, and I also switched everything from British to American spelling (simply because I'm American. If it makes more sense to go the British route just let me know).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No apology needed from you, Gen. Quon, for the supposed delay – hardly a lengthy hiatus. As to AmE/BrE, WP's rules say we should stick with the variety of English used by the originator of an article, and in this case the originator is you, so AmE, definitely, which we now have consistently throughout the article. My quibbles having been attended to, I am happy to add my support for the elevation of the article to FA. – Tim riley talk 19:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need an image review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for pointing that out.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • image review - (not surprisingly) all in public domain due to either age or US gov't published. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: A minor point, but the link to the article by Abry is currently dead, but as it is a journal article that doesn't matter too much. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2017 [47].

On the Job (2013 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Slightlymad (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about On the Job, a Philippine crime thriller movie with a couple of chases, gunshots here and there, a serving of sex, and a simple yet intriguing premise: two prison inmates find renewed value and sense of purpose as assassins hired by powerful political forces—until one botched assignment turns their world upside down. Fun stuff! Slightlymad (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

ALT text seems OK as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved
  • For the sentence (Michael de Mesa, Leo Martinez, Vivian Velez, Angel Aquino, Shaina Magdayao, and Rayver Cruz feature in supporting roles.), I would recommend "play" instead of "feature" as saying someone is featured in a supporting role or minor role seems a little contradictory.
  •  Done
  • I would suggest linking the ₱ to the article on the related currency to make it more obvious to an uninformed reader. I was initially confused by what the symbol mean when reading the lead. It needs to only be linked in the first mention in the lead and the body of the article.
  •  Done
  • In the sentence (Acosta relays Mario's composite sketch to the police, which unknowingly stuns Mario's family.), I am confused by what is meant by "unknowingly stuns". I think more context or revisions would be helpful.
  •  Rephrased
  • I am not entirely sure if the "Red EPIC camera" image is entirely necessary as it does not really add that much to the article. I would remove it and move the images of the two actors down in its place as that section discuss their casting.
  • I thought it'd be a fine substitute to just add the image of the camera as an illustration since there's not an article about it in the mainspace. Would you consider not removing it?
  • I will leave that to another reviewer; it is not too much of an issue to hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add the years in which Magnifico and Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros were released, either in parenthesis following the title or somewhere in the sentence. Same goes for Dirty Harry.
  •  Done
  • In the "Music credits" table, some of the parts of "Producer(s)' column are blank and need to be filled in.
  •  Done Those blocks don't have credited producers. I just left a long dash so that it won't appear as if I left it intentionally blank.
  • I would encourage you to add topic sentences to the paragraphs in the "Critical reception" subsection to make its organization/structure clearer.
  • I feel like adding topic sentences constitute original research. Couldn't we just let the reviews speak for themselves?
  • I would move the "Home media" directly after the "Theatrical run and distribution" subsection.
  •  Done
  • I would move the "Critical reception" and "Accolades" subsections to a new section titled "Reception" that would be directly after the "Release" section.
  •  Done
  • Are there any updates on the development of the American remake of the film or the miniseries?
  •  Done No fresh update on either one.
  • For Reference 24, the film's title should not be in all caps.
  •  Done
  • The phrase "full list" should not be in all caps in Reference 46.
  •  Done
  • The link to the official website in the "External links" section redirects to the home page for me.
  •  Done

Wonderful job with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aoba47, I have fixed most of the concerns you raised, but I have questions on a few points there. Slightlymad (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great work with this. I support it for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Passed

This looks huge, but don't be scared. ;) It's not even necessary for you to read this entire thing: it's more here for the sake of completeness than anything else. The sections in green are the sections that require any action on your part—I'll remove that formatting once you've addressed the issue. I was gonna wait until the weekend to put this up, but it's so big that it'd probably be much easier to put this up in phases (this is phase 1 of – probably – 2; more likely 3). Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1

  • Ref #1: download-able production company dossier being used to source film length, US release date and additional cast actors. Since I'm not seeing this used as a source for anything on the article that isn't also available at the film's listing at IMDb, I suggest replacing this with the latter, since the latter is an industry-validated high-quality reliable source.
  • Ref #2: Philippine Entertainment Portal—a subsidiary of multi-billion dollar independent Filipino broadcaster GMA Network, which has a dedicated editorial staff. High-quality reliable source being used to source budget, uncredited consultants developing the story, reception at Caméra d'Or and Philippine distribution, all of which are attributable to this reference.
  • Ref #3: Box Office Mojo, a high-quality reliable source, in terms of collecting officially-released film industry financial data, being used to accurately source box office figures. No problems to be found here.
  • Ref #4: ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs, clearly a high-quality reliable source, being used to source director Eric Matti's acquisition of the film's concept, as well as Michael de Mesa's casting and the film's positive critical reception, all of which have been adequately paraphrased and accurate to the source.
  • Ref #5: I initially wasn't too sure about the quality of the actual website here, but the website has obviously developed quite a reputation as it has bagged interviews with some pretty damn high-profile people. This source is an interview with the film's director, which has been used to elaborate on aspects of the film's production and development, so I see no problem here. Everything sourced from this article is attributable to it, and has been adequately paraphrased.
  • Ref #6: Article from Philippine edition of Esquire, clearly a notable, global publication with a dedicated editorial staff, being used to source information regarding the trailer's release, its reaction and eventual development into the full feature film, problems gathering investment in the Philippines – partly due to the film's violence – and other aspects of the film's creation. Since it's a publication, also consider adding it's ISSN to the reference, which is 2243-8459, according to Scribd.
  • This ISSN is for the February 2016 issue, not the August 2013.
  • An International Standard Serial Number is used to identify any serial publication, and remains the same on all issues. I'll add it to the article myself, just so I can tuck all this under a collapsible template. Feel free to respond if you think there's still an issue here.
  • Ref #7: Philippine Daily Inquirer, listed as a newspaper of record from the Philippines, obvious high-quality source. Used to describe the film's distinction from the lead production company's usual romantic comedy projects. Everything on the article attibuted to this source is accurate, and adequately paraphrased, with the exception of a direct quotation.
  • Ref #8: Same publication as in ref #4, being used to describe Joey Marquez' casting in the film. No problems here.
  • Ref #9: This was the reference I was most concerned about, mainly because of the Squarespace link in the URL. It turns out Squarespace is a hosting service which insists on putting its name in every one of their website URLs. It is not UGC as I initially suspected, but rather the website of Rogue Magazine, a long-established and popular Filipino magazine—pretty much the Filipino Rolling Stone, with a dedicated editorial staff focusing on films, music, art, politics, et cetera. This reference is an editorial which originally featured in the magazine's June 2013 issue, and primarily consists of an interview with the film's director where he discusses the film's principle photography and the mechanics of production (ie, type of cameras used). I'm convinced there is no issue with quality or reliability here.
  • Ref #10: Same publication as in ref #2, being used as a reference to the film's shooting, film's classification by the Cinema Evaluation Board, as well as the publication's own review. All good.
  • Ref #11: GMA News and Public Affairs—major independent Philipino broadcaster. Used to cite the film's cinematography as well as the broadcaster's own review. No problems here.
  • Ref #12: The Philippine Star—broadsheet with multiple notable editors. Used to identify the film's musical director and editors, also discusses the soundtrack's inspirations. I don't see a problem with this.
  • Ref #13: same publication as above reference. This is an interview with the film's musical director.
  • Ref #14: Soundtrack.Net: another website which initially seemed a bit iffy, but it's been listed as one of the best music websites by Time Magazine, and is also used on other featured film articles, see Alien vs. Predator (film) and Boys Don't Cry (film)—and those are just the A's and B's. I went up to the F's at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media, and seen 4 more.
  • Soundtrack.net is actually recognized by WP:FILM/R as a RS for all things soundtrack.
  • Ref #15: same publication as in ref #7. Used as source for the film's premiere at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival. No problems here.
  • Ref #16: Cannes Film Festival website. Only used on the article as a 2nd reference for the statement about the film's premiere at the event. Otherwise, it's a primary source that adds nothing to the article that isn't third-party sourced by the previous reference. Can be removed with no loss to accuracy or article sourcing.
  •  Done
  • Ref #16: Rappler. I'm not entirely convinced of this reference's quality. In any case, it doesn't support the article's statement that the film received a 2-minute standing ovation at Cannes. It confirms the standing ovation part, but not the 2-minute part. I did find this from the Philippine Daily Inquirer (as in refs #7 and #14) and it does explicitly say that the film premiere ended with "a two-minute standing ovation." Consider using this instead.
  •  Done Can you archive this one for me?
  • Archived it for you.
  • Ref #17: Same publication as in refs #7 and #14. Used to support the film's release in North America and France. No issues here.
  • Ref #18: IndieWire, Notable and trust-worthy source being used to source information regarding the film's release on BluRay and DVD. I don't see a problem with this.
  • Ref #19: Deadline.com—an industry trade publication being used to identify Well Go USA's CEO and XYZ Films founders. I see no problems here.

I'll pause here. It'll probably be Saturday before I can get part 2 up. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might wanna use the Template:Collapse just like the ones used atop your comments so that this page won't appear too unwieldy to navigate. Slightlymad (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

  •  Done Needs archiving, too. :)

I know there's only a few references left, but I'll pause here and start again tomorrow, hopefully. I've been going through every reference and trying to determine its quality and if it's a reliable source, and with a couple of exceptions, it been mostly fine on this aspect. I've also been checking that everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and the article has been perfect so far in this regard. I still have to check each source for close paraphrasing, so I'll do that after I finish the last few references. Be back soon. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitch Film, now known as Screen Anarchy, is definitely a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know, for future film source reviews. Thankfully, the Twitch Film source was used to reference a fairly minor point on the article, so it could easily be replaced by the Variety article (which I'll archive after posting this). And, Slightlymad, I've not been sitting on my ass doin' nothing tonight: I spent this evening going through each individual reference manually checking for close paraphrasing. I couldn't find any, but I'll post a more detailed response on this tomorrow night, when I hope to have this source review finished.
And, just so you know, I hope you don't think I've been this detailed and anal about this article's source review because I believed this article required me to be this detailed and anal—it's a perfect fine article, and almost perfectly sourced up until now (bar the couple of issues I raised above, which you've adequately dealt with). It's just that another user complained about the lack of detail in one of my earlier source reviews, and it was one of the main reasons that article wasn't promoted. So I'm following that user's instructions to a tee, and posting a level of detail which even she has never posted. And, if she happens to question any single reference on this source review, I'll be able to explain and expand on why I believe they are all "high-quality" reliable sources. ;) Regards, Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3:

  • Ref #46: Film Business Asia—notable source, with this article written by the deputy director of the New York Asian Film Festival.
  • Ref #47: Variety—obvious high-quality reliable source when it comes to film, theater, etc.
  • Ref #48: Deadline—same ref as in #19; a notable industry trade publication
  • Ref #49: The Philippine Star—same as in ref #12.
  • Ref #50: The Manila Times—broadsheet founded in 1898; see no reason why this shouldn't be considered a high-quality reliable source.
  • Ref #51: Rappler—same source as used in references 39 and 45, although the writer of this article hasn't been identified. The website seems to have been provided with the exclusive for this story, so I think that speaks to the site's quality.
  • Ref #52: Manila Bulletin—broadsheet founded in 1900; see no reason why this shouldn't be considered a high-quality reliable source.

And with that, this nearly 12-hour source review is complete. I'm satisfied every source is of high enough quality and reliable to meet the featured article criteria. Everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and I manually went through every reference to check for close paraphrasing: I found none, neither did Earlwig's tool—with the exception of the usual direct quotations. I'm satisfied that the references on this article meet the criteria for FA status. Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Freikorp[edit]

Having passed the article at GAN and after reading this again now I believe it meets all requirements for FAC. I've found a few optional nitpicks which I will mention below.

  • "Matti conceived of On the Job" - would this be better without the "of"? Up to you.
  • That is actually correct: [48]
  • "as well as a miniseries sequel directed by Matti in June 2016" - on second thoughts, the wording makes it sound like the miniseries has already been directed by Matti, perhaps reword to "in June 2016 a miniseries sequel was confirmed, with Matti given the role of directing", or something similar.
  •  Done Leaving this alone since I was able to retrieve an update that Matti has indeed directed the movie
  • Should 'National Bureau of Investigation' be abbreviated?
  •  Done But it is...
  • I meant to say un-abbreviated :). Most people won't know what the 'NBI' is without clicking on the link otherwise. Freikorp (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Good call.
  • 'cinematography, "whiplash editing".' - are you missing an "and" between these two subjects?
  •  Done
  • I could be wrong, but I think 'Critic's Pick' should be in quotes.
  •  Done
  • It's been over a year since the miniseries was annouced. Are you certain there's no update on its status?
  •  Done Added filming and casting dates.

That's all from me. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Panagiotis Zois[edit]

  • Considering that Erik Matti both directed and wrote the film I would change it to "thriller film written and directed by" in the lead section.
  •  Done
  • I suggest that you create a "Cast" section. Once you do that I would also suggest that your remove the actors names from the "Plot" section though if you feel it's better to leave their names in I don't have a problem.
  • I feel like providing cast names in the running prose of a plot summary not only gives context (actors and characters mentioned together aids understanding of who played what, versus cross referencing the prose with a later list), and also ensures that only names which are actually important enough to warrant mentioning are listed. It also circumvents the fact that bulleted cast lists are often entirely unsourced, whereas cast-in-plot mentions demonstrate that we're using the primary source of the article for it. Besides, Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statistics and as a rule we do not include entire cast lists in film articles. Many readers—myself included—find it useful to have the cast names in the plot so we don't have scroll down to another part of the article to see who is playing who! Featured Articles such as Eraserhead and Manhunter observe this.
  • When you say "Brown encouraged him to write it while he looked for potential investors to finance the project", do you mean that Brown looked for potential investors or that Brown encouraged Matti to write the script while simultaneously looking for investors?
  • The latter.
  • I think it would look better if you placed the images of Pascual, Anderson and the EPIC camera all in the same box. To show you what I'm talking about, see the "Voice cast" section images of Disney's Frozen.
  • Doesn't look good, to be honest. I mean it's weird that a photo of a camera is juxtaposed with photos of humans.

I also made a few minor changes for better grammar. Hope you don't mind. Besides those minor nitpicks, the article is pretty well-written and informative on the film. Just out of curiousity, are the FAMAS Awards like the Filipino version of the Oscars? PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PanagiotisZois, of course I don't mind. It's a collaborative project after all, so your help is certainly encouraged. About your query, I'm not really sure if FAMAS is a Filipino rendition of the Oscars. SLIGHTLYmad 16:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: Any more concerns that bother you? SLIGHTLYmad 09:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be thorough I'll take one more look through the article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more things:

  • "alongside Matti's film production company" in the lead section.
  • In "Music credits" remove the "Source" at the bottom. I would suggest adding the citation as a reference to the table-list.
  • Nice. OK, the article doesn't seem to have anything else that requires attention. Well written and informative in the major areas. It's a pass. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I believe the article has received substantial amount of comments. Can I get a status report on the nomination? SLIGHTLYmad 13:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I don't think we're quite there yet, and I'd like the prose to have another going over. I spotted a few things in the lead, so another pair of eyes would be a big help. For example, there is "who are temporarily freed from incarceration in a corrupt justice system to carry out political executions" (it would make more sense to swap this around to "who are temporarily freed from incarceration to carry out political executions in a corrupt justice system"), "Matti conceived of On the Job from a Viva Films crew member..."(how do you conceive from a crew member), "In 2010, Star Cinema initially declined to produce the film due to its violence and themes" (They refused to make it because of its themes? What themes? We need to be specific), "they reappraised the script and agreed to co-produce alongside Matti's production company, Reality Entertainment" (I think we are missing something, like "it", after co-produce and we should avoid "produce ... production" in the same sentence), "took place in various parts of Manila" (redundancy: "took place in various parts of Manila") and "where it received much praise and a standing ovation" (we don't need "much"). These are fairly minor, and might be the only issues in the whole article, but I'd still like another check. These are examples that I found from a quick check. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 I believe these concerns you raised have been sorted out. Please take a look. SLIGHTLYmad 06:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments tentative support from Cas Liber[edit]

I have been asked to copyedit this - some questions below:

  • temporarily freed from incarceration - why not just, "temporarily released from jail"?
Casliber, I've no problem amending this. Thank you for your copyedits, too. :)

On starting I did feel this needed some editing to improve flow and remove redundancies. I think I got most of them and it seems to read okay now. I find if there is a lot to fix I easily miss more stuff. Not sure, will have another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose the only sentence I still feel uneasy about is "In the Philippines, corrupt politicians and police are causing abundant crime and poverty." as it is the very first sentence in the body of text and it is clunky. ...maybe something like "In a Philippines rife with corruption, ....(segue into first sentence)" or something.
Okay, nothing else prose-wise is jumping out at me...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: an editor was able to look at the prose and sort glaring redundancies out as well as improve textual flow. Will this be enough? SLIGHTLYmad 04:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Casliber has only given a tentative support, I think we still need a few more eyes on it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comments by TJW[edit]

  • Are... they released from prison, kill folks, and then just decide to go back afterward? This seems less than clear.
  • No, they usually spend the night for a temporary parole; the following day, they are transported by a Mitsubishi Pajero and reincarcerated.
  • Done
  • his father was not corrupt but in fact Comma.
  • Done
  • he realizes that he has no one to leave prison for Just seems like an odd construction. Maybe, "no reason to leave prison".
  • Done
  • he can remain in prison Maybe "remain incarcerated"? It's more wordy but it avoid repetition.
  • Done
  • mourned by many, including Nicky, and Acosta is discharged This... is really ambiguous comma usage, and you have to read past "Acosta" to really "get" that "Acosta" is part of the "discharged" and not part of the "mourning".
  • Done
  • gained the idea This... is this a common usage in a variety non-US English? We would say "got the idea" and even that is probably too colloquial for WP.
  • potential investors to finance the project - Seems simpler to just say "investors for financing"
  • Done
  • large a risk for overseas Overseas what? Markets? Audiences?
  • Clarified
  • largest film outfit "Outfit" seems colloquial. What specifically and literally are they that "outfit" is filling in for?
  • Changed
  • as its content was too violent - "Content" seems redundant. I don't believe there is another way it could be violent other than in its content.
  • Done
  • Matti had offered Is the perfect here supposed to imply that at the time it was offered to Star that it had already been offered to these other two? Or is this just another step in the process? If so it should just be in past tense, because there is no particular references point in time that's necessary to "point from".
  • Done
  • co-founder of Reality Entertainment, claimed that WP:CLAIM? Are we intentionally casting doubt on these "claims"?
  • Done
  • a Bushido Blade samurai Don't use WLs in direct quotes.
  • Done
  • Can probably WL to Extra (acting), since it's an industry term, but also has a more common meaning, and non-native speakers might not intuitively "get it".
  • Done
  • This is a Manila movie... This is nearly a 50 word quote, and could probably be a block quote.
  • Done
  • Filming was strenuous across over 70 locations If this is a correct usage of "strenuous" then it's not one I've ever heard. This are or are not subjectively "strenuous", they're not "strenuous over". Seems like you might be going for "stretched".
  • Done
  • Erwin Romulo,[12] the editor-in-chief Conjunction?
  • Found a better alternative
  • This is not absolutely necessary, but as someone who knows exactly zero about cinema in the Philippines, and for the nominator, as an editor who apparently does, I can't help but think there might be some see also's that could help bridge that gap.
  • Done
  • Done
  • There seems to be pretty liberal use of semi-colons, which tends to push articles past the "bright and inquisitive teenager" level that is usually my own personal standard for articles. Might not hurt to look over them and decide whether we're using them because they help add clarity by linking the sentences conceptually, or whether we're just using them because we can. TimothyJosephWood 13:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Timothyjosephwood, I think I have addressed these outstanding concerns. Please take a look, thanks. SLIGHTLYmad 05:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing that jumps out at me is the USD currency conversion. It doesn't seem to be in the source, and if we're calling CALC on this one, we probably need more information (maybe in a footnote), like whether this is a conversion based on 2013 or 2017 dollars, and what the relative value of the two currencies was, and where that information came from. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood: Addressed. Please take a look. SLIGHTLYmad 14:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it a bit, since in standard formatting, 1,107 million is... 1.1 billion, which would be an impressive earning indeed. Just lemme give it one last look see. The coffeemaker is almost done. TJWtalk 15:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So, one last read through and I did a lot of general tweaks and fixes. Nothing major. Here's what's left:
  • some of his money home - I don't understand the significance of this. Is he paying remittances to his family? Is he hoarding cash in a mattress somewhere?
  • The former: the character sends the money to pay the bills and his mother's dialysis.
  • killing anyone else involved - First time I read this I thought I understood it, but now I'm not so sure. Is this anyone else involved in the gun-for-hire business, or anyone else in involved in the Senate campaign?
  • The former.
  • political presentation - Does this mean a campaign rally? Because "presentation" makes it seem like a conference room with a power point.
  • I will on err on the side of "presentation". However, here's a subtitled brief YouTube clip of the movie to shed light on this.
  • for his part - His part in...?
  • Added
  • he visits Lulette, who is with her lover, Boy - I just really don't know what this means. Is the person's name Lulette or Boy?
  • The name's Boy, a proper noun, hence the capital letter B. :)
  • Manrique and Pacheco's security detail - He he attacking Manrique and the security detail that belongs to Pacheco? Or is he attacking them both, and the security detail that belongs to both Manrique and Pacheco?
  • Added apostrophe on Manrique since it's both theirs.
  • $350,000 (₱12 million) - This needs a similar explanation as before.
  • It's in the source. Is this necessary? SLIGHTLYmad 06:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC) TJWtalk 17:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood:, done. SLIGHTLYmad 06:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry. I didn't see that it was in the source. My bad. The Boy thing is probably more to do with having an exceptionally common English word as a name. I removed the youtube link from your comments, since it's not totally clear that it's online with proper evidence of permission, but having watched it, I tweaked it a bit to "campaign meeting", which probably more intuitively conveys the scene.
Overall, I feel like I've been pretty nit picky, and everything seems pretty well resolved. I'm fine to support. TJWtalk 10:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2017 [49].

Baltimore railroad strike of 1877[edit]

Nominator(s): Timothyjosephwood 16:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of a series on the events of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 as they occurred in particular cities. This is my first FA nomination, so feel free to correct anything I haven't done correctly. TimothyJosephWood 16:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009: Some good work here, and a really interesting theme. A couple of quick thoughts:

  • Worth giving it a scrub for metric/imperial equivalents.
  • Also worth checking for abbreviations, e.g "when this wasn't feasible"
  • And for underlinking (e.g. "Springfield breech loading rifle" could be usefully linked)
  • And check that each reference is in a consistent style (e.g. do you give just publisher, or location and publisher etc.)
  • My main issue is the use of the newspapers of the period as reliable secondary sources. In some cases, you're carefully attributing the information to the newspaper, which makes clear that it's not a statement that's been reviewed by a modern historian, but a contemporary piece of press reporting ("On July 26, The Sun reported 3,000 draymen, 600 oil men, and 1,500 stevedores out of work as a result of the embargo.") We don't really know if this is accurate or not, but it is clear that it is a newspaper statement. In other cases, a newspaper account is listed as fact, e.g. "There was a general hope that owing to the imminent increase in traffic due to the transportation of harvested crops, the fireman would be able to make daily trips, and that the company could arrange for them to return home on passenger trains when this wasn't feasible, which would save them from the burden of long layovers away from home." I'd be strongly advising an article on labour disputes in the 19th century to be drawing whenever possible on reliable modern academic sources, and to be extremely scrupulous about attributing any press material to the newspaper concerned. (WP:PRIMARY would apply here).
  • Images look generally fine, but I note that :File:Great Railroad Strike plaque, Baltimore 01 (cropped).jpg is justified by "Marker placed by the Maryland Historical Trust, who retains neither copyright for the physical representation of the marker nor the text." - I can't see any explanation for why this should be the case. The uploader, Permstrump, implies that he/she is acting on behalf of the Trust in releasing the text in the image, but there is no evidence for this, and the licensing then conflicts with the justification, arguing that the Trust owns the copyright to the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will work to address the issues identified. As to the image, we went around with this for a couple of weeks, and in the end I just emailed them, and they were the ones who confirmed that they don't retain copyright on the markers. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The email confirming that they've released the text under the license on the file needs to be registered on the OTRS system on Wikimedia. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've largely taken care of the issues above, except for emailing OTRS, which I will take care of tonight or this weekend as soon as I find the email. Just to clarify, the image was taken by the user, I requested it myself, but the copyright issue wasn't the image, but the likeness in the sense that it was a... sort of sculpture for copyright purposes and freedom of panorama only applies to inhabited/inhabitable buildings. TimothyJosephWood 19:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, the article currently contains 45 separate references to period newspaper articles. Nine of these have not been attributed, because the news article is used along side another secondary source for the claim supported. The remaining 36 citations have been attributed either to the paper by name, or referenced variously as new stories or news reports. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support (conditional on other comments being addressed) comments from auntieruth[edit]

I reviewed this at GA and thought it was interesting and well done at that level. I guess I assumed it would go through the MilHist A class review first, before here, but so be it.

I agree with HcHc2009 that that there is a great reliance on the newspapers, which in the nineteenth century were notoriously unreliable and likely to be owned by a local capitalist. Whether it's too great or not, I'm not sure. It would help to see a separate list of sources that segregates scholarly works from the newspapers. This way we could see where the weight actually lies.
There also needs to be greater explanation of the Long Depression, as a world-wide phenomenon and its impact on wages throughout the US and indeed the world, particularly iin areas of rapidly expanded industrialization. It doesn't need to be much, but we need some greater context other than the
There also needs to be greater clarity of how this strike fits into the broader strikes that spread across the country. I thought the day-by-day blows of what led to the strike could be condensed into paragraphs, instead of their own headings--again, for GA, it worked for me, but for Wikipedia's best work, it doesn't. You mention the Great Railroad strike 1877 in the lead but not in the body of the article, and this strike had a ripple effect across the country, beginning in Martinsburg and spreading outward.
It is underlinked. For example, I added link to Community_College_of_Baltimore_County. there are several others that need linking.
Re the Marker: I suggest you contact [email protected] and ask whether the marker is Fair Use. auntieruth (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy isn't who I contacted originally, but she was who I was eventually put into contact with. I have forwarded the email from September to OTRS for verification.
As to underlinking, I went through the whole thing and linked everything I could think of yesterday. If there's much more I'm afraid I'm missing it.
  • it's better now.
As to sources, the lions share of the article relies on McCabe, Dacus, and Meekins, all secondary overviews of the national riots in which Baltimore is a chapter or two, but all themselves 19th Century, and accounting for a combined 84 citations between them. Stover, Stowell, and Laurie feature most prominently among modern sources, with a combined 20 citations. The heaviest reliance on period news (where there is not also concurrent secondary citation) is in the sections following the end of open violence, because most of the sources start to drop off in detail at this point, and move on to the "exciting stuff" elsewhere, namely things like burning half of Pittsburgh to the ground (see Pittsburgh railway riots), and don't really concern themselves with things like the price of cabbage or how many idle ships are in the harbor.
Part of the problem with nineteenth century sources is their tendency to exaggerate. Such sentences as The first parade of the 5th Regiment through the city following the crisis was on October 15. They marched that day with 400 counted among their ranks could be adjusted with some judicious qualifications: "On 15 October, the 5th Regiment's first post-crisis parade included (according to contemporary accounts) 400 men of the regiment." This way you document what the contemporary sources say without giving them undue weight. auntieruth (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the content issues, I can try to work on those after the next few days, and maybe start digging back through the state archives and other sources. Right now I've wasted most of my morning on Commons, and I have to go adult for a while. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adulting does us all in, doesn't it!  :) You could use a phrase in the lead that refers to the Depression and economc woes of the late 1870s. auntieruth (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I also tried to address all of your concerns above, by adding more context in the first section, and redoing the headers throughout. As to the newspapers, as I indicate above, I have trimmed some that just wasn't central to the story, some I have left unattributed in cases where the newspaper is only one of multiple citations used for the content (often in cases where many sources are cited as giving estimates), and in 36 other cases the news should now be properly attributed in the prose. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AuntieRuth, at the risk of being a little pedantic, the Commons can't accept fair use justifications; the questions have to be: a) who owns the copyright to the text on the sign?; and, b) if the Maryland Government does own the copyright, have they agreed to release it under the licence stated? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be even more pedantic (it just goes down hill from here), the issue wasn't necessarily the text itself, but the entire three dimensional presentation of the marker as a public sculpture. The picture itself was taken by the editor standing on the street corner (not taken from Maryland's archives), and so they own the copyright to the "image", but freedom of panorama doesn't apply to 3D works of non-human-inhabitable public "art" in the US, so if the "art" takes up a substantial portion of the image (see also Commons:De minimis), then the rights of Maryland to the "representation" or "likeness" of the marker still applies, except they claim no copyright for the representation, and they're the only ones who can, so the original copyright of the image, of which a portion is made up of the "likeness", should be retained by the editor who took the picture. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under US law, though, you have copyright over your text/work regardless of whether you "claim" it. You can explicitly release your work into the Public Domain, or under various other suitable licences, but that would need to be recorded using OTRS, using the email that you're lodging with the system. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image pending verification. TimothyJosephWood 16:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the text once more:
  • Vice President (with caps) refers to the political office. Without caps, it refers to a corporate or academic office. This occurs several times....
  • Remember to link the first instance in the body of the article (such as Baltimore). auntieruth (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
auntieruth, fixed the title capitalization. As far as first mention, it's not totally clear where the errors are. I've reviewed this variously, and if there are glaring errors I'm afraid you may have to be more specific. Baltimore for example, is linked to already in the first sentence of the lead. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always understood that we need to link in the first instance of the body of the text as well. I could be corrected, but most of the articles I've edited have been done this way. auntieruth (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've got most of them, plus a few minor tweaks here. Please feel free to revert if necessary. Support on prose, conditional upon addressing comments from reviewers Ceranthor and Mike Christie. auntieruth (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:DUPLINK, wikilinks should appear only once in an article, but may be duplicated in the first mention following the lead (among other instances) if it is helpful for the reader. So overall, once is standard, and more is a judgment call. TimothyJosephWood 17:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (in addition to the marker issues noted above)

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:Camden_Station_in_1865.jpg: reprint was published 1990 - when was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I... fairly thought it was a settled issue since it was taken in the US, and in apparently 1865, meaning that if the author were literally born on the day they took the image, they would have needed to have lived to the age of 82, in order for 70 years to not have elapsed since their death. TimothyJosephWood 22:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on when it was first published - see this chart. Life+70 isn't a blanket rule in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I've hit a dead end on this one. It's originally credited to the B&O Museum but I was unable to find it on their digitized archives, and the 1990 book doesn't give any other indication about the history of it. It's available from dozens of other sites, but it's been on commons for almost ten years, so they may be taking their lead from us on the copyright status. I have contacted both the original uploader, who is an admin on commons and so hopefully more capable than I, as well as the museum itself via email. TimothyJosephWood 14:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image for now, pending verification. TimothyJosephWood 16:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: The uploader has verified the original publication date of the image and added the details to the image description. It has now been added back into the article. TimothyJosephWood 18:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Tintor2

The article is in good shape but there are somethings bothering me:

  • Removing the Google Books links. I have been criticized about them in the past due to copyright violations.
  • Using the archive bot, I archived all references. This is needed for the source review, so don't worry about archiving them
  • Avoid one or two sentence paragraphs long. Imagine you are writing a formal letter.

Ping me when you solved the issues. Also, I would appreciate if you could comment on the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive3. Regards and good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tintor2. I have also archived a few cite webs, and removed the google books urls from works not in the public domain. I have tweaked wording throughout the article, but if there are still places you think need adjustment, feel free to point them out and I will address the issues.
As to Naruto, I'm afraid I'm not much help. This is my first go at FA, and I'm not sure my opinion means very much, expecially given the number of things on this article that I've had to go back and fix thus far. TimothyJosephWood 16:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giving you my support. Good work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • The Baltimore railroad strike occurred in Baltimore, Maryland, as part of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, nationwide strikes and civil unrest following the global depression and economic downturns of the 1870s. - I think the Great Railroad strike of 1877 bit should be split off into a separate sentence.
  • Strikes continued mostly peacefully until July 20 - rm mostly
  • Combine the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead
  • The 5th Regiment. marched south from their armory above the old Richmond Market on North Howard Street, to the B. & O. Station. - Is there supposed to be a period after regiment?
  • had far-reaching implications for US industry, shuttering more than a hundred railroads - Does shuttering mean closing down? I've never seen it used this way and I'm not sure it's encyclopedic language rather than slang
  • including violence in Reading, Scranton and Shamokin, Pennsylvania; a bloodless general strike in St. Louis, Missouri; a short lived uprising in Chicago, Illinois; and in the worst case, rioting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania that left 61 dead, 124 injured, and saw much of the city's center burned, including more than a thousand rail cars destroyed - should be separated into a new sentence, and the grammar needs to be fixed
  • In many cases, what began as a peaceful action of organized labor, attracted the masses of working discontent and unemployed of the depression, along with others who took opportunistic advantage of the chaos. - In many cases seems vague
  • State and federal troops followed the unrest along the lines - followed the unrest? along the lines? This makes little sense to me
  • However, the number of unemployed along the line was so great owing to the ongoing depression, the company had no difficulty replacing the striking workers. - Need a "that" or something similar to link the clauses. As is it's a run-on
  • Can you change the header for July 16-19? I don't like the repetition of 'events'; maybe just the dates would be sufficient?
  • Newspapers reported a meeting held of rail workers who were sympathetic to the strike - held by, not held of?
  • That same day in Baltimore, hundreds of manufacturing workers struck. - While this is grammatically fine, I think it would be better if you said went on strike
  • Baltimore saw the first act of violence to emerge from the strike. - more concise as "the first act of violence in Baltimore emerged"
  • The engine caught fire and both the engineer and the fireman were severely injured.[1]:32 - were there passengers? Might want to clarify
  • The crowd grew increasingly restless until stones and pistols once again assaulted the soldiers guarding the area around the depot. - the stones and pistols didn't assault them, people did
  • The sentinels were called in, the soldiers assembled, and the command given to "Load, ready, aim!" at the mob. - was given
  • An unsuccessful attempt was also made to burn a B&O transportation barge at Fell's Point,[7]:739 - Grammar - meant to be a period?
  • To the west, at the Mount Clare Shops of the B&O, a 37 car train - 37-car
  • According to reports in The Sun, that the following day at 3:00 pm, - grammar
  • recounted in the follow day's newspapers - grammar
  • " The Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser report a general hope that, - meant to be past tense 'reported'?
  • I'd tweak the 'Freight resumes' heading to the noun form, so something like 'Resumption of Freight traffic'
  • It was state funded - think these should be hyphenated

Regretful Oppose- Per FA criterion 1a. While I think the article is interesting, comprehensive, and fairly well-written, the prose needs some fine-tuning before this is ready to become an FA. I found a number of grammatical errors which suggest to me that a peer review would help polish the article and give it an extra push towards being ready to be promoted. I'm sorry that it the nomination has been stalled since July, as I do think if it had gotten some feedback since then it would be ready to be promoted. It's nearly there. ceranthor 23:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Ceranthor. It went through the guild of copy editors before GA but there's been quite a bit of tweaking since then. I will attempt to address your issues and give it another thorough c/e, but I probably won't be able to get around to it until the week of the 20th. Maybe that will be enough to bring it up to speed, or maybe not. I guess we'll have to see. TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, you should be proud of your work on this article. It shows, and even if it doesn't pass on this go, I would be more than happy to help you with copyediting so that it's ready next time. ceranthor 18:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor: I think I've hit most everything. The only exception is the derailed train where the fireman and engineer were injured. The presumption is more-or-less that because these two are mentioned, they were the only casualties. It was likely not a passenger train. Certainly passenger rail was widely used, but in these industrial centers, the unrest was centered around freight, since the prices for the selling and transportation of freight was the volatile bit that was exposed to the fluctuations of the depression, and caused the problems to begin with. In some cities (like Pittsburgh), there was even early resumption of mail and passenger services as an olive branch from the strikers. TimothyJosephWood 13:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my oppose. I will try to read through again tonight and provide more feedback if necessary. ceranthor 21:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the way to the from their armory, - missing a word here
  • That night, and the next day, - Might flow better as "between that night and the next day" or something similar, it's a little jarring to me without some sort of linker
  • several buildings were set on fire throughout the city. - Think this would read better as active voice: "X'ers set several buildings on fire..."
  • That summer, tensions erupted in what would become known as the Great Railroad Strike or simply the Great Strikes - internationally or just within the US? The section suggests just the US, which confuses me given the table citing data from other countries
  • In the worst case, rioting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania left 61 dead, 124 injured, and saw much of the city's center burned, including more than a thousand rail cars destroyed - this is a run-on; either split it into two sentences after 124 injured or tweak it to make it work
  • What began in Martinsburg, West Virginia, spread along the rail lines through Baltimore, and on to several major cities and transportation hubs of the time, including violence in Reading, Scranton and Shamokin, Pennsylvania; a bloodless general strike in St. Louis, Missouri; and a short lived uprising in Chicago, Illinois. - including doesn't properly link the first idea. I think it would be better to start with "Violence began... including Xinsert whatever specifically happened in PA; a bloodless general strike..."
  • That summer, tensions erupted in what would become known as the Great Railroad Strike or simply the Great Strikes - Was this in 1876 or 1877? It isn't clear from the section itself
  • In early July, - same question as above comment?
  • Various meetings of working men followed - what is a "meeting of working men"? Sounds dubiously vague to me
  • Most accepted the reduction - most workers I presume? Could you clarify?
  • and had grown to include a variety of mechanics, artisans and other laborers. - keep the serial comma consistent
  • With knowledge that groups of workers had been dispersed - think this needs to be "With the knowledge"
  • At 6:35 pm, as many workers in the city were ending their shifts, - think finishing would be better than ending here; this is a major nitpick

Almost there. ceranthor 23:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ceranthor -  Done TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. I'm going to try to get back to this tonight to double check things. ceranthor 20:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this is ready. ceranthor 12:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments as I go through. Please feel free to revert my copyedits if needed.

  • "That afternoon violence broke out in Martinsburg, West Virginia between workers and militia guarding a train, and continued such that the governor of West Virginia appealed to the President for help": "continued such that" is vague, and you don't say whether the governor made the appeal that same day, which seems likely since you're giving the events in chronological order. In that case, "such that" can't mean "for so long that"; does it mean "became so violent [or widespread] that"?
  • You might consider redlinking General James Herbert; my subscription to newspapers.com appears to have expired, but it seems he has an 1884 obituary in the Baltimore Sun and enough other coverage to make him notable.
  • "It was definitively decided that conditions were too dangerous": what does "definitively" add here? I think it could just be cut.
  • "At 9:15 pm another train was sent down the tracks with no one on board, to wreck itself into yet another": The crowd does this? Can we say so, or is the source vague?
  • There are several generals (Howard, Abbott, Hancock) for whom you don't provide either a first name or a link; can we rectify that in any cases?
  • "According to reports in The Sun, that the following day at 3:00 pm": something is not parsing correctly here.
  • "the fireman would be able to make daily trips": presumably "firemen"? And I don't really understand the point of the newspaper's comments, perhaps because I know little about how old trains functioned -- why was it important for the firemen, specifically, to travel?
  • "The Sun between reported between the 30th and August 1, that the strikers who still held out": clearly some editing debris here; I'd fix it myself but I'm not certain of the intended meaning. I suspect it should be: "The Sun reported that, between the 30th and August 1, the strikers who still held out".
  • Not necessary for FA, but it would be nice to figure out a link target for the 6th, 7th, and 8th regiments, even if it's a redlink.
  • The authorization of the 8th regiment is mentioned in passing as being new, but if it's in direct response to the rioting then I think that should be clearly stated. Was the 7th also a newly authorized regiment?

That's everything I can see. The article is an impressive piece of work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie  Done with the exception of the regimental links. Unfortunately, I don't have anything at my disposal that I'm aware of to definitively determine what current MD guard units (if any) these may eventually became. TimothyJosephWood 14:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The points I raised above have been addressed. I may post to MILHIST to ask about possible link targets for those regiments, but that's not relevant to the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pbsouthwood[edit]

Note to coordinators: Please regard this as support unless there is a significant outstanding item in this section. I leave it to your discretion what should be considered significant. (in case I am unable to respond for technical reasons at closing time)

  • For general intelligibility to a lay reader with no background in the subject, and general quality of prose: Support.

I will try to do some more source checks when I have the time. I am a bit challenged for bandwidth at present.

  • Reference 16 checks out, though it describes the Boxmakers as striking for uniform rates, not prices. I don't know whether prices would be a recognised term for pay scales in the US, but it does not look right to me.
  • Reference 33 checks out • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peter (Southwood): Regarding 16, after review, Dacus and The Sun differ somewhat in their wording, and so I have adjusted the sentence to better conform to Dacus. TimothyJosephWood 18:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checks correctly against Dacus for meaning and page number. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, I think we still need a source review. Also, as this would be the nominator's first FA, we also need a spot-check of sources for accurate usage and close paraphrasing. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what it's worth, the most relied upon sources are all in the public domain, so it wouldn't matter if they were quoted at length verbatim as long as they were properly attributed. And I understand wanting independent confirmation, but I'm normally the a-hole who nominates other's copyright violating contributions for deletion or revdel, so there shouldn't be any issues. TimothyJosephWood 22:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • Current ref 11 is not in ISBN 13, per WP:ISBN.
  • Current ref 24 is a book, so a year will do instead of the complete date.
  • Either keep location for others too, or not at all (if you wish to keep, then current refs 9 and 12 lack locations which should be added).

That is it. Overall a wonderful article, and amazing sources! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review Adityavagarwal. Only issue is ref 24 is currently a newspaper citation, and pretty much everything around it is too. Did you mean a different ref? Typo maybe? TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it was a typo. Current ref 21 instead, but I have fixed it. All good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More source review note from Cas Liber[edit]

  • With references, decide whether authors are formatted "Smith, John" or "John Smith" ..I can see both used.
Done and done. TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwig's copyvio clear.
  • FN #1 (p28) - used once - checks out (I can see in snippet)
  • FN #4 (pp104-06) - used six times - checks out.
  • FN #34 - used once - checks out

In summary, spot check looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Very good article, and I see that most of the good feedback has been meted already. Some comments, all minor:

  • General:
    • Some of the images' upright ratios seem small relative to their heights. Is this on purpose?
    • Add some commas after dates and locations in order to qualify them. For instance:
      • In section July 16-19: That afternoon violence broke out in Martinsburg, West Virginia, between workers and militia guarding a train
      • In "Resumption of freight traffic": The force gathered at Camden Station at 8:30 am on Saturday, July 29, included
  • In "July 16-19":
    • "According to the piece that ran the 20th in The Sun," → According to the July 20 version of The Sun,
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Attack on the depot":
    • 5th paragraph: "two hour shifts" should be hyphenated, "four hours rest" is possessive so two-hour shifts, with four hours' rest
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Immediate aftermath and sporadic violence":
    • 6th para: "120-135 marines": the hyphen either should be an endash or replaced with the word "to"
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 9th para: same as above with "360-400 federal troops"
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Aftermath and legacy":
    • Para 2: Is "street" in "West Hoffman Street" capitalized?
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Para 3: Remove "in" at the beginning of the sentence "In the following year".
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all for now. epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • epicgenius, first thanks for the review. On the first point, is there a convention here I'm missing? I've just rarely ever used anything but the default upright scaling factor. On the commas, is that a general grammatical convention that should happen each time? Maybe I just have an up-tempo cadence when I read, but I don't think I "speak" these commas in my normal "speaking". I mean, I can fix the specific instances you pointed out, but I'm not sure I can apply it as a general rule because I don't think I use it in my writing as a matter of course. TimothyJosephWood 23:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we just need to address Epicgenius's comments before we wrap this up. In the meantime, I notice that there is no alt text for the images. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice by including it. One other minor point: in the text, we refer to Stowell and Stover, but we really should be explaining to the reader who these people are and why their opinion matters. Finally, I notice that almost all the sources come from the 19th century, and there is little mention of how this event has been viewed/reviewed by historians. While I appreciate that it is possible nothing has been written, I'd just like to check that we have exhausted all modern sources on this topic. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tony1[edit]

  • First sentence: "The Baltimore railroad strike was involved several days of work stoppage and violence which occurred in Baltimore, Maryland in 1877.
 Done TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second sentence: "mid 1870s"—hyphen please.
 Done TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third sentence: "... the same day that 10 percent wage reductions were scheduled to go into effect" (I'd prefer this removal at first glance; is there an added meaning?)
 Done - Probably not totally necessary. Overall it was more of a "suspense" thing. They had announced the cuts well in advance, and this was "d-day" for the rail workers. TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth sentence: "On the way from their armory, near East Fayette and North Front Streets, alongside the Jones Falls stream, the 6th Regiment was forced to stop multiple times, firing into the dense crowd that followed them and killing several civilians."—This is a highly politicised statement, and needs to be clear. "forced" means their leaders told them to stop "multiple" (there, "several" might be simpler)? Or does it mean their way was blocked by the dense crowd (surely not, since the crowd "followed them". It also leaves open the status of the second and third processes, "firing" and "killing" ... who ordered the shootings, or was it a visceral reaction by those at the bottom of the food chain? Would removing the comma after "Streets" make it flow better?
So... I've hacked this down to a pretty bare bones general description. I realize some things may seem obvious to me given that I'm thoroughly familiar. The answer to all your questions is its complicated, and after a few attempts to fix it, I think it might just be too much detail for the lead. So I'm just going with a pretty blanket statement, and I'm afraid the nitty gritty of who shot whom, when and how will have to go in the body. TJWtalk 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and additional militia and city police were also recruited."—"additional" and "also"? The passive voice leaves unclear who ordered the additional recruitment: Hayes?
 Done - City officials recruited the additional police, as it was their authority to do so. However, the national guard, being a state entity, was ultimately done under the authority of the governor and adjutant general, even though it was overseen by Gen. Abbot, who was under federal orders. I supposed the point here is to say that there was a response at all levels: federal, state, and local. TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The company promised minor concessions at the time, and eventually enacted some reforms later that year."—just checking: "some", here, means "just a few", doesn't it.
Yes. The central issue was pay above all else, especially since it was often intermittent work by nature. The railroad eventually adjusted the way they handled some comparatively minor logistical (maybe even cosmetic) things, but they never rescinded the wage cuts. They didn't have to. There was a surplus of labor, and they knew it, and they just successfully externalized the cost of all their security concerns to government. TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First section: do we really need pretty flag icons in the table? The country names are there (which might be more usefully piped to sections or offspring articles—it's usually a good feeling to make links more specific for readers).
Done? I... have no strong opinion about this either way. But I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean to link to specific sections in Long depression? That seems a little excessive, since many of those sections are extremely short, in cases only a single sentence. The only real material usefulness of the links is in the cases of French Third Republic and Kingdom of Italy, where they point to a "predecessor nation". The other's are a little WP:BLUE, but are just there for the sake of consistency. But again, I really don't have a strong opinion. I can just remove them outright if you think that looks cleaner. TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of issues at the opening, not all of them to do with surface language. I don't think this is ready for promotion "tonight". Tony (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I've addressed these alright, Tony. TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim, what about the rest of the article? Tony (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony. I did another total read-through. This is my first FA, and I never claimed to be the brightest. So I'm afraid if there's additional issues I'm not seeing you may have to suggest them to me, and I'll hunt them out. TJWtalk 14:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim, the lead is better now. First time? Well done: it's an important and interesting topic, and I hope it prepares you to submit more articles to FAC. But, the length of this process suggests you need to cultivate some copy-editors among the community (making friends with those you might swap editorial strengths with is a good mechanism). I don't have time to edit it throughout, but I went through quickly: yes, you've improved it overall. See if you like my 20% boost to some of the pics. Revert if you don't, but I think if they're worth including at all, the detail-rich ones were too small. (The bodies one might be a little poor in quality to be boosted in size. Over to your judgment.) I'm not voting "oppose". Tony (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the goal was to learn to write better articles, and I can say there has been some things that I probably could have anticipated if I had more carefully reviewed similar nominations, and a lot of things that I never remotely considered at all. Overall I'd say it's been a good run whether it passes or not. It's definitely made a major improvement in the article. Thanks for your time. TJWtalk 10:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think this is finally good to go, and I thank the nominator for their patience. However, I would like to point out that I left a couple of earlier points in my comment above which I see have not been addressed. They are not worth delaying promotion over, but it would be good if at least some thought was given to them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 [50].

Underwater diving[edit]

Nominator(s): • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the lead article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Scuba diving, and a level 4 vital article in Everyday life. The article is about the human practice of going underwater to interact with the underwater environment for professional or recreational reasons. It is in summary style throughout as it is intended as the top level introduction to the large number of Wikipedia articles on subsidiary topics relating to underwater diving. ... • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • General notes on first glance (sorry if this is formatted wrong, I'm not an FA regular):
    I think I can manage, I too am not very familiar with the procedures. Thanks for your attention. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are various WP:SANDWICHING issues that just get worse the wider the resolution is.
    If I understand you correctly, you mean that when the gap between the images gets too wide it causes problems? I will try to recreate this and see what it looks like. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done what I think may solve the problem. Please confirm. If it does not, please feel free to demonstrate, as I am not sure that I can replicate the problem adequately. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandwiching issues happen when there is an image on the left and an image on the right and text "sandwiched" between them. The easiest solution is to use only right aligned images, but left can also be used, if they are adequately spaced. The wider the screen resolution the more difficult it is to avoid sandwiching. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. The changes I have made eliminate reduce sandwiching issues on my screen, so I will assume it is fixed until notified otherwise. however, putting the images on only one side pushes some of them out of the relevant section, and at a screen width where sandwiching starts, the text width is already quite wide. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing all images to right aligned default width seems to give an acceptable appearance over the widest range of page widths, for my browser. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I added upright scaling to all the vertically oriented images, combined a few images using Template:multiple image, and removed exactly one image. This reduced a lot of the stacking issues, but there's still a pretty bad stack right around the History section. I'm not sure if there's an easy solution there other than adding more text or removing some images. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks OK to me, I will experiment a bit with more multiple images and see where it goes. Worth a try at least. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The images in the lead look fine on PC, but on mobile browser they result in having to scroll through a full screen's worth of image before you get to any text, and on mobile app they do the same, but they appear after the first paragraph of the lead, meaning you can't really see the text of the first paragraph and the second in the same screen. The flags should probably be moved, removed, or incorporated into something like Template:Multiple image.
    I think I get your point, but have no mobile browser to check on. I will look into possible solutions, including those you suggest. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the flags to another section where they are probably more relevant anyway. Does this solve the problem? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it seems to have. TimothyJosephWood 22:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The lead overall could probably be more concise. Some animals are physiologically and anatomically better adapted to the environmental conditions of diving doesn't really seem like it has thorough treatment in the body, and so it's not clear why it needs to be in the lead. The whole thing could probably be reduced to about two thirds its size with careful reduction.
    Changed so that other animals are not mentioned in that statement. Other reductions are not obvious to me, but I will see if there is anything I can do. I did reduce the lead considerably during the GA review, but a few things have changed since then and it may be possible to squeeze it down a bit more without too much loss. If you have any specific suggestions, I would like to see them. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a good deal of tightening to the lead. One sentence still bothers me: In ambient pressure diving, the diver is directly exposed to the pressure of the surrounding water, and uses breathing apparatus for scuba diving or surface supplied diving, or when freediving, will breath-hold. The "when freediving, will breath-hold", although I can probably imagine how it would be technically grammatically workable, if so, is still really awkward sentence construction. But I'm not totally sure how to best reword it so that it would be understood by... a fairly average but inquisitive 15 year-old. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed, most is good, but I had to change one where the meaning was distorted. I will look at options for the awkward construction as I don't like it either. It may take more words. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really awkward construction changed by rewriting much of the paragraph. I think it is better now. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is probably an over-reliance on scare quotes where they're not clearly necessary, some MOS:WORDSASWORDS instances where they should probably be italicized instead of quoted. Also quotes and wikilinks should not be used in concert.
    Works for me. TimothyJosephWood 13:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, I will sort this out. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed several that seemed unnecessary. If I have missed any that you think should go, please feel free to delete them. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Personal preference, but if upright is used on vertically oriented images, it should probably be used consistently.
    I will take a look, but am not sure that I get your point. Maybe it will become clear after I look into it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Still mot sure. Do you want all the images to be of the same width, or all the portrait format images to be the same width, or something else? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made all the images default width and right aligned as this seems to provide reasonable layout over most page widths between about 50 chars to 200 chars. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken care of this one. TimothyJosephWood 13:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The sourcing has a mixed format, and Sources section should be incorporated into inline citations.
    I don't think I understand what you are suggesting here. If I do, then I don't understand why. If this is about some having parentheses round the date and others not, I am on it. I had not noticed it before. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I Think I have all the dates parenthesised, and a couple of references consolidated. Done? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the Sources level 2 header to level 3, so it is now a subsection of References. This might have been one of the things you wanted, and is how I normally do it anyway. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but per WP:FACR #2c, my understanding is that you can use either a footnote citation style or a bibliography citation style, but you can't use both. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FACR #2c states:either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). I am not using Harvard referencing, and assumed that what is used here is all considered footnotes. I see no mention of bibliographies/sources or whater one chooses to call them, so assumed that the current arrangement complies. I will make some further checks, but have seen this arrangement pass several GA reviews. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found existing FAs with similar referencing by randomly inspecting FAs - it is a minority format, possibly between one in five and one in ten use it:
    I choose to use this system because it seems an efficient compromise at providing the necessary information while using the least space on the page. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Notes section needs sources to indicate exactly where that information is coming from. TimothyJosephWood 13:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also a good point, I will look up the source and add it, these are fairly standard definitions, so should not be too difficult. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a source, now all I have to do is work out how to nest references with list definitions. That will have to wait for another day. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can make out from the help pages, it cant be done, so will leave the definitions inline for now where they at least work as required. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you found exactly the template I was going to suggest. Looks good. TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timothyjosephwood, I have changed one of your multiple image templates, as one of the three was out of place in that section, and combined it with the other image from the previous section, with similar overall effect. You may wish to adjust overall widths to suit what you had in mind - I left them at 450px. I am not familiar with the workings of multiple images, and have hesitated to use them because of possible accessibility issues such as overriding the users image width choice, and I have no idea how they display on mobile. However I think we have a situation where we are choosing a lesser evil, and image formatting can always be changed when the software is improved. With this in mind, there are other possible combinations for multiple images. How far do you think it is advisable to go? I will combine a couple more to see how it looks. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the template doesn't work with an upright scaling factor at all, so this is one of those "preferred whenever possible" situations. On mobile it basically ignores the template and treats it like two adjacent images, unless you use perrow as in the lead image for Humour, where it treats them either the same as PC, or as horizontally cropped swatches depending on device. Probably right that for mobile users it's better to use just two combined images at a time. TimothyJosephWood 09:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Timothyjosephwood, Are there any outstanding issues? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. TimothyJosephWood 00:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

  • All of the images now have sensible (if sometimes lengthy) alternate text.
  • Images (other than the multiple images) do not use forced sizing, thus allowing registered users' preferences to work.
  • No use is made of text below 85% of the page's base font size.
  • The only use of colour is in the navigation templates, which meet WCAG AA standard, but fail WCAG AAA when a link (colour #002BB8) is displayed against the light blue background (#CCCCFF).
  • No data tables are used which would require considerations for accessibility.
  • The article is navigable by use of the keyboard without a mouse, and the collapsible content is also accessible from a keyboard (but needs JavaScript enabled, of course).

I do not judge that the minor deficiencies noted should be a barrier to promotion as a Featured Article. --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RexxS, If you have any recommendations for improving the minor deficiencies, go ahead. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much that I can do to improve the colour contrast as the templates all use the default styling from {{Navbox}} and it was a design decision to harmonise colours; also I don't really have the stamina to start micro-managing every template we use. It's not a big deal as it's almost AAA compliant (and the colours appear to differ anyway between Vector skin and Monobook), so it's unlikely to be a problem for the vast majority of readers. I really ought to create an alternative to {{multiple image}} that allows |upright= to solve the other problem, but I need to find some time to do that. I promise I'll let you know when I have. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
    I have made some changes, but I am not confident that they are all done, or all correct. The more I look at them the less sure I am. Please identify which ones you think are wrong.
    Thanks for the fixes. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Diving_stage.jpg: source link is dead
    So I see. I did not take the photo or upload it. I just used it as found on Commons, assuming that the Commons community will have checked that the image is acceptable for use on Wikimedia projects. The photo has been on Commons since 2008 and there are no warning notices and the provenance is entirely plausible. Is there something I am expected to do about this, or are you just mentioning it?
    Suggest checking for an archival copy of the source and adding if available. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched but could not find an archived copy. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:US_Navy_explosive_ordnance_disposal_(EOD)_divers.jpg: is there a source for this image?
    Not that I am aware of. It too was linked from Commons on the assumption that as has been there since 2005 without challenge, and the provenance is entirely plausible. I have no reason to suspect that it is not exactly as claimed.
    Okay. You can add this one if none other is available. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ROV_working_on_a_subsea_structure.jpg: image description suggests that the uploader was not the author
    So I see. It is possible that User:Mierlo was the author, but the copyright was held by Oceaneering. I do not know how to investigate this possibility. Commons appears not to have an issue with it.
    Ideally we would have an OTRS ticket to confirm licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this may not be reasonably practicable, as the original uploader has been vanished for some years. Commons keeps files of this era of upload through a grandfathering policy as it was uploaded before OTRS was implemented. See discussion at commons. I have no compelling reason to assume bad faith, but admit I may be biased because I like the image and find it useful. It is easily the best I could find on Commons for this purpose. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Alexander_the_Great_diving_NOAA.jpg: even though NOAA is the immediate source, they wouldn't hold copyright under US law - should use a different tag
    As a 16th century painting I would assume that any copyright would have expired long ago. It has a {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} template as well as the {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} template. What other PD template should it have? Is there any doubt that it is PD?
    No, but it should still be appropriately tagged. The NOAA tag is currently representing its status in the US; this should be replaced with one of the pre-1923 publication tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PD-US tag added. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_Scott_Haldane_1910.jpg (1) needs a US PD tag (2) needs an explanation of what has been done to try to ascertain authorship (3) needs a publication date
    I cannot prove anything that I have done by way of trying to ascertain authorship, and as I cannot find out when it was published beyond the moderately obvious "1910 or later". I will give up on this and use the only alternative available, which is dated 1902, by an author who died in 1914.
    The new image (File:John_Scott_Haldane_1902.jpg) will need a US PD tag of some sort. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PD-US tag added. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Trevor_Jackson_returns_from_SS_Kyogle.jpg is tagged as lacking source details, and is that attribution correct given the author?
    I corrected the apparent attribution error. There is an OTRS ticket referenced, As far is I know that means that permission has been verified. I have no source information, and no idea where to get it from. Is it a problem?
    I've dismissed the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Decompression_chamber.jpg: source link is dead
    So it is. Provenance seems uncontroversial. There are thousands of US Navy photos on Commons.
    Suggest adding archived link if available. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know how to go about finding an archived link. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And now it seems I do. At least I found one for this and have added it. Seek, and sometimes ye shall find. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pavillon_rouge_avec_une_diagonale_blanche.svg is too simple to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Still needs addressing - should use a different tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I just arbitrarily change the tag to CC0 on Commons? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out File:Alpha_flag.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! Precedent. Thanks, and done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Thanks for pointing out these details, I will look into them and ping you again when I am finished or if I need clarification. If there are any improvements you would like to do yourself, please go ahead. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I have done what I can to address some of these issues, and it is not clear whether I am expected to do anything about the others, or whether you are just mentioning them here to show due diligence in your checks. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I think these have been done as far as possible. Is there anything else> • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, looks fair enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience and advice. I have learned some new things. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

– Welcome to FAC, Peter. It's really, really hard to take a big topic like this and make it your first attempt at FAC, but I think you've done a good job with this article. I cleaned up a few minor things while reading it and came up with the following points:

  • The most important issue is that there is some uncited content (either whole paragraphs or the ends of paragraphs) in Breathhold limitations (admittedly basic stuff), Diving environment, Medical aspects of diving, and Risks and safety. The coordinators will be reluctant to promote this as long as that content remains uncited, and even if it is promoted some random editor will be sure to put cite tags there on main page day; I've seen it happen quite a few times before.
    Busy with this one. One down, 3 or 4 to go. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one more, that is proving surprisingly recalcitrant, considering its importance as a general principle of diving safety. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove unreferenced statement. It is sufficiently logical that readers should come to that conclusion from the rest of the context. I may replace it if I find a suitable reference, but it is not critical. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breathhold limitations: The first paragraph consists solely of links to three articles. Was this meant to be part of the hatnote here?
    Even worse - they were notes to link to those articles I made as an aide-memoire when I started the section, and then forgot. Now moved to where they should have been.
  • Surface supplied diving: Is Snuba supposed to be capitalized? I thought I should ask here, as I wasn't comfortable changing it without knowledge of the subject.
    It is a trade name which is probably becoming genericised. As far as I know it is still normally capitalised, unlike scuba, which has been around as a generic term for far longer.
  • History: I can't say that I'm in love with the bold text here. We don't need to have this in bold just because the full article on the subject begins that way.
    Quite agree, changed.
  • I see a mention of Second World War in the lead and one of World War II in History. You should probably pick one style and stick with it consistently, though I have no strong preference either way.
    Agreed, and changed.
  • Diver training: This section has a couple of small paragraphs, including a one-sentence "Further training is required..." paragraph. Would it be possible to merge a couple of these so they don't appear so stubby?
    Done. I used the best fit I could think of.
  • This is just a suggestion, but you might want to check the article for wikilinks that are duplicated. I'm seeing a lot of them, particularly in the History section, and typically only one link is needed per subject in the body. It is sometimes considered acceptable to have multiple links for a longer article like this, but some of the overlinking here is bordering on overkill.
    I recently eliminated several redundant links. Those which remain are unique to a major section. I left them as they may be useful to the reader, who otherwise might not easily find the link if there were only one in the whole article. My own experience is that if it is not easy to find a link within about a page up or down from the term in question, it is easier and quicker to just do a Wikipedia search, and that reduces the value of the links. Your experience may differ, and I know that WP:OVERLINK does not agree. I am open to logical persuasion on this point. It is possible that some of the links may be considered trivial or unnecessary and if you prefer to remove some of the duplicates, I will not object, but I find it difficult to decide which ones should go.
  • I'm not doing a full source review here, but I noticed that references 4 and 13 have different styles in their access dates than those in the rest of the cites. I'd change these two to the DMY format; that's what is used elsewhere, and the source checkers will want to see consistency in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I keep missing these. Thanks for spotting. Fixed. I rechecked all the access dates again, and that was the only one I found.
    You found number 4, but missed number 13, which still has the different formatting. It's from Aviat Space Environ Med, in case that helps. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Got it. Fixed. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008, Thanks for pointing out these details, I will look into them and ping you again when I am finished or if I need clarification. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008, I think this is all done now, Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – All of my concerns have been adequately resolved. This is a fine effort at developing a big topic Wikipedia article, and I'm satisfied with its quality. Let's hope it attracts some attention from other reviewers. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and support. I also hope for a few more reviews, as it would appear that an insufficient number of reviews is one of the major reasons for a nomination not making it to FA. (largest single factor in the last 11 months - 19 out of 54 = 35%) Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Peter asked for my advice before putting this article forward at FAC and I did an unofficial peer review. As a result, a number of alterations were made to the article. It is a big subject and I think it is now well-covered, and I am supporting this candidacy on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was the GA reviewer and support promoting the article to FA. I have completed reviewing syntax, content and all of the suggested changes by other reviewers. The article does an excellent job of covering a wide range of underwater diving activities, and all are accurately sourced and verifiable. Atsme📞📧 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review here, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. As I believe this would be the nominator's first FA, we also need a spot-check of sources for accurate use and close-paraphrasing. Finally, Timothyjosephwood I notice that you said you are not a FA regular. If you feel that this article meets the FA criteria, feel free to indicate "support" on this page. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not really. I can certainly support in the sense that I feel like they've addressed the issues I've raised. I'm currently doing my own first FA nom, so I don't pretend that I understand the "normal" FA standards to the point where I can authoritatively say that I think it meets them. At the very least, I certainly have no outstanding objections. TimothyJosephWood 21:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastrol, my apologies for not making my support comment more clear but I did check the sources, the article is accurately sourced and the information is verifiable, and I actually did quite a bit more than spot-checking. With regards to close paraphrasing, copy vio detector resulted in a less than 10.7% likelihood, and on close examination, there was nothing that could be considered a copyvio. For an article this length, such a result is remarkably low. I think that covers it. Atsme📞📧 10:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to update: The spot-checks have been done, but we still require the full source review. Also, as this is quite a technical article, I might ask for a few more eyes on it, but we are almost there now. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, To clarify: Are you looking for comment from users who have sufficient background in underwater diving to judge the general quality of information, completeness of coverage, relevance, notability, neutrality, etc, relating to the topic, or something else. I cannot help with the full source review (obviously), but I could ping a few users that I know to be knowledgeable or expert on underwater diving matters, besides those who have already commented here. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not especially, just wanting to check over the prose: technical articles can bog down a little, so I'd like someone to just give it a last check. Having said that, more expert review can never hurt these articles! Sarastro1 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Cowdy001, Legis, Ex nihil are active, knowledgeable, and have made fairly recent edits to WPSCUBA articles. Gene Hobbs is sporadically active, but has expert background in the physiology of diving and extensive experience, and may respond. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1 - technical articles can bog down a little. If by this you mean you would like someone without any background in diving to comment on the intelligibility and ease of reading, I would be most interested to find out how accessible it is to the ordinary person in the street, as that is the primary target reader for this level of summary. I have tried to make it as easy as reasonably practicable, but it is difficult to get good feedback. I don't want to dumb it down unnecessarily, but my main reason for bringing it here was to make sure it is at the right level. Everything else is the cherry on top. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help if I can, although FA and GA article nominations and reviews are not my strong suite. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Legis, Thanks for stepping up to the plate. Sarastro1 may wish to clarify further, but you should be able to get the idea of what is needed from the thread above. For my part, I would appreciate any feedback on general intelligibility, ease of reading, completeness of coverage, and anything at all that you think might improve the article. Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, your comment: Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review here, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC.. It is not clear if you are recommending that I request a source review, or if it is a thing that someone else should do. I do not have previous experience at FAC to fall back on for interpretation. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made the request, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John[edit]

I like the article very much but I don't think it is quite ready. Some questions: is "breathhold" a word? If it is, it seems like an obscure one which could be replaced. "Breath-hold" and "breath hold" seem far more common in the searches I did. Should Scuba be capitalised? I don't think it should. I will have more questions and comments, and I can see through a few tweaks that will allow me to support. --John (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John, thank you for volunteering your help. I was just passing by, and wanted to respond to your first few questions: SCUBA is captilized throughout the Navy Dive Manual, as well as in other technical & gvt. publications so I would think it would be proper to capitalize it. I liken it to folks calling fins flippers which makes me cringe, so hopefully by maintaining the official capitalization of SCUBA, we are doing a good thing? I do know that many instructors and their students proudly wear the word SCUBA as deeply tatooed impressions on their posteriors instead of Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus which would have been a rather painful undertaking, depending on how closely their instructors followed the book and how freely the spirits were flowing.;-) Re: breathhold, Wiktionary has it as one word but you're correct in that it is more commonly spelled breath-hold as exampled in BMJ. That should be an easy fix for Peter using the find-replace command. Hope that helps. Atsme📞📧 19:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Peter's explanation below, re: etymology, and after a bit more research, I now realize how long it has been since my initial instructor training; a time when capitalization meant pass or fail. I never really thought about it until John brought up the question. Academia confirms that capitalization of commonly used words like scuba and radar are no longer necessary. Peter's explanation is correct and verifiable. I struck my suggestion for caps but left the friendly banter in tact. 😊 Atsme📞📧 12:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, Atsme, Firstly, John, Thanks for offering your review, it is appreciated.
  • I have no strong opinions on the spelling of breathhold/breath-hold/breath hold. Personally I slightly prefer the hyphenated version, but I am quite happy to go with any version that can be supported by reasonably convincing evidence. If we can come to a satisfactory consensus on this, it will probably become a project guideline. I suggest that a straight comparison of number of Google hits may be misleading - the context should be considered. Some time ago we came to the conclusion that freediving was the most appropriate spelling for the breathhold diving mode, after considering than many of the hits for free diving were to offers for something for which no payment was required.
  • I did a spot of playing around with Google, and my findings indicate that breath-hold is used in scholarly articles. I have no definitive statistics for relative frequency, but it seems that while there may be some doubt for breathhold, and breath hold may occasionally be slightly ambiguous, there is a fairly extensive body of acceptance for breath-hold among academics, so unless there are objections, I propose to use this as the standard, and recommend it as a guideline at WikiProject Scuba diving, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scuba is a bit different. WikiProject Scuba diving already has a guideline on this, which is to consistently use sentence case for scuba. The explanation is in one of the articles, which I will look up and link here. It was originally an acronym, but has become an ordinary noun through usage. When used as an acronym it would be proper to use all caps, but when used as an ordinary noun or adjective, as in scuba diving, scuba equipment, scuba regulator, scuba skills, scuba instructor etc, the sentence case is more appropriate, and common usage over the last 40 years or so has shifted to using sentence case unless specifically intended to mean Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus - the complete breathing set, without trimmings, open or closed circuit, and even in this case scuba is commonly accepted as an alternative. You may notice that the WikiProject title also uses sentence case, following this convention, and this goes back to before my time here.
  • The explanation I was looking for can be seen at Scuba diving#Etymology. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duly done. Are we in UK English here? I noticed we had "metres" but also "color". --John (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are in British English here. The first version of the article used 'metres', so according to MOS:RETAIN that determines the flavour of spellings used. I'll have a look for any more en-US spellings and correct them. --RexxS (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As RexxS says, British English. I have now tagged as such on the talk page. Please feel welcome to correct any spelling accordingly, or if you prefer, draw my attention to it. My vision can be a bit dodgy, so I tend to miss these things, and my typing is also not entirely reliable. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, If I may ask a slightly personal question, what is your background in underwater diving? I ask this as I am hoping for at least one content review from someone with very little, as that is my target audience, and potentially the most useful demographic for identifying inadequate explanation. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've snorkelled (2 ls in UK Eng) a lot and I tried scuba in a swimming pool once. I've read a book about it. I don't consider myself especially knowledgeable. --John (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you can follow the technical aspects without difficulty, I will be greatly reassured, so please let me know if you notice anything that needs clarification. I am South African, we tend to accept a large number, but not all, of the American spellings as alternative normal, so I tend to not notice them.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, Your recent edit to section "Risks and safety" has removed reference to the problem of failure to identify the cause of an accident by broadly categorising as death by drowning and the long term effect of preventing proper analysis of the failure mode. This is considered a significant hindrance to improving diver safety by several authorities. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I didn't like the wording as it seemed awkward. Let's try for a smoother wording that carries the meaning you want. John (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will give it some thought, maybe refer to a ref or two, and come back with suggestions. If you come up with an improvement, give it a try.
This is the original:
Scuba diving fatalities have a major financial impact by way of lost income, lost business, insurance premium increases and high litigation costs.<ref name="Concannon 2011" /> Equipment failure is rare in open circuit scuba, and while the cause of death is commonly recorded as drowning, this is usually the consequence of an uncontrollable series of events taking place in water in which drowning is the endpoint, while the real cause remains unrecorded.<ref name="Ange 2010" /> Air embolism is also frequently cited as a cause of death, and it, too is the consequence of other factors leading to an uncontrolled and badly managed ascent, occasionally aggravated by medical conditions. About a quarter of diving fatalities are associated with cardiac events, mostly in older divers. There is a fairly large body of data on diving fatalities, but in many cases the data is poor due to the standard of investigation and reporting. This hinders research which could improve diver safety.<ref name="Ange 2010" /><ref name="Caruso 2011" />
This is the version for tweaking:
Scuba diving fatalities have a major financial impact by way of lost income, lost business, insurance premium increases and high litigation costs.<ref name="Concannon 2011" /> Equipment failure is rare in open circuit scuba, and while when the cause of death is commonly recorded as drowning, this it is usually the consequence of an uncontrollable series of events taking place in water in which drowning is the endpoint because it occurred in water, while the real initial cause remains unrecorded unknown.<ref name="Ange 2010" /> Air embolism is also frequently cited as a cause of death, and it, too is the consequence of other factors leading to an uncontrolled and badly managed ascent, occasionally aggravated by medical conditions. About a quarter of diving fatalities are associated with cardiac events, mostly in older divers. There is a fairly large body of data on diving fatalities, but in many cases the data is poor due to the standard of investigation and reporting. This hinders research which could improve diver safety.<ref name="Ange 2010" /><ref name="Caruso 2011" />
Changed to above text. Is it OK? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have had to partially revert a couple of your copyedits where they changed the meaning too much. Otherwise they are generally an improvement, and I thank you for your work. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Gradually working my way through. I think there are too many see alsos; see WP:SEEALSO. --John (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean the hatnotes, not the standard section, as this article does not have a see also section - I am not fond of them. They are OK as an aide memoire while constructing an article, but if they are still not linked from somewhere else by the time the article reaches GA, they suggest that something important has been omitted. I prefer to link to subsidiary articles from sections summarising those parts of the topic, which is what I have done here.
The hatnotes are more numerous than in an ordinary article because this is the top level article for a project with several hundred articles, only the most immediately significant of which are hatnote linked. In many cases there is a main article of the same or very similar title, but in condensing this article to such a short length, many high level related articles have been only mentioned in passing or several mentioned in one subsection. The "see also" hatnotes allow the more important and relevant ones to be drawn to the reader's attention without having to have a subsection of the same name. It is possible that some may not be necessary, but which ones are not useful?
I will consider this problem and delete any that I consider excess to requirements. If you see any that you think are not useful enough to keep, list them here and if I disagree we can get a third opinion from someone like RexxS, who is sufficiently knowledgeable in both the subject matter and the MoS to give a useful tiebreaker.
John, I need clarity on whether the perceived problem is that there are too many see also hatnote templates in total throughout the article, whether the number of hatnotes in any given section should be restricted to one, whether the number of links in any given see also hatnote should be limited, whether some of the see also hatnotes should be changed to a different hatnote, such as further, or something else I have not thought of yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I've been rather busy this week. I made these copyedits on a brief run through of the article. There may still be room for more. We don't need multiple hatnotes; apart from anything else the template at the bottom provides basic navigational support rather than cluttering many sections in the article. I would still like to see someone else read it over for prose and MoS before I could support. --John (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some more tweaks and this involved adding two sources, one from the night diving article and one book source to back up altitude diving. (Some of these daughter articles are terrible, by the way.) Can you check this is ok for you? My rationale is that people should not have to click a link to find out more about a subject. I'd rather have a brief mention and explanation with a wikilink than just the wikilink in a hatnote. Our articles should work when printed, in a pinch, and this way fulfils that. As regards the further prose check I'd like to see, I wonder if Eric Corbett or SchroCat is available? Just a quick look. --John (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John I am starting to understand your point about see also, and have made a couple more changes in the same vein (I think). I agree that some of the daughter articles leave a lot to be desired, and occasionally work on them when I run into a good reference. It will take some time unless a few more people work on the project more frequently. I have slightly changed the text about altitude diving. If you think it would be useful or necessary I can find more refs for the text as it is now, as I don't know if it is fully supported by Jackson, which I do not have. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood, your text is better, thank you for that. If the content can be sourced from one of your existing sources, that is all the better. --John (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it will be in the US Navy diving manual. and probably in the Proceedings of the validation of dive computers workshop. I will look up the sections/pages. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 03:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. --John (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

  • What is a "stage"? I know the answer to this but it is mentioned and not explained.
    Stage now mentioned and linked in the main article text. It is a some way down the page, but would not be due in the lead. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[Bomb disposal|EOD]] probably breaks the egg.
    Agreed, I expanded it again. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "Diver Transfer Capsule"? We can't really just mention it in a picture caption but not in the text. And it should probably be "diver transfer capsule"?
    I have clarified that it is a closed diving bell under its alternative name. Closed bell is mentioned in the text. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Underwater welding is only mentioned in a caption.
    It is one of the many types of underwater work. The image is there to illustrate the wide range of underwater activities, as is the one of the photographer. These photos are among the best we have to show recognisable activities, but listing a large part of the range of possible underwater activities seemed a little out of scope for the top level article. It would be undue to make too much of underwater welding just because we have a photo, but without the caption, many people would not know what the diver was doing. I have given it a bit more context. Is this satisfactory? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was Alexander the Great and when and why did he descend in a diving bell? Only mentioning it in a caption isn't ideal.
    This one is a little problematic. There are not many illustrations available of the early days of diving. This is a nice one. The problem is that I don't have anything more I can say about it that is supported by a reliable source. I can remove it if you think that preferable. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a some referenced content mentioning existence of diving bells contemporaneous with Alexander. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks to be a decent book source. Proposed text: "Alexander the Great is recorded as being lowered into the Bosphorus in a glass barrel in 320 BCE." This source doesn't describe it as a diving bell and the picture doesn't look like one. I agree that it would be a shame to lose this image. --John (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What is recorded it that there is a legend that Alexander was lowered into the Bosphorus in a glass barrel. There is also mention by Roger Bacon in a letter (De mirabili potestate artis et naturae , page 18 - translated from the Latin), that a heathen astronomer (not named) reported that Alexander used an "engine" which allowed walking on the bottom of the sea. This ties in with Bachrach, who said that Aristotle described the use of a "cauldron" which does not fill with water but retains the air, which is more consistent with an open bell, and an open bell is a far less stressed structure than a closed bell, which is subject to big pressure differences and a risk of implosion, which would be rather unpleasant in a glass barrel. I doubt that the bell used by Alexander was all glass, or that it was closed, but a simple open ended barrel or cauldron with or without a glazed window, and watertight enough to work, with enough ballast weights to make it sink, would easily be within the technical capacity of the ancient Greeks. I am more inclined to believe Aristotle who was there at the time and was a pretty good observer, than medieval European illustrators. There is also doubt about the scene being the Bosphorus. An excerpt claimed to be from Bachrach's article in the Historical diving times, reports that Aristotle refers to the siege of Tyre (332BC) as the scene, and that there are other references in poetry that are basically implausible at best. All this is a bit unreliable for my tastes, and not really needed. The current caption is at least consistent with the picture, reasonably plausible, and is used by the source of the image, so is not original research. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. I agree with you. --John (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why two pictures showing bailout cylinders? I suggest choosing the better one and removing the other. --John (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are three photos showing bailout cylinders. One is black, and not mentioned in the caption. That one is in the photo illustrating surface oriented diving, and is secondary to the purpose of the photo. It is not so prominent that it needs to be mentioned and bailout cylinders are standard for surface supplied diving. The second photo is to illustrate deep diving, and the bailouts are mentioned mainly because they stand out so much as they are large and yellow. they are also incidental, Open circuit bailout is standard with deep rebreather diving. The third photo is to illustrate risk management, where the bailout cylinder is the primary subject of the photo, so it must be mentioned, as bailout is not standard with open circuit recreational scuba. I could remove mention of the bailout cylinder on the deep diving photo, but then readers may wonder what it is. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More[edit]

In the 16th and 17th centuries diving bells became more useful when a renewable supply of air could be provided to the diver at depth, and progressed to surface supplied diving helmets – in effect miniature diving bells covering the diver's head and supplied with compressed air by manually operated pumps – which were improved by attaching a waterproof suit to the helmet. In the early 19th century these became the standard diving dress, which made a far wider range of marine civil engineering and salvage projects practicable. Why does this need five references? --John (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure but if I remember correctly this paragraph was condensed from a longer section in another article, probably History of underwater diving, which used those references. Some of them are paper, and I have not been able to access them yet, others only support parts of the quoted content. At least one is a non-searchable scan of a book. If it is important to eliminate one or two of the references it might be possible, but it is likely to take a while. I will look into it. The tradition of putting all the references at the end of the paragraph may delay results.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of the six references:
  • "Broadwater" is a high quality secondary source, but is paywalled. I have no access and have no idea of how much of the paragraph it supports, but because of the quality I would not feel justified in summarily removing it just because I can't read it myself.
  • "Slight" is a scanned book. It will take some time to read through as it is not searchable. I know that it describes the earliest developments of what would become the standard diving dress. Specifically the surface supplied helmet, and if I remember correctly refers to an early use of a bell for salvage work, so is relevant.
Supports development of the standard diving dress during this period and use of divers and bells with surface supplied air for a major salvage operation, probably the first of its kind. Primary source with a wealth of detail, almost all of it not particularly relevant, 182 pages long. The useful information is scattered through the document. Probably not sufficient on its own.
  • "Acott" provides a timeline, mentioning salvage using bells and helmets, with dates, and is relevant.
  • "Davis" is paper, I have not been able to find a digital version. It is probably quite high quality, and by a person with a lot of experience in the industry, and a good reputation. I have no idea how much of the paragraph it supports.
  • "Bevan" is paper, I have no access, and have not found a digital version. Like Davis, Bevan has a good reputation and a long involvement with the industry, and has written several specialist books in the field. I have no idea how much of the paragraph it supports.
  • "Halley" supports one example of a tested diving bell. It is the least useful as it is duplicated by Acott, which supports more of the paragraph. I will remove it. (done)
In conclusion, I would not like to remove the three highest quality references just because I can't read them myself. As I don't know which of the three supports any given part of the quoted material, or if they support it all, I hesitate to discard any of them. The accessible references support the material together, but not alone. I am confident that the material is uncontroversial in general, and that the current combination of references supports the quoted paragraph adequately, but if any of the references still used were to be removed I would no longer be confident. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Similar reasoning applies to the next paragraph, which also has six references. Only one of the references is accessible on the internet as far as my efforts have shown, and it does not directly support all six uncontroversial claims in the last two sentences of the paragraph. It is possible that not all six are needed, but I have no way of identifying which may be redundant, and someone thought they were necessary at some time in the history of the article. They are all what I would consider reliable sources based on the authors, and highly likely to be relevant to the supported text based on the titles.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you've used it, but I can strongly recommend WP:RX, which is efficient at finding research papers and short sections of books to assist in situations like this. Turnaround time is usually less than a week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, I hadn't heard of that. I would see sections referenced with five or six footnotes as problematic because it is indicative of what User:Pbsouthwood candidly describes above; the maintenance of multiple inaccessible references for historic reasons, without any current editor knowing exactly what references what. Other than Mike Christie's interesting suggestion, I would suggest finding better, more targeted and accessible references and replacing the historic bundles of refs. We're nearly there I think. --John (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have used resource request before, when I needed a reference that was not available through any of my other contacts. It took a few days to get what I had been struggling to get hold of for weeks, so yes, they are handy. I generally don't trouble them to find references for uncontroversial material, and as far as I know they get material when you know what you want and can specify the pages. I think it is out of scope to ask them for a whole book to verify one sentence, much as I would like to increase my collection of references. However, some of the references are mentioned by page or page range, so I will request them. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way you could source it yourself? You seem to have some good things there. If not I recommend using WP:RX. It's worth getting this right as these little bundles of refs are a red flag. --John (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested at RX and already received a response. I may have some of the resources today! • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got some and was able to eliminate a couple of redundant, though perfectly good references. It turned out that most of them had much the same content, and actually referenced most of the same original sources, (not altogether surprising) and most of them covered most of the content in the two paragraphs, so I specified more precisely which supported what and kept where possible the best quality and the most accessible. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected that might have been the case. There is room for a little more work in this line but it can be done at leisure after the FAC process is wrapped up. John (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate all the work you have done in response to my comments. While it is not yet perfect (and perhaps never will be), I think we have now passed the level of a FA. I therefore support on prose and completeness. --John (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John, Your comments have helped improve the article, which is the important thing, and it will continue to be improved as people find things that could be done better, so I hope you won't mind me asking how abbreviating decompression sickness helps improve the article? Cheers and thanks for your diligent attention to detail and eventual support. As a gesture of appreciation to everyone who has helped with copyediting I am translating the article for another Wikipedia in the only other language in which I am moderately competent - Afrikaans. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to be of service. If we abbreviate a term, the normal practice is to spell it out in full with the abbreviation in brackets the first time it is mentioned, then use the abbreviation thereafter. I was lucky enough to spend some time in your beautiful country in the 1980s so I know the Cape region a little bit but Ek kan ongelukkig nie Afrikaans praat nie. John (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments as I go through; please revert my copyedits if I make a mess of anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike Christie, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shared with terrestrial mammals as a neural response": suggest cutting "as a neural response".
    Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is accelerated by exertion, which uses oxygen faster, or by hyperventilation, which reduces the carbon dioxide level in the blood which in turn may increase the oxygen-haemoglobin affinity, reducing availability of oxygen to brain tissue towards the end of the dive (Bohr effect), and suppress the urge to breathe, making it easier to hold the breath to the point of blackout." This is a long and complicated sentence that would be good to break up. Why does it say that reduced CO
    2     "may" increase the O2-haemoglobin affinity? Assuming we don't need "may", here's a suggested rewrite: "This is accelerated by exertion, which uses oxygen faster, or by hyperventilation, which reduces the carbon dioxide level in the blood. Lower CO
    2     levels increase the oxygen-haemoglobin affinity, reducing availability of oxygen to brain tissue towards the end of the dive (Bohr effect); they also suppress the urge to breathe, making it easier to hold the breath to the point of blackout."
    I will refer to the sources to be sure about the "may", but that looks good. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Changed as suggested. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "increased dead space"?
    Linked to Dead space (physiology). • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a consistently higher threshold of hearing underwater, but also significantly skewed": "skewed" presumably means improved hearing in some frequencies and worse in others; can we say something to that effect? E.g. "with sensitivity to higher frequency sounds reduced the most", if that's correct?
    I will check the sources for details. If I remember correctly some research indicates an increased range at high pitches, but the curve was not linear. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct about the sensitivity to higher frequencies being reduced the most. According to Anthony, T. G.; Wright, N. A.; Evans, M. A. (2009). Review of diver noise exposure (PDF). Research Report 735 (Report). QinetiQ. Retrieved 29 July 2017.,
    Comparison of the air and underwater auditory threshold curves (Figure 2.2) shows the following:
    • the human auditory system is most sensitive to waterborne sound at frequencies from 400 Hz to 1 kHz, with a peak at approximately 800 Hz. Hence, these frequencies have the greatest potential for damage;
    • within this frequency band, underwater hearing is 35-40 dB less sensitive than in air;
    • for airborne sound, hearing is most sensitive between 2 and 6 kHz, with a maximum sensitivity at approximately 4 kHz. However, underwater hearing is less sensitive at these frequencies, and so the noise hazard is reduced;
    • above 6 kHz, there is again reduced hearing underwater compared with air, although hearing is still possible at frequencies as high as 16 kHz;
    • below 400 Hz, the underwater hearing threshold drops off at a rate of approximately 35 dB per decade to 40 Hz. This is not as rapid as for air, and suggests that sound at frequencies below 100 Hz contributes to underwater sound perception to a far higher degree than in air, and so may be a greater hazard;
    • for relatively high frequencies, a higher level of noise would be permissible underwater than would be in air, as a result of the reduced sensitivity of the ear underwater.
    but this is a bit more detail than appropriate for this article, and I think adding your second sentence will be sufficient. Another source which I do not consider particularly reliable suggests that at higher frequencies the curves may cross. I do not plan to add that. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "how the breathing gas is used:" -- I think it's OK to put a carriage return after a colon, but since this syntactically introduces a list I think the subsequent list elements should look like list elements -- bullet points for example.
    Fair comment. It probably was a bulleted list some time ago, but some people don't like lists, and two items is a very short list. Would you be happy with just changing it to a full stop? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it a full stop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first C & R tables (Bureau of Construction and Repair)": I had to read this two or three times to realize that it refers to decompression tables, not some other kind of table known as a C & R table. I'd suggestion relegating "Bureau of Construction and Repair" to a link or footnote, and making it "C & R decompression tables"; or else make it clearer in the text why the name is worth mentioning -- I get the impression this was a historical milestone, or perhaps that these tables went into widespread use, but the text doesn't really say.
    A moderate milestone - the first US Navy tables, and the US Navy has done more work in that field than any other organisation, so probably worth mentioning. I don't think they were much used by anyone else, and had problems, so were not used for long. I will clarify. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rearranged and linked. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decompression by conventional models results in bubble formation which is then eliminated by re-dissolving at the decompression stops which is slower than off-gassing while still in solution. This indicates the importance of minimising bubble phase for efficient gas elimination": I think this is much too compressed, if you'll pardon the unintentional pun; I don't follow this at all. Can it be clarified a bit?
    Yes, the problem is more where to stop, RexxS' suggestion below may be sufficient, your call. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conventional systems of decompression allow bubbles to form, which are then re-dissolved when the diver makes a decompression stop; the dissolved gas eventually leaves through the lungs ("off-gassing"). This is slower than making a deeper stop before the bubbles form, and waiting for a short time while the excess gas is removed through the lungs. Is that more comprehensible? If so, we can amend the text along those lines. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have rewritten it in the hope of clarification. Let me know if you think this is enough. I can go on almost indefinitely, but don't want to expand the paragraph out of proportion to its importance.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also added a link to an article explaining in more detail• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Depending on the circumstances it may be established by a signed statement by the diver that he or she does not suffer from any of the listed disqualifying conditions and is able to manage the ordinary physical requirements of diving, to a detailed medical examination by a physician registered as a medical examiner of divers following a procedural checklist, and a legal document of fitness to dive issued by the medical examiner." Why "to a detailed..."? Is this debris from a previous sentence structure? I couldn't parse the sentence.
    • It probably should read something like: "Depending on the circumstances it may be established either by a signed statement by the diver that he or she does not suffer from any of the listed disqualifying conditions and is able to manage the ordinary physical requirements of diving, or by to a detailed medical examination by a physician registered as a medical examiner of divers following a procedural checklist, and a legal document of fitness to dive issued by the medical examiner." Is that better? --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Intermediate options are also possible. I was suggesting a range, with the two specified options as the extremes. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewritten to describe more precisely. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Medical aspects of diving" section has two subsections, "Fitness to dive" and "Diving medicine", along with a short introductory sentence, but the introductory sentence doesn't mention fitness to dive at all. I would suggest eliminating the introductory sentence completely, along with the inline see also links (all of which are already linked elsewhere in the article). Just have the two subsections, moving anything necessary from the first sentence into the "Diving medicine" section.
    Rewrote intro to include fitness examinations, as they are part of the diving medical practitioner's specialisation, and simplified scope to exclude examples, which will be merged into the subsection. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "Scuba diving fatalities" is a good see also link for "Risks and safety", since it only addresses part of the topic of the section. The fifth paragraph starts with that exact phrase, so I'd just link that instead.
    Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commercial diving operations tend to be less tolerant of risk than recreational, particularly technical divers, who are less constrained by occupational health and safety legislation." I don't follow; if they are less tolerant of risk, that means they avoid risk, so they're safer, so health and safety legislation would not be regarded as more constraining than for recreational divers. Should this read "more tolerant", or perhaps "more risky", if it's the risk, not the tolerance, that is increased?
    • In most jurisdictions, recreational divers are not subject to occupational health and safety legislation at all. Therefore they are not constrained by it, and tend to be more tolerant of taking risks than their commercial counterparts, to whom the H&SAW legislation very definitely applies (e.g. the UK has specific legislation - the Diving at Work Regulations). I don't think there is an error in the current text, but perhaps it could be better explained. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Commercial diving exposes the diver to more and sometimes greater hazards, but the governing legislation is less tolerant of risk, so the cost of controlling the risk is orders of magnitude higher than for recreational diving. I will try to make this more clear. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewritten to clarify. Recreational diving: less hazard, but more risk is acceptable, particularly by technical divers (Tech diving may be considered an extreme sport). Commercial diving - Occupational safety and health regulations apply, often with specific diving regulations added Highly regulated, strict rules. Scientific diving - varies from place to place, generally follows commercial practice, Military diving - generally follows commercial practice except for combat and security operations, where special rules apply. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd cut the sentence defining "human error"; you have a link in the previous sentence.
    Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some repetition in the section on human factors; you say human error is the direct cause of 60-80% of all accidents, and later say that human error and panic and the leading causes. I think this paragraph could be made more concise.
    Rearranged and changed a bit to keep ideas together. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The risk management paragraph starts with a list of risk control measure categories, and finishes with a list of risk measures; I'd suggest combining the two sentences, making it clear that the second sentence is a list of specific examples of the categories enumerated in the first sentence, and putting the middle sentence last.
    The list of risk management examples are actually those representative of recreational, particularly technical diving. Commercial diving can go quite a lot further. I will try to make this clearer. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's everything I could spot. A very interesting article. Overall I think the language is rather technical, and I would like to find some more simplifications, but the language is not out of place given the subject matter and I think it meets FA standards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been exceptionally valuable feedback. Thanks again. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For perspective, what background do you have in diving? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None to speak of. I snorkelled on a reef in Mexico about twenty-five years ago; does that count? I've read popular accounts of decompression sickness and how it is avoided, but I have no specialist knowledge. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does not count. If you can follow without difficulty, we should not be too far off the mark regarding terminology. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, I think I have done something about all of the listed items. Some I just followed your recommendation, and others are my best try at a solution, and should preferably be checked to see if you agree. One stands at a suggestion waiting on your response. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The only unstruck point above is very minor and I trust Peter will amend the relevant sentence if there's a way to concisely make it more informative about the exact changes in hearing. On another look through I don't see any further obvious simplifications in language that could be made. An impressive article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have done that amendment. Thanks for the review and support. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we are close to wrapping this up now. John, would you like to take another look at this before it is promoted? If there are no major issues, it could be polished after promotion, but I'm happy to wait for you if you would like a little longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sarastro1, thank you for your patience. I think we can wrap this up now. John (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: We should probably have this framed as a model of what a FAC should look like; thanks to all who have contributed. As a final point (not worth holding this up any further), someone should probably check this for duplinks; I see a few and I'm not sure if they are there for a reason, or just there by accident. Not a huge issue, but worth making sure about. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2017 [51].

Waterloo Medal (Pistrucci)[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... something of a sideline from the Pistrucci one, about the famous Waterloo medal, that cost the British Government thousands of pounds, and at the end of the day, could not be struck in its original form. And if it had, it would have been useless, since most of the recipients were dead and it would have been politically imprudent to bring up Waterloo while wooing the French ... "Don't mention the war" ...Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • There are 4 well-relevant images in the article. They have proper description templates and no copyright issues. Just one minor issue, that the fourth image is moving into the references section due to which the references are gliding to the left.

Otherwise, everything is great! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've moved that image up a paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome one, yet again! It is a great article. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gertanis[edit]

  • Perhaps add short description of Mr. Pistrucci in the very first sentence, as it is at present rather short.
I did, though I'm not sure it entirely helps.
  • "Commissioned by the British Government in 1819 on the instructions of George IV while Prince Regent, the medals were to be presented to the victorious generals at the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, and to the leaders of Britain's allies." – I fell into a garden path when I read that first part, and had to read the whole sentence thrice to make sense of it (though the link to prince regent certainly did help). Something with the prepositions, though don't ask me, I'm not a native speaker
I've simplified it a bit.
  • "Most of the intended recipients had died by 1849; with improving relations with France the medals were never struck, though modern-day editions have been made for sale to collectors." – "with...with"
  • "The Royal Academy proposed work by John Flaxman but Pistrucci, whose responsibility it was to engrave the dies, refused to copy another's work, and proposed designs of his own." — "proposed...proposed". Also, who was Mr. Flaxman?
  • "He likely concluded that he would be sacked if he completed it, something the Mint was reluctant to do before then lest the sums paid Pistrucci be wasted, and progress was extremely slow." – again, difficult to parse, especially w/ the tense oscillating between conditional, indicative and subjunctive. And whose judgement stands behind 'likely'?
Most of the sources say more or less the same thing on this point. It's backed up with a quote and inline attribution in the text.
  • "Pistrucci's designs have been greatly praised by those who have written on the subject." – i.e. numismatists?

I hope these comments don't come off as facetious, as I did genuinely have some difficulty reading it. YMMV Gertanis (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are excellent comments. I've made those changes, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gertanis, are the changes to your satisfaction?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Gertanis (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Lead
  • "on the instructions of George IV while Prince Regent: copies" should that be a colon? I would have thought a semi would be better
Inception
  • Do we need the "Further information" link at the top? The link to the BoW is in the first sentence.
Design
  • "victorious generals, Wellington and Blücher" – you have linked Wellington above
Completion
  • "save only the Iron Duke": Another link to Wellington; this one may be better with no link and Wellington in brackets, or finishing the quote five words earlier and rephrasing the last bit.

Support Only very minor nit-picking, and none of it deal-breaking, as far as I am concerned. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed. I've done all but the last. There's a certain extent to which this is the punch line of the entire article and if I do it in a quote it keeps my hands off, so to speak. I'm inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I've very little to offer here. The article is concise, compact and to the point. I've dredged up a few quibbles:

  • I've an aversion to the "due to" formulation, which occurs twice in the lead. Can I suggest rewording the first along the lines; "Since most of the intended recipients had died by 1849, and relations with France had improved,..."
  • The first sentence of the second lead paragraph reads a bit oddly, having just read that the Prince Regent commissioned the medal in 1819, and is also unnecessarily repetitive. I suggest simplify to "The Prince Regent had first suggested such a medal in 1816".
  • "Pistrucci fell from grace at the Royal Mint..." When?
  • "The price was £2,400": I think "fee" rather than price. Perhaps "Petrucci's fee..." Incidentally, that was a colossal sum for the times. Measuringworth estimates its purchasing power as £167,000 in today's money and nearly £2.5 million in relative income value. I'm not suggesting you use these figure, just observing.
  • "for appointment for the position" → "for appointment to the position"
  • The "private London Mint" – what is this organisation? Does it have any relation to the Royal Mint?

Support, in anticipation that the above will be considered and/or adjusted. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am very grateful indeed for your help. I've done those things. On the last, I've rephrased to stress that the London Mint is a private firm. I think most people will know that there are private firms that strike medals and such.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should add I've not included the present-day value of Pistrucci's fee. After talking with a number of editors, I feel that money does not translate well over such a long period. Two hundred years ago you could have hot and cold running servants at a pittance.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

All looks to be in order, with appropriately reliable sources. A couple of drafting points in the bibliography:

  • "Cambridge, Cambridgeshire" is unnecessary (smacks of "New York, New York"). No ambiguity about "Cambridge"
  • m-dashes in the year ranges? That's a new one on me.

Otherwise, sources are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. As there is some chance of confusion with Cambridge, Massachusetts, I've changed the "Cambridgeshire" to "United Kingdom".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2017 [52].

Barry Voight[edit]

Nominator(s): ceranthor 01:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article about a star volcanologist and engineer—who happens to have some star siblings as well—for a while now, and I think it finally meets the FA criteria. ceranthor 01:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Welcome back to FAC, and well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, Dank. ceranthor 12:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • There is one image in the article, which is well-relevant, has proper description template, and is under public domain. No issues whatsoever. It is good to go!. Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Aditya. ceranthor 11:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Interesting. I've probably read about him, but all I can think about with Mount St. Helens is old Harry Truman. Anyway, to business:

  • "Teaching career" Must this be one long paragraph?
  • Some mention of how he could have a teaching career and a career as a government geologist simultaneously would be useful.
  • "he published the first volume of a publication" published/publication
  • References are not always in numerical order [14][6]
  • "Voight insisted that the bulge could fail" Why insisted? Was there opposition?
  • "After a magnitude 5.1 earthquake centered directly below the north slope triggered that part of the volcano to slide" Maybe "caused" instead of"triggered"? It's the "to slide" that's bothering me.
  • "In 1985, Voight blamed human error for the Armero tragedy, where more than 23,000 died from an eruption from the Nevado del Ruiz volcano." I might toss a "in Colombia" in there somewhere.
  • "while categorically accurate predictions of volcanic eruptions were impossible, unpreparedness for the disaster and inaction in preventing it exacerbated the death toll.[25]" I'm not sure what "inaction in preventing it" means as distinct from "unpreparedness for the disaster". After all, the volcano was going to erupt no matter what.
  • "Voight began contemplating initiating an evacuation" That sounds a bit vague.
  • "it was largely unknown by volcanologists." probably should be "to", not "by"
  • "including guests of a wedding ceremony." No doubt "at" is meant.
  • "People in Pasto, located at the foot of the volcano, became alarmed by noises and shaking from Galeras." I imagine this is what caused Voight to visit, so possibly "had become alarmed" might be better.
  • "Voight still oversees hazard assessments at the volcano, including providing his input during eruptive periods in 2006 and 2010.[12]" I might cut "including"
  • "helping plan engineering projects in France, India, Ireland, Somalia, Papua New Guinea, Canada,[8] and Turkey, as well as the United States.[10]" I think you still need an "in" before "United States"
  • "monitoring of active volcanoes, and pyroclastic flows have brought him to Iceland, Columbia, " Presumably the nation of Colombia is meant. By the way, this list is somewhat duplicative of the one two paragraphs previously.
  • "For his service as a professor at Penn State, Voight has been given two awards, specifically for his research. In 1991, he gained a Faculty Scholar Medal for "Outstanding Achievement in the Physical Sciences and Engineering".[8] In 1990, he received the Wilson Research Award from the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences for excellence in research.[33]" I would put this in year order. Paragraph breaks might also be welcome somewhere.
  • "In addition to journal articles, Voight has written or helped write at least 21 books and monographs since 1965, some of his co-authors including W. D. Gunther, R. T. Chase, Mary A. Voight, and George Stephens." I'mnot sure the grammar completely works in the second half of the sentence. I might put a semicolon after 1965 and change "including" to "include"
  • "The Eruption of Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat from 2000 to 2010," Looking at the front cover online, there seems to be a grave accent over the first e in Soufriere.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I wrote the article about Harry R. Truman, too! I'll get started on these in just a bit. Thanks for your comments. ceranthor 02:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I think everything has been taken care of except the government geologist comment. Isn't that explained in the career section where I mention that he was a USGS consultant, and that much of his research overlapped with his work for them? He wasn't a government geologist per se, just a consultant for them. ceranthor 18:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good. It's a bit technical, but it can't be helped given the subject matter. Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and support. ceranthor 21:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Current citation 2 ("Chip Taylor") - can we expand the NPR abbreviation for folks outside the US who will be clueless about what it means?
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - the things it's flagging up are properly quoted and attributed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Just took care of the NPR abbreviation. Thanks for the review! ceranthor 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment from Vanamonde[edit]

  • I find it strange that we mention the names of famous relatives so early in the lede; it reads almost as though we are feeling defensive about his own claim to notability. That said, I recognize fitting the information elsewhere may be tricky (perhaps the end of the first paragraph?) and so this is entirely optional. Vanamonde (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes more sense where it is. It follows the article's outline, and the rest of the lead discusses his career so it wouldn't really fit with the rest of the info as well. ceranthor 12:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Would it be possible for you to provide more comments? The review has stalled a bit so any additional input would be greatly appreciated. ceranthor 00:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

Lede
  • ¶1 I'd consider adding "author" to the first sentence: "... an American geologist, volcanologist, author, and engineer." The 400+ publications seem absolutely essential to his impact on the field.
Teaching career
  • ¶1 "From 1961−1963, he also served as" – I don't think you need "also" here.
Early assignments
  • ¶2 "After a magnitude 5.1 earthquake..." – Link magnitude to Richter magnitude scale?
  • ¶3 "propelled him to switch careers and dedicate himself to the field." – I think that overstates it a bit. How about "switch focus"? Or you could just delete "to switch careers".
Later studies
  • ¶4 "to analyze Soufrière Hills utilizing seismic waves and explosions in the ocean." – Might I suggest adding a word, "by" and changing "utilizing" to "using"? That is, "to analyze Soufrière Hills by using seismic waves and explosions in the ocean."
  • ¶4 Link seismic wave?
  • ¶4 "this effort detected a major fault trending north-to-west..." – Link to fault (geology)?
Recognition and legacy
  • Paragraph 3 , which begins with "Fellow Penn State professor Rudy Slingerland..." makes me uncomfortable. The comments about Voight's personality, which are a little backhanded in places, come from a source, the Penn State public relations people, that I consider reliable for uses a and b but not necessarily for c and d. I'd simply delete paragraph 3, which I don't think you need.
References
  • The Glicken entry uses the "citation" family and should be changed to the "cite" family to match the others in the Reference section.
@Finetooth: All fixed as you suggested. ceranthor 22:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. Happy to support on prose as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback and support! ceranthor 23:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I shall be promoting this shortly, but I notice that ref 33 is currently dead. I don't know if it is a glitch or a bigger problem. It's not a big issue for this article and there is no need to delay promotion, but it should be taken care of (I don't imagine it would be hard to replace that ref if it is permanently dead). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2017 [53].

Scarlet myzomela[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little bird I might see I my garden. I have scoured sources and think it's pretty comprehensive and readable. Let me know if there is anything to improve. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Article looks good. Lead

  • "Up to three broods may be laid..." -> may be raised
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • mention that species is monotypic ie no regional variation recognized
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • link mantle, scapulars, retrices
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

  • "Nomadic movements of populations, generally following flowering of preferred food plants, also occurs." occur
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

  • Is the nest built by the female alone or by both sexes?
both (sort of) - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more later. Aa77zz (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC) more[reply]

  • The lead includes "...it is the smallest honeyeater in Australia." This should be mentioned in the body of the article and cited. Are there smaller honeyeaters outside Australia? Aa77zz (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I can answer my own question. According to HBW alive, the mountain myzomela from New Guinea is smaller at 9-10 cm. The black-bellied myzomela from New Britain is also small.) - Aa77zz (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the changes. Supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Happy to take a look.

  • I'm not keen on the watermark in the lead image. Could it be cloned or cropped out? Also, as the species is obviously highly sexually dimorphic, perhaps you could consider adding a female to the infobox?
added female now. Not in position to do image editing. Anyone is welcome to crop image - agree it is a good idea Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've cropped the male image and in so doing removed the watermark. The image is sharp but low resolution. I can produce a tighter crop if need be to more closely match the female. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Aa77zz, I am happy if you crop it more or leave it. I'll leave to your judgement. Either way is an improvement on before Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though the name Myzomela dibapha was occasionally used" Where did this come from?
ok here's the thing - because there was a question over C. sanguinolenta , C. (M.) dibapha was next-oldest name. But sources don't explicitly spell this out (which is annoying). I thought there was enough information to glean this. need to re-read sources to clarify what I can put in to highlight this without going into OR territory. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the authority for Myzomela dibapha? You say that Stephens offered Meliphaga sanguinea and that Gould later synonymised Latham's names, but where did M. dibapha come from? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Latham had three images of the scarlet myzomela and gave them 3 different names - I wrote it in the first few sentences of the section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the taxonomy section could be made a little more chronological? It seems odd to talk about merging the three species and then jumping to talk about an alternative name for one of the three. (Splitting that first paragraph may also be an option, but don't force it!)
done - it also helps explain the (incorrectly) presumed invalidity of sanguinolenta Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This species was known as the scarlet honeyeater in Australia and scarlet myzomela elsewhere" I find this tense a little odd; I suppose I just want to say "when?"
aaah this is tricky. I always knew it as scarlet honeyeater...there is a real push for scarlet myzomela, which has gained ground over the past 25 years or so....will see what I can add The Fraser book from 2013 points out that us aussies still call the Myzomela honeyeaters honeyeaters more than myzomelas...which rings true with me....so corrected (viz the great northern/common loon debate..). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's vague, but maybe you could just add "For a time" to the start of the sentence. "For much of the 20th century" would work very nicely, if your source supports that. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On its breast, the red becomes more mottled with grey towards the belly and flanks, which are grey-white" As you're talking about "the adult male" here, would "his" not be appropriate? (I may be wrong.) Same with "It sometimes has pinkish or reddish patches on the forehead" and "its black bill" for the female, and "The female chirps as it hops" with "it can also make a squeaking call".
errr....strikes me as a bit too anthropomorphic (unless said with a West Country accent) but happy to go with consensus if other folks feel strongly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't want to push it! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and light brown rump and uppertail coverts" This doesn't quite work... rumps maybe? Or "and a light brown rump with uppertail coverts of the same colour"?
"rumps" sounds ok to me - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have patches or red feathers coming though the juvenile brown plumage" of? If not, what are the patches of?
ack, should be "of" - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "banding" is jargon (maybe "moult" is too)
linked x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rejigged the feeding paragraph a little; please do double-check.
looks fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nest consists of a tiny cup of shredded bark with spider web as binding, high up in tree canopy, or even mistletoe" Unclear; is the nest sometimes mistletoe, or is mistletoe sometimes an alternative to the canopy? Also, a link to mistletoe (assuming mistletoe isn't something different down there!) would be good
link added to loranthaceae, which is the southern hemisphere mistletoes, and it is "in" hence added to clarify Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get a link for wattle? Also, as with your other FAC: If I was being very picky, I'd note that there was some inconsistency between use of (and links on) common names and specific/generic names
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "being laid one day apart. ... Eggs are laid a day apart," Repetition
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some images further down the article might be nice; how about a favoured flower?
added one now. plus another of bird foraging. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very engaging. Shorter, but I can't perceive any obvious gaps. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

changes look all fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - all looks good, this low res image of the female[54] has an interesting message in its description: "high resolution version available from author" Since that was written in 2005, it may not be possible to reach the author, but maybe worth a try... FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He did make an edit this year, so I have asked him Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • All the sources are impeccable! Just for when they die, web citations 1, 2, and 5 should be archived.Looks awesome otherwise.

I reviewed it for a GA, so all of my other issues on prose were resolved. I support it on prose as well. Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim, one comment[edit]

One quibble Trees visited include turpentine... It is omnivorous has a change of subject. feel free to strike the comment part of the heading when you've fixed this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tweaked..and comment struck as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Very solid article, comments are minor/a matter of preference only. Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • First sentence a tad long.
split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first years of settlement of Sydney" Sensitive topic, I know, but let's at least go with "European settlement", or preferably "European colonisation".
yeah good point and prudent addition. Done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the HBW say when the supposed conspecifics were made other species?
HBW doesn't. For many it wasn't a clear-cut thing, but various splitters and lumpers generally citing reasons why their view holds until new evidence emerges. The pacific islands and Indonesia are still pretty poorly explored. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much to be done, then.
  • Minor point, but we say "scarlet" in the body and "striking bright red" in the lead..."
they are synonymous but I see your point. I made it "bright red (scarlet)" in the body. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about migration might be worth a mention in the lead, which is not overlong.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I wrong in thinking that you have used the serial comma in certain places "Its range extends inland to Charters Towers, Carnarvon Gorge and Inglewood in Queensland, and the Warrumbungles in New South Wales" but not others "Insects eaten include beetles, flies, bugs and caterpillars." I might totally be wrong about this, I have always had more instinct than knowledge of grammar.
you are correct. I hate oxford commas and my inclination is not to use them...but they are every useful to slot references behind where needed, so I have become accustomed to slotting them in but sometimes forget. Consider them in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mangroves or species of paperbark, eucalypts or wattles (Acacia spp.)" Curious why this isn't "mangroves, species of paperbark, eucalypts, or wattles"
an oversight. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT locations in the citations (which always trips me up as well); you have country information in some cases but not others.
good catch - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All my points have been addressed, happy to support this; enjoyed reading it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx/much appreciated.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that the images don't have alt text. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. However, it is not worth holding up promotion over this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2017 [55].

Smiley Smile[edit]

Nominator(s): Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the lo-fi stoner album by the Beach Boys, which celebrates its 50th anniversary later this year.

Smiley Smile was recorded at a difficult time in the band's history, with songwriter/leader Brian Wilson in the throes of paranoia and mental illness following the cancellation of the much-hyped album Smile. Famously described by brother Carl as "a bunt instead of a grand slam", Smiley Smile was produced DIY-style at Brian's makeshift home studio with the core set-up of a detuned piano, bass guitar, and theatre organ. The songs range from drugged-out singalongs to creepy dissonance and far-off background noise.

Coinciding with highly ambitious efforts like the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper and Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn, the majority of critics and fans who were promised another masterwork on the level of "Good Vibrations" didn't know what to make of the album's goofy doo-wop chants and marijuana ambiance. The record came and went, and the Beach Boys were soon rejected by the maturing youth market as washed-up surf-pop relics. As the legend goes, Wilson retreated to his bed and spent the ensuing years snorting cocaine. Smiley Smile has since earned a considerable cult following, particularly among enthusiasts of indie/outsider music. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bruce1ee[edit]

I've made several minor edits to the article here, here and here; these are my comments:

Lead

  • No mention is made in the lead of Brian's creative role in the Beach Boys' music, and in particular the Smile project; statements like "Following Brian Wilson's declaration that most of the Smile tapes were off-limits" and "Its production was unusually credited to "the Beach Boys" rather than Brian alone" will puzzle the uninitiated.

Background

  • Carl Wilson's quote explains how Smiley Smile came about (a homespun version of Smile) – it comes across to me as an afterthought; I feel there should be a direct statement in this section explaining what led to Smiley Smile.
The paragraphs before kinda already serve that function ("I decided not to try any more, and not try and do such great things, such big musical things. And we had so much fun. The Smiley Smile era was so great, it was unbelievable. Personally, spiritually, everything, it was great. I didn't have any paranoia feelings.").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what the boxed quote ("Around '64 ...") has to do with this section; I can't relate it to anything in the text.

Style and content

  • The opening paragraph and blockquote: are those retrospective comments about the album or comments soon after it was released? I think that needs to be stated.

Differences from Smile

  • campfire song links to a disambiguation page – I think it should link elsewhere or the link removed.

Release

  • "You heard the last of surfing music..." in Note 9: Of interest, Hendrix also said "And you'll never hear surf music again" in his song "Third Stone from the Sun" from earlier that year, although in a different context.

Initial reception

  • There's no link for Cheetah magazine – a little on what the magazine is and where it's from would help.
I'm not sure what's to be said--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've created an article for it – thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

  • Should the writing credits not say "B. Wilson" to be clear which Wilson it is?
He's the only Wilson with writing credits so it seems superfluous.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. —Bruce1eetalk 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

  • Is there nothing on each Beach Boy's contribution to the album?
    • ... and what about Paul McCartney on "Vegetables" (mentioned in the cited source)? Also, where any session musicians used? —Bruce1eetalk 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a comprehensive list of musicians that played on the album. There's a few sources for bit parts like Dennis playing Hammond on "Good Vibrations" and Jardine blowing a water bottle on "Vegetables", but the GA reviewer suggested that I remove the {{incomplete-list}} acknowledgement, so I did, and only included what the 1990 liner notes say. As for McCartney's contribution, it was unquestionably on the Smile version of "Vegetables", but I can't find an RS that makes that distinction.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

General

  • There are several quotes in the article of over 40 words – they need to be blocked quoted.

—Bruce1eetalk 13:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've addressed most of these issues for now and will try to trim some excessive quotations later.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I see you've also done some quite substantial rewrites of some of the sections. One question about the picture caption of the group in Central Park: how do you know they're performing "Heroes and Villains"? I've looked at the picture source and nowhere is there any mention of what song they're performing. —Bruce1eetalk 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They only played six songs at Central Park: "Heroes and Villains", "Okie from Muskogee", "Forever", "It's About Time", "I Get Around", and "Good Vibrations". All of these are on YouTube. "Heroes" is the only performance that matches the photo, with Al, Mike, and Carl each singing at the same time, Mike standing still with the tambourine at his side, the positions of the backup players, and so forth. They couldn't be playing "Good Vibrations" because Mike was on theremin for that, and on "I Get Around" he didn't have a tambourine, etc. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then that caption should have a source – as it stands it comes across as original research. Considering all the changes that have been made to the article since my last review, I'm going to do a second pass through it. —Bruce1eetalk 11:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gone through the prose again, and I think it's looking good. Just a few more comments:
  • Lead: "Discounting the inclusion of standalone single..." – should that not be "Discounting the inclusion of the standalone single..."?
  • The two pictures are missing alt texts.
  • There are still a couple of quotes over 40 words that should be reduced or blockquoted.
  • I've made some edits here. —Bruce1eetalk 12:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the prose. Thanks for your contribution to this article, and for all your hard work on Beach Boys related articles. —Bruce1eetalk 06:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Discounting the inclusion of the standalone single "Good Vibrations" and the solo-credited "Gettin' Hungry", only one single was issued from Smiley Smile: "Heroes and Villains". - I'd flip this sentence and put the second part first. Emphasis is a bit wrong as is.
Brian declared to his bandmates that most of the material recorded for Smile was now distinctly off-limits - why "distinctly" - suggest removing...
Smiley Smile possesses a distinct signature sound - I know what you mean but it sounds puffy/advertorial...

Otherwise reads well. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed those issues --Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't do the first one but not a deal-breaker. Looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed the first part... somehow.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties, not a big Beach Boys fan (the only track I know is "Heroes and Villains", which I don't mind actually) so I think I can be severely objective...

  • I copyedited so pls let me know if I misinterpreted anything or if you simply disagree with my wording. Other than that, happy with prose except for:
    • "...Smiley Smile was recorded in a modular approach..." -- sorry but what is a "modular approach"?
  • Overall structure looks reasonable to me, as does the level of detail.
  • I haven't gone through referencing or image licensing.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "modular" to "fragmented" and added a note explaining what the process was.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks -- that helps a lot. I expect to support assuming image and source checks come back clean. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: On that note... Have I missed an image or source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Van_Dyke_Parks_1967.png: the magazine does include a copyright notice, on page 4
  • All three of the music samples appear to be longer than 10% of the original (see WP:SAMPLE, and contrary to description on two of them?), and all three need improvements to FUR - n.a. parameters should be filled in, and in the latter two the purpose of use needs improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
samples shortened, questionable file removed, filled in n.a parameters --Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I am a little confused by the ALT text for the infobox image, as I am not entirely sure what a "smile shop" is. Would it be possible to clarify this?
  • Something about these sentences read odd to me, specifically the repetition of the word "single" (Only one single was issued from Smiley Smile: "Heroes and Villains". "Good Vibrations" and "Gettin' Hungry" were also released singles, but the former was issued a year earlier, while the latter was not credited to the band.). I would just say "were also released" to avoid any misinterpretation as the "singles" part does not seem entirely necessary.
  • Should the term "LP" in the lead and the body of the article be linked to the LP record article just to make it clear for the reader?
  • The "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box is not complete for the "Vegetables" audio sample, specifically the "Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1)" and "Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2)" portions. The same comment applies to the "Fall Breaks and Back" audio sample and the "Wonderful" audio sample.
  • For the image in the "Legacy" section, I would make the caption more complete by writing "The Beach Boys performing at Central Park, 1971".

This is a really interesting article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Wonderful work with this! Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done - a smile shop is a shop that sells smiles, of course (you can get a better look at it here) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, and that makes sense to me. I support this for promotion. I apologize for the delay in my response back on here. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil[edit]

This is wonderfully written and extremely well informed. Am always impressed by album articles where the context and the placing it within the trajectory of the artist/band's career comes through. This was a fascinating and gripping read, wry in the right places. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source check by Cas Liber[edit]

A'coming up....

  • References and footnotes formatted consistently. One with a date range is triggering a 'help' template that would be nice to fix...
  • FN 6 - used once, faithful to source.
  • FN 94 - used once, faithful to source.
  • FN 96 - used once, faithful to source.
  • FN 122 - used twice, faithful to source.
  • FN 70 - can't see this as it says it's private...?
  • NB: Earwig's results have some false positives due to (attributed) quotes.

Otherwise all looks in order. NB: Given the nature of the material I can understand the use of youtube. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

It's not, really - removed--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just double checking, but the information it was sourcing was removed also? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be a screenshot of the magazine hosted on photobucket? I can't get to it, but does the photobucket account holder have permission to upload a scanned page? Otherwise it's a copyright violation. And for this magazine source - is there an author? More information would be good to help verify the source.
The article had no credited author. I found another mirror --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is whether or not the various sites have permission to reprint a copyrighted source. Otherwise, it's a link to a copyright violation and we can't have those. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed this and removed such links. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mirror of the article cited. I don't see why mirrors can't be linked for the purpose of verifiability. As I understand it, Wikipedia is not actually hosting the copyright vios, so there shouldn't be a problem with simply linking to another web page that might be. (Same for every similar example below) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind I've seen WP:ELNEVER and removed all infringing links --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria specifies "high quality", so it needs to meet a higher standard than just WP:RS. And just because a wikiproject has a list of sources doesn't mean that all those sources always meet WP:RS. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the Guardian (2005): "Present company excepted, much of the finest music writing these days is to be found on the internet, and American webzine Stylus is particularly good." The site is mentioned among the "25 most amazing music sites on the web". The Observer also refers to Stylus as a "respected online music publisher". I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It comes from a promotional record created by the label. I've added this info to the ref. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
??? It was an interview of Dennis Wilson conducted by Pete Fornatale that was broadcast on WNEW-FM in 1976. There is more than enough info regarding these entities. I'm not sure what else you're looking for.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 45 (Smotroff) this is on Audiophile - we need more publication details to accurately verify the information
I could not find a better source so I've removed the info (even though the fact that the stereo mix was made with digital extractions is as obvious as WP:BLUE) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 49 (Carlos). What makes this a high quality reliable source? More publication details also needed.
Removed --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 51 - why is Rolling Stone not italicized like the other magazines?
Fixed --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLOGS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
Darren R. Reid holds a PhD in history and American studies. From Reid's "about me": "My first book, Daniel Boone and Others on the Kentucky Frontier: 1769-1795, was published in 2009 and I am currently preparing for the publication of my second book, American Indian: The Life, Times, and Memoirs of John Tanner for a 2013 release. I have published articles in peer-reviewed journals and edited collections on a range of topics, from Native American issues to the history and culture of American comic books. My research interests include early American history, frontier history, Atlantic history, and Native American history. I also enjoy using pop culture as a fun means to talk about the past in my online content."
So it sounds like his expertise is in early American history - what makes his views on Brian Wilson an expert's views? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Reid cite with a cite from Domenic Priore.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 69 - Pond - has an error that needs fixing.
Fixed--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 72 (Billboard) - is formatted inconsistently with the other Bilboard ref in the article...(current ref 62)
Fixed--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 81 http://www.officialcharts.com/search/artists/beach-boys/ ... shows no information on the page - I'm failing to see how it supports "When released in the UK on November 11, it performed better, reaching number 9 of the UK Albums Chart." or any of the other information in the article.
Fixed/removed --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is current ref 88 (Goldstein) not have Salon italicized like the other magazines?
Fixed --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ALBUM/SOURCES --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that I'd have to make a case for Richie Unterberger, let alone AllMusic. Unterberger is one of the most famous pop/rock historians, and AllMusic has published several encyclopedic guides to rock, pop, jazz, electronic, and so forth... It's used in basically every Wikipedia album article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - better sources found --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a pain, but what might those other sources be? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Domenic Priore and The Oregonian.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Linett's credentials fulfill WP:BLOGS and WP:PRIMARY. He produced and engineered The Smile Sessions, so he is one of the most authoritative sources.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the bibliography - sometimes you give locations for books, sometimes you don't. Be consistent and either give them all the time or never.
Fixed - now consistent --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'm just waiting to hear back from Ealdgyth on these last replies. Ian, I'm not sure if you wanted another look at this as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm actually good enough with the above.. sorry, been busy last few days. Consider most issues addressed enough to promote. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm, been a lot of edits over the past two weeks, even allowing for actioning the in-depth source review, so will take some time for me to review the changes -- I wouldn't oppose promotion based on my earlier prose review but wouldn't be able to support yet either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: While alt text isn't an explicit requirement, I always think that FAs should demonstrate best practice. Two images have alt text, but one doesn't. But that isn't worth holding this up over any longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2017 [56].

Fragment of a Crucifixion[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post war horror by the painter Francis Bacon. The article rightfully went down in flames a few months ago, since then I am most grateful to Wehwalt especially for reviewing on talk. The painting is overwhelmingly nihilist, and fittingly was a thematic dead end outside of the emphasis on the screaming mouth. Bacon went in a completely different direction after this; the article is thus slight, but is a comprehensive summary of this once off direct depiction of the logical end of existentialism. His later work reflects the same bleakness, but was never again so literal. Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

I know less than I would like to about the history of art, but I have some familiarity with Bacon. I used to visit the Ulster Museum a lot, and this houses his Head II.

  • I think you and I have slightly different comma philosophies, so I'll avoid commenting on comma use unless it seems particularly problematic to me.
  • Is the predatory animal a he or an it? Also, there's some slight repetition in the second paragraph of the lead.
    Its an it. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he did not believe in either divine intervention nor an afterlife" How about "he believed in neither divine intervention nor an afterlife", perhaps with some links?
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the description section could start with some very basic information? "Fragment of a Crucifixion is a [whatever] painting measuring [whatever]"? It seems to jump straight in to tricky material! In particular, it seems to assume information in the lead, where as I am inclined to think that a description section should be relatively free-standing; the figures, the cross, etc. can be introduced anew.
    Have simplified the lead as much as I could, moving thing around, but its a very dense article, with not much levity. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "catholic" Shouldn't that be Catholic? (Also, would raised not be more accurate than born?)
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "religious believe...he would go for them" belief? Also, check spacing?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in of itself" and?
    This is a quote Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the whole art of Francis Bacon."" Check MOS:LQ.
    Dont follow Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Punctuation should be outside of speech marks, except in a few special cases as outlined at MOS:LQ. I was asking if you could double-check this particular use. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more imbued with pathos" Link?
    Dont follow Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "pathos" is not a word that you would hear down the pub; I was suggesting a wikilink to our article on the subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and weighted heavily throughout his career" What does weighted mean, here?
    "Weighted" removed Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bacon's patron and then lover" I think this means "Bacon's patron who later become his lover", rather than "Bacon's patron and, at that time, lover" which would be "Bacon's patron and then-lover". Does that make sense?
    Yes agree, and reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1512–16 "Isenheim Altarpiece" and" Why quotemarks?
    Fixed Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The loosely opened mouth in the seventeenth-century painting is taut in Bacon's image." I'm struggling with this.
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maquettefor King and Queen" Spacing?
    Eek Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bacon's devoutly atheist and nihilistic outlook" Is "devoutly atheist" an oxymoron? It strikes me as a little non-neutral.
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bacon was his own harshest critic" Also a little non-neutral

Fascinating read. Hope these comments are helpful. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J; your edits are very solid and thanks for the comments. Re devoutly atheist; thats probably even underselling, he was far more so than I claim here. I'm ok with such a bold claim here. Otherwise, agree with all..working through. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that "devout atheist", if not an oxymoron, is definitely off. "Committed atheist" would work better all around. —swpbT 13:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like that, for what it's worth. I don't mind stressing the strength of commitment, it's just the word "devout" that I'm not sold on. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that committed is beter but left just as "atheist" in the end. Thanks again for the review - almost there....Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn can you take another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taking another look through:

  • "focusing on the open mouth." How about something like "focusing on the motif of an open mouth." (preferably with a link to Motif (visual arts) or similar)
Done Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he did not believe in either divine intervention nor an afterlife" Surely this should be "he did not believe in either divine intervention or an afterlife". If you want to use nor, it'd be something like "he believed in neither divine intervention nor an afterlife"
Your wording is better - done. Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I said this earlier, but I'm not wild with opening the description section with "the upper figure". I think it'd be better to start with a general description of the painting so that the description section can be a little more free-standing.
  • "Blood pours its mouth" Some missing words? out of, perhaps?
ok, done Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its almost a faith in of itself" Are these definitely the original words? If so, perhaps you could add "[and]" so that it flows a little better.
Revisited source and done Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Odessa Steps sequence" Why italics?
ok, done Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mouth is loosely opened mouth in Rubens' painting, but taut in Bacon's. The legs folded out of view and the left arm are passive in the Rubens, but in the Bacon are in violent motion, seemingly wildly flailing up and down." I'm not keen on this; the way you refer to "the mouth", for example, seems to take for granted that it's the same mouth in both paintings. How about something like "The mouth in Rubens' painting is loosely opened, but the mouth in Bacon's is taut. The main figure's legs are folded out of view and the figure's left arm is passive in Rubens' painting, but in the Bacon's painting the chimera's legs and arms are in violent motion, seemingly wildly flailing up and down."
Done Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bacon was his own harshest critic" I'm not keen; it feels slightly non-neutral and overly idiomatic.
ok, done Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was an issue with which Bacon struggled throughout his career, to both create imagery that would be instantly recognisable, immediate and directly involving for the viewer, while also staying loyal to his creed of producing "non-illustrative painting"." How about "This was an issue with which Bacon struggled throughout his career: he aimed to create imagery that would be instantly recognisable, immediate and directly involving for the viewer, while also staying loyal to his creed of producing "non-illustrative painting"."
ok, done Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but a more direct invocation of imagery of the slaughterhouse and slabs of meat." This suggestions that Fragment is itself an "invocation of imagery of the slaughterhouse and slabs of meat", though a less direct one than Three Studies. If this is the case, perhaps this needs to be mentioned elsewhere. If not, I think this final line needs to be tweaked.
Done Ceoil (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is helpful... Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were fine. About half ways through the latter points, and tkx. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I don't claim to be an expert on painting but I do have a weakness for fantastic imagery, and a Bacon piece usually fits the bill... Copyedited so pls let me know if I've misunderstood anything, or if you simply disagree with my changes. Outstanding points:

  • I would've expected BritEng for Bacon, but notice "modeled" and "center"...
  • "...its form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats" -- sorry does this mean Bacon used some of his actual pictures of bats in the painting (like a collage) or simply that he took inspiration from his pictures of bats?
    Ended up taking this out. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first Peppiatt quote, is the ungrammatical "its" in the original, or is it a typo in our article?
    Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it, but I'll keep an eye on proceedings since it's early days. Structure and level of detail seem fair to me, and I was fine with the tone, but will hold off support until image and source reviews are in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...have most. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got them all. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, now that the source and image reviews are done and I've checked changes since my last edit, happy to support -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • Support I did a review for the first FAC, they were posted here. Those look to be addressed, or moot. A few fresh comments:
  • "The prey unsuccessfully struggles to flee from its capture." It seems likely to me you mean "captor"
  • "at what may be a beach or seaside resort." this may puzzle the American reader, since they would use them almost interchangeably.
  • "Bacon was born a catholic," caps?
  • "He kept a photographic still of a close-up of the nurse shown screaming in panic and terror, with broken pince-nez spectacles hanging from her blood stained face." I might cut "a photographic still of"
I won't say I admire the work of art. But the article is admirable ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, got these. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto[edit]

I reviewed this at the previous nomination; it has massively improved since then, so good job!

  • The first paragraph in §Description seems a little topsy-turvy to me: we hear about the link with the Crucifixion, and the positioning of the creatures on the cross first; only then do we move on to the description of the creatures and the cross as individual elements.
    Now restructured. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the mid-ground, the artist has sketched a street scene, which features walking stick figures and cars, at what may be a beach or seaside resort.[6] the reference given supports that there are stick figures and cars in the mid-ground, which is obvious to me from looking at the image, but not that it is at a beach or resort, which is not. Where does that interpretation come from?
    I ended up taking this out about the resort. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The motif was developed from sources including [...] Matthias Grünewald [...]. Not knowing who Grunewald was, it was not at all clear to me on first reading what this meant. Having clicked on his link, I see he was an artist: did his works include screaming mouths? I'm still not entirely sure how he inspired the motif of the screaming mouth...
  • Horizontal frames often featured in Bacon's 1950s and 1960s paintings. The motif may have been borrowed from the sculptor[...] Henry Moore The only Moore sculpture with such a horizontal frame I can think of is the Maquette for King and Queen mentioned in the article, but this postdates Fragment of a Crucifixion. It's possible that I'm forgetting a Moore, though.
    Removed. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few queries, but the article definitely in much better shape than I last saw it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: there is an archived version of the artandreligion.de page available here. I have added a link in the article; Ceoil might want to reformat it to fit in with their scheme. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for finding this, and for both reviews. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thanks for the spots, especially re Moore. Can you take another look. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good to me. Happy to support.

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • 1950 canvas by the Irish-born, English figurative painter Francis Bacon. - might be worthwhile to link figurative art
  • Blood pours from the animal's mouth onto the head and body of its prey, a chimera rendered as owl-like with human facial characteristics. - I feel like these characteristics should be introduced when you first name the lower figure as a chimera, not the second mention
  • not returning to it until the more loosely based, but equally horrific triptych, Three Studies for a Crucifixion. - the use of horrific seems out of place here, more opinion than anything
  • Went with "bleak", which I think is ok as its a well worn trope when talking about Bacon Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • body of the chimera, or hybrid bird,[10] - You didn't mention a hybrid bird in the lead
  • I say "as owl-like with human facial characteristics". Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • His referred to the still in paintings throughout his career.[14] - Is this meant to say He rather than his?
  • He admitted that, "When I was younger, I needed extreme subject-matter. Now I don't." - citation after a direct quote?
  • The Barker reference should probably have an accessdate too.
  • References all seem reliable.

A short, but fascinating article. The prose is very, very good, so these are just a few nitpicks before I can support. ceranthor 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ceranthor 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes artandreligion.de a high quality reliable source? I'll note that I could NOT get the site to load, even trying a number of workarounds.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows some spots that probably need to be looked at and possibly reworded.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will get to these this evening. Ceoil (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have reworded some. Re:artandreligion.de; see archive link added by User:Caeciliusinhorto above. Friedhelm Mennekes' resume is here, and he has a de wiki bio here. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pbsouthwood[edit]

(I am commenting from the point of view of a lay reader not expert in artistic convention or critical style.}

Lead

  • The upper figure, which may be a dog or a cat, grips a chimera with its mouth - This is not apparent from a visual inspection of the image. There seems to be a significant gap between the head of the upper figure and the nearest obvious part of the lower figure. What part of the lower figure is the upper figure claimed to be gripping with its mouth?

Description

  • The upper creature is modelled on a dog or a cat, its form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats - Are you sure it is the upper creature that has a "form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats", as the lower creature actually looks more bat-like to me? If so, how is its form merged with pictures of bats? I do not see it.
  • Have taken this bit out. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • at what may be a seaside resort - This does not appear to be supported by the adjacent reference (ref name=gs (Gemma Sharpe))
    Removed Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks OK, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imagery and sources:

  • Bacon was born a Catholic, ... - How can one be born a Catholic?
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now the lead says he was an atheist and Imagery and sources says he was a Catholic. I don't think it is technically possible to be both at the same time, but he could change from one to the other. It seems likely that he was brought up/indoctrinated to be a Catholic, and may actually have been one for some time, but lost faith and ended up an atheist, but I have not read the sources. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifixion

  • Crucifixion scenes appear from Bacon's earliest works, and appeared frequently heavily throughout his career. - What does frequently heavily mean?
    Reworded - "appeared frequently throughout" Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support An enjoyable read. I've made a couple of very minor formatting changes and am happy to support (my review "disclaimer" here). – SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Schro. V nice to see you around. Ceoil (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: J Milburn and Ceoil, how are we doing in getting through Josh's last comments? And Ian (sorry, another ping!) did you want another look at this? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very busy at the moment; I can't promise that I will have time to take another proper look at the article for a few days. I of course have no objection to this being promoted in the mean time; I am certainly not opposing the nomination! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with it, see above. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have one or two issues raised by Josh to complete; should be able to close out tomorrow evening. Ceoil (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, that's fine. If you ping me when you've done those, we can close this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sarastro1, have resolved these now. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that there is no alt text. While not an explicit FA requirement, I always think we should illustrate best practice. But that's not worth holding up this FAC over. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2017 [57].

RAAF area commands[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a little unusual in that I'm unaware of any comparable short history of the subject, a command-and-control system that's been defunct since the 1950s but which was a key part of Royal Australian Air Force operations in the Pacific during World War II. The nom is a follow-up to my last FAC on Donald Hardman, the officer charged with dismantling and replacing the area system. I’m not sure why this particular subject should interest me particularly, but it may have something to do with the way the commands evolved throughout their existence, sometimes with the apparent speed and abandon of the Haggunenons of Vicissitus Three. I originally planned a list-like article with subsections on the individual commands following the overview but in the end I decided that the commands all justified their own articles; with this article they now form a Good Topic. As well as those who commented at the article's MilHist A-Class Review, I’d like to acknowledge the RAAF history staff at the Air Power Development Centre, Canberra, for their help in chasing down some references; they were also kind enough to look over the article recently and suggested only one minor improvement. Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Surprisingly easy to follow. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan -- that's good to know! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any time. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • There are 7 images which are well-relevant to the text, and all of them have proper description templates, no copyright issues, and ALT texts. No issues anywhere, and it is good great to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When and where were File:Caf_goble.jpg and File:Jones-Bostock-Burnett_AWM_012249.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not explicit, Nikki -- these images have been on WP for some time in other articles so the licence tags could well be due for finetuning; perhaps the same Crown Copyright one as Hardman for Goble, and either that or CC-Zero for Jones-Bostock-Burnett? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That Crown tag should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, that's done -- tks Nikki and Adityavagarwal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

  • Why are the maps different sizes?
    • The first three are all drawn to the same scale, the last one was different to show more of the outer boundaries; as to overall size, I felt the first was the most important and should be the largest, those in the main body were sized to fit the text for a standard 1366x768 screen resolution -- anyway I've upped the ones in the main body a bit.
      Oh. I have my screen set at 2560x1600. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the eve of World War II, the RAAF" I know we defined the abbreviation in the lead, but the lead and the article should be capable of standing separately
    • Quite right, that's my usual practice too -- done.
  • Link Air Vice-Marshal, Air Chief Marshal
    • I think there's a MOS guideline (one with which I tend to agree) against contiguous links so I prefer not to link ranks when the person in question is wiki-notable.
  • "situated at five air bases" Since there are only five of them, could you could list them?
    • I guess I felt that if we name the bases there might be a suggestion to footnote all the squadrons and the aircraft depots as well but I was probably being too careful -- done.
  • "the Australian Air Board" Could you briefly explain what this was?
    • Guess what my current article under development is -- can you wait for the link...? ;-)
      Sure. An article on it would be a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In August that year, RAAF Headquarters proposed to disband" Suggest "proposed disbanding"
    • Fair enough -- done.
  • "Air Marshal Jones, who had retained his position as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS)" Do we need his rank here? And could you define this abbreviation on first use above?
    • I like to note then someone has been promoted since we last mentioned them so it could either be as is or something like "who had retained his position as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) and been promoted to air marshal" -- WDYT?
    • My reasoning for only introducing the CAS abbreviation here is that it was quite a while since we last mentioned the position and I was concerned that the uninitiated might have forgotten what CAS was by the time we got here -- OTOH the chances that anyone not familiar with the service would ever read this article is pretty small so if you still think best I don't mind doing as you suggest.
  • "He declared that the RAAF was "the one force that could quickly strike for Australia's and the Commonwealth's defence in South East Asia". " Direct quotes are usually followed by a reference, but I can't find the relevant MOS reference (if there is one) so it's up to you.
    • I think you're right and, since there are two citations for the quote and the surrounding statements, I should finetune it -- take a little while but will do.
  • "The three functions were duly constituted" Not the three functions, but the three functional commands
    • I was trying to say that the three functions/concepts were given form as the new commands -- doesn't work for you?
  • "Home Command was re-formed" In this paragraph we say "re-formed" but since they were never formed before, would "formed" be better? (It's okay in the next paragraph.)
    • Yes, I think you're right; I could say Eastern Area was re-formed as Home Command but not really the other way round -- done.
  • "North-Western Area Command was disbanded in June 1955, Western Area Command in November 1956, and North-Eastern Area Command in December 1956." This doesn't match the table below.
    • Are you sure? I must have missed something...
  • "Summary of area commands formed" Could you add references to the table?
    • Everything in the table is (or should -- will action if not) be mentioned/cited in the main body so I think citations would be redundant, and probably a bit messy.

All in all, I think this is a fine article. The rationale for area commands as opposed to functional commands is well explained. The quote from Hardman is ironic; only in Thailand did the RAAF operate without the other services. Britain was a lot smaller than Australia, with better communications, and Hardman's successors faced a long road getting the functional command structure to work. The reduction of the number of commands to just one nicely brings the article full circle, back to the situation before the Second World War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for that Hawkeye -- I think the fact that the sources do go into the reasons for the system and its evolution (and dissolution) helped make this sort of overview a worthwhile exercise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nick-D[edit]

I commented on this article's ACR in 2015, and its good to see it here. I have the following comments:

  • At the risk of being really annoying/obvious, the ill-timed move of the RAAF Air Power Development Centre's website means you'll need to update the relevant URLs (I just did this for the Vengeance FAC!)
    • Yeah, this has been on my list since yesterday when it all changed... ;-)
  • File:RAAFAreaCommands1941.png would benefit from a more specific citation in its Commons record - the others are referenced to specific pages, but this one is referenced to a large part of the book
    • Um, are we looking at the same file? I have p. 237 in there...
      • Oops, my mistake: I meant File:RAAFAreaCommands1940.png Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, that was a typo -- should've been pp. 27-28, not 27-288... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any sources mention a link between the RAAF command areas and the Army's military districts? (I think that the Navy might have also had districts??)
    • I think I would've mentioned such a link if it was highlighted by any of the sources, but I can check the main ones again just in case. From memory the Army districts were even more closely aligned to state boundaries than the RAAF areas so there probably wasn't much of a correlation...
      • Couldn't find any comparisons based on a search of Ashworth, Gillison and Stephens (his Centenary of Australian Defence history and Going Solo)...
  • "Of necessity, the two northerly commands were primarily responsible for bombing and air defence, while the other commands focussed on maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare" - I'd suggest also noting that there were also a handful of squadrons assigned responsibility for air defence of Brisbane and the Sydney area in 1942-43, and Perth until the end of the war (I presume that these were integrated in some way with the surprisingly large network of Army AA guns).
    • I kept it to what we currently have because Stephens specifically couched things in those terms when discussing the main tasks of the northerly commands vs. the southerly. I know I could source the stuff about the air defence squadrons in the southerly areas but I think it would have to be a very bald, stand-alone statement about units at particular bases, not directly referencing the area commands.
      • Given the above I wonder if in fact it might be better to just leave discussion of units, air defence or otherwise, to the individual area command articles, which in most cases include OOBs from 1942 or later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds sensible. It often surprises me how little has been written about the sizeable forces used in the defence of key locations and shipping during this period, so sourcing is very limited. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sources permit, a high-level organisation chart of the RAAF's various commands and groups circa late 1942 or early 1943 would be helpful to illustrate how the area command system fitted into the RAAF's structure at its most complex of the war (probably more so than the photos of key officers), though the descriptions in the text are clear - these can be generated with the automated functions in MS Word or similar. Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you thinking of something based on one of Ashworth's org charts? If so it could be done, though I'd prefer to put it in another Summary-like section at the end with a big image rather than something relatively small in the main body that the reader would have to click to make sense of...
      • Yes, they do look like good models (though perhaps simplified a bit?). You're right about a large image working better than a thumbnail given that readers would need to expand the thumbnail to understand it. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just added something based on Ashworth's org chart from the end of the Pacific War... I included Allied Air Forces SWPA to make clear the dual control aspect but left out its subordinate US formations to keep it as straightforward as possible -- see what you think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • That looks great Ian, and should be useful for a bunch of other articles - not least those touching on why the RAAF's command structure of this era was a mess! Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tks Nick -- I was pretty damn happy with it when done but thought I'd get a reality check before I said as much... ;-) Hell of a good suggestion on your part -- I'd never spent much time looking at Ashworth's org charts despite reading pretty well every word of his text, and he's about the only author who's actually presented things this way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your comments, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we just need a source review for this now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources are reliable and of good or academic quality, properly formatted etc. Spot checked footnotes 13, 21 and 36, all good. Rest AGF. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2017 [58].

High Explosive Research[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After Tube Alloys and the British contribution to the Manhattan Project comes the third article in the series, High Explosive Research. Jim, Bernard and Sir Humphrey decide build an atomic bomb. I'm afraid that aspects of the article may make no sense to a non-British reader. Although it is a new article, created in February, it has passed GA and A class reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • http://www.gahetna.nl/over-ons/open-data seems to say that some but not all of the collections are open - where did we get the licensing for File:John_Anderson,_1st_Viscount_Waverley_1947.jpg? Don't see it on the source page...
    Me neither. The Copyright box on the source page is empty. So I'm replacing it with another pic of Sir John Anderson. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of File:John_Douglas_Cockcroft_1961.jpg, the source page actually says PD not CC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but there is no PD tag on Commons. I don't know the rules over there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Failing all else I suppose you could use PD-because, but have you seen this cat? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and this one too, but none of them apply. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments on prose by Finetooth[edit]

Having reviewed the Hanford Site article many years ago at GAN, this sounds pretty familiar. Even so, I don't know enough to critique the claims involving complex science or engineering. Here are suggestions related to prose, style, and the MOS. Nothing big, but lots of little things caught my eye. The article seems to be in generally good shape.
Lede
Tube alloys
  • ¶2 "who ironically could not work" – Maybe drop "ironically" if that is a Wikipedia judgment.
    Deleted. Another editor liked it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 "A new directorate known as Tube Alloys was created to coordinate this effort." – Insert, "a deliberately misleading name" after "Tube Alloys"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Manhattan Project
  • ¶3 "but the project would need overwhelming priority" - For consistent verb tense, "would have needed"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶4 "the joint British-Canadian Montreal Laboratory" – En dash British–Canadian to indicate disjuncture?
    Changed to "Anglo-Canadian", which uses the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
End of American cooperation
  • ¶1 "Roosevelt's naval aide, apparently misfiled by someone unaware of what Tube Alloys was, who thought it had something to do with naval guns." – Does the "who" refer to the naval aide or to the "someone"?
    Changed "who" to "and". Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Organisation
  • ¶3 "With Portal's appointment came consideration of splitting Anderson's committee, which functioned as both an advisory committee and as an interdepartmental committee." – Recast to avoid repeating "committee" three times followed by three more in the next two sentences.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 "In March 1947, the dynamic Roger Makins...". – Delete "dynamic"?
    DEleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decision
  • ¶2 "The meeting was about to decide against it on grounds of cost, when [Ernest] Bevin arrived late and said "We've got to have this thing. I don't mind it for myself, but I don't want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked at or to by the Secretary of State of the United States as I have just been in my discussion with Mr Byrnes. We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs... We've got to have the bloody Union Jack flying on top of it." – Words within direct quotations should generally not be linked, per MOS:LINKSTYLE. Ditto for linked terms in the other block quotes in this section.
    Generally, but the words do not appear in the surrounbding text, and the user may not know what they mean.
  • ¶3 "in charge of the Ministry Of Supply's Armaments Research Department" – Lowercase "o" in "Of"?
    Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶4 "officially requested an atomic bomb in 9 August 1946" – "on" rather than "in"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uranium
  • ¶1 "Sir John Anderson and US Ambassador John Winant hammered out a deal with the Belgian government and Edgar Sengier, the director of Union Minière, in May 1944 for the mine to be reopened and 1,720 long tons (1,750 t) of ore to be purchased at $1.45 a pound." – I'd prefer "negotiated" to "hammered out", and I think the sentence would flow better if you started with "In May 1944,".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 "the principal reason the Americans reopened the negotiations resulting in the Modus Vivendi" – Should this be rendered as "a modus vivendi" or possibly more plainly as "a provisional accord"?
    No, this was a particular agreement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear reactors
  • ¶1 "British staff at the Montreal Laboratory designed a larger reactor, known as BEPO, in 1945 and 1946..." – "British staff at the Montreal Laboratory had designed a larger reactor, known as BEPO, in 1945 and 1946..." since BEPO is explained in Uranium metal plant, and the action is in the past?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "Such an event that did indeed occur in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986." – Remove "that"?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plutonium-processing facilities
  • ¶3 "After 1946, the only source of plutonium was from the NRX reactor in Canada, and irradiated rods from there did arrive in Britain under mid-1948." – Should this say, "did not arrive until"?
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gaseous diffusion plant
Bomb design
  • ¶2 "The first lenses were delivered in 1952, so and there were enough for two sets..." – "so and"?
    Deleted "so". Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 "which not until late 1951." – Missing word, "was"?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 "while they were spherical to within 0.75 thou..." – Link thou since it won't be familiar to most readers.
    Linked. There is a metric conversion for those who don't know imperial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Testing
  • ¶2 "as there was unrest in Egypt" – "Unrest" seems too mild. Would something more direct like "as a revolution there was underway" be better?
    Perhaps in retrospect, but the revolution hadn't yet broken out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome
  • ¶3 "The was desired..." – "This was desired..."?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 "led to the United States Atomic Energy Act being amended in 1958..." – Slightly smoother as "led to amendment of the United States Atomic Energy Act in 1958..."?
  • You are welcome. All looks good with the exception of the links within the blockquotes. I halfway agree with you. I wouldn't think it strictly necessary to link "great power", "isolationist", "Secretary of State", or "Foreign Secretary" within the quotes since I think most readers can suss out the meaning OK, but "Mr. Byrnes" is a different matter and possibly "Union Jack". Regardless, I'm happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "The first nuclear reactor in the UK, a small research reactor known as GLEEP, went critical" Is not criticality required specifically for nuclear power rather than bombs? I assume that it is an intermediate stage for a bomb, but clarification would be helpful.
    Nuclear reactors can be used to breed plutonium, which is used in bombs. When a uranium-235 nucleus absorbs a neutron, it splits in two parts, releasing energy and more neutrons. In a reactor, we have a controlled nuclear chain reaction in which the number of neutrons in the system stays steady. In a bomb, there is an out-of-control nuclear chain reaction that blows everything apart. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is unclear at the end. It should be stated that Blue Danube was designed by HER, and that the hopes for a renewal of the special relationship were because the missile was a failure (if this is true). When did HER end?
    With the development of the atomic bomb. Added a bit to this effect in the lead. Blue Danube was a free-fall bomb, not a missile. It would be nice to have a picture of it, but the only one we have is a fair-use image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anglo-Canadian Montreal Laboratory" The Canadian role has not been explained.
    The Canadian role in the Manhattan Project is detailed in the Montreal Laboratory article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attlee set up a cabinet sub-committee, the Gen 75 Committee (known informally by Attlee as the "Atomic Bomb Committee"),[52] on 10 August 1945". As this is going back to an earlier date than the previous section, I think "Attlee had set up" would be clearer.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which functioned as both an advisory and an interdepartmental body" I am not clear what this means. What was the interdepartmental function?
    An advisory body provides the government with advice; and interdepartmental body co-ordinates the work of different government departments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had met in Washington, DC, in November 1944, and drawn up a proposal for an atomic energy research establishment" Was this to be a purely British establishment, even though they met in Washington? If so, I would delete the location as confusing.
    Inserted "British". Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got confused about your comments about a reactor and separation plant. You appear to say that Britain could not afford both, and then that a facility for both was approved.
    Slightly re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was approached by C. P. Snow" What office did Snow hold?
    He was a Civil Service Commissioner. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure any change is needed, but it is interesting that there seem to have been two quite different reasons for building a bomb, Bevin's that it was required for prestige, and Attlee's reasonable argument that at the time it looked as if the USA might revert to isolationism, and Europe have to face an aggressive Soviet Union alone.
    Yes. But note that Attlee's reasons disappeared with the formation of NATO in 1949, but HER continued. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was no known alternative fuel for nuclear reactors other than uranium, so securing an adequate supply was crucial to the British atomic energy programme." You have mentioned above plutonium as an alternative for bombs. Does the comment here refer to reactors for nuclear energy?
    Yes, "nuclear reactors" means for energy. You can power a reactor with plutonium; but you need uranium to produce the plutonium, which puts you in a chicken-and-egg situation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the site of a poison gas plant" a former poison gas plant?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you say the project terminated in 1953, but in the 'Gaseous diffusion plant' sub-section you appear to imply that it carried on until 1961. Were weapons of the later 1950s designed under a successor project?
    High Explosive Research built the plants. The plants continued to operate for many years after. The successor project was the British hydrogen bomb programme. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but I have abandoned this review. I cannot read pages with flashing images. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can disable them in your browser. If you are using Firefox, go into the about:config and set image.animation_mode to "none". In Google Chrome, bring up the "Animation Policy" and disable them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For safety reasons, he wanted the core inserted like a plug while the bomber was in flight." No change needed, but was he aware of the decision to make a similar change to Little Boy in case the plane crashed on take off?
    I do not know. However, Penney was present on Tinian, so it seems highly likely. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Responsibility for the development of atomic bombs lay outside the realm of the Ministry of Defence. One reason for this was that it was only created in October 1946, with Tizard as the departmental scientific advisor." I do not understand this, although this may be because I have forgotten something you said earlier in the article. You say in the lead that the decision to launch the project was taken in January 1947, and it came under the Ministry of Supply. DNB on Tizard says he returned to Whitehall as chairman of the defence research policy committee in January 1947, but the committee was debarred from discussing nuclear weapons. So are you saying that the Ministry of Defence was excluded because it was considered too new to take responsibility for nuclear weapons, and because Tizard was regarded as an opponent of them?
    Tizard was appointed the CSA to the MOD in November 1946. He became chairman of the DPRC in January 1947. I have elaborated on this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The possession of nuclear reactors, the means to produce nuclear fuels and a repository of scientific knowledge led to the creation of a vast nuclear power industry." No change needed, but I have seen it argued that nuclear power was based on uranium instead to the safer thorium because thorium reactors would not produce fuel for bombs. Do you give any credence to this claim?
    Thorium was of interest in the early days because it was known to be abundant, whereas uranium was thought to be scarce. But once uranium became valuable, people started prospecting for it, and it was found to be not nearly as rare as first thought. The idea was that thorium can be irradiated to produce uranium-233, which is fissile, and can therefore be used in a reactor. Like plutonium, you first need to have a reactor to produce it. You can then breed more uranium-233 from thorium than you consume. This can be attractive to a country like India, which has plenty of thorium but not much uranium. For the rest of us though, it is far more convenient to breed plutonium from uranium-238, because uranium-233 has nasty decay products that are powerful gamma ray emitters, and it is therefore more difficult to handle than plutonium. Uranium-233 can be used in bombs; India has done so, and the Americans once built a bomb using uranium-233, just to show that they could. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC) I reviewed this article at GAN and again at Milhist ACR and have reviewed all the changes made since then, and consider that it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. It can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Home.html a high quality reliable source?
    It is by Carey Sublette, who is generally regarded as an expert in the field. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have an article on this person? Some sort of list of works? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no article on him, although he is used as a source in 268 articles. Books that quote him include Jeremy Bernstein, Plutonium: A History of the World's Most Dangerous Element; Dilip Hiro, The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry Between India and Pakistan; Myra MacDonald, Defeat is an Orphan: How Pakistan Lost the Great South Asian War; Bhumitra Chakma, The Politics of Nuclear Weapons in South Asia; and Bruce Cameron Reed The Physics of the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 172 - you're citing the originals, so we need the original publication information as well as the fact that the information is reprinted/hosted on the web.
    Reformatted the reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give publication locations for some of the sources in the References section, but don't give them for others. Be consistent and either give all of them or none of them.
    All the books now have them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same problem with locations for some of the journal cites (example the Bernstein, Barton ref) but not for others (see the Bernstein, Jeremey ref). Be consistent and give them all the time or none of the time.
    Removed. None of the journals give publisher or location. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you give the state/country for locations, sometimes you don't. Be consistent.
    Another editor opined that it was unnecessary for well-known locations like London and New York. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand leaving off for London/New York, but there are others that don't follow that. See the two Hewlett refs - one gives Pennsylvania for University Park, the other doesn't. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we just need a response to Ealdgyth's last query about Carey Sublette. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: It might be worth someone checking duplinks as we have one or two close together. Otherwise, between this and the A-Class review, I think we are good to go. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2017&oldid=803171109"